prisonchaplain

My suggestion was that sometimes it's not our age that makes us liberal/moderate/conservative so much as the age of the person who labels us. I've problably gone from conservative/fundamentalists to moderate/conservative over the decades. However, the younger a person is the more likely they are to pigeon-hole me as a rabid, right-wing extremist. 
Most religious leaders care more about people than politics or ideological purity. However, even trying to keep people in the pews can be a futile effort. We had those who insisted on masking and those who opposed masks during COVID. Our approach was to obey the law but to treat people like adults. Some of the mask-insisters left and more of the mask opponents left. Some said we didn't care about the health of our community and others said that we compromised with the Antichrist. 
All we can do is keep focused on the Good News and trust the Holy Spirit to do the convicting and bringing in. 

My suggestion was that sometimes it's not our age that makes us liberal/moderate/conservative so much as the age of the person who labels us. I've problably gone from conservative/fundamentalists to moderate/conservative over the decades. However, the younger a person is the more likely they are to pigeon-hole me as a rabid, right-wing extremist. 
Most religious leaders care more about people than politics or ideological purity. However, even trying to keep people in the pews can be a futile effort. We had those who insisted on masking and those who opposed masks during COVID. Our approach was to obey the law but to treat people like adults. Some of the mask-insisters left and more of the mask opponents left. Some said we didn't care about the health of our community and others said that we compromised with the Antichrist. 
All we can do is keep focused on the Good News and trust the Holy Spirit to do the convicting and bringing in. 

There is a Presbyterian minister I've heard who says that Christians should treat LGBT neighbors kindly. He does not endorse their behavior and has traditional views about marriage, but believes Christians are commanded to show love to everyone.
In the 1970s he was considered a liberal.
In the 1990s he was considered moderate.
Today he is viewed as an extremist, right-wing, MAGA conservative. 
His views never changed. 

There is a Presbyterian minister I've heard who says that Christians should treat LGBT neighbors kindly. He does not endorse their behavior and has traditional views about marriage, but believes Christians are commanded to show love to everyone.
In the 1970s he was considered a liberal.
In the 1990s he was considered moderate.
Today he is viewed as an extremist, right-wing, MAGA conservative. 
His views never changed. 

I am beyond not qualified to discuss the details of this thread. Instead, consider what has happened to the larger Christian movement. It has formed into three branches.
The modernists/liberals interpret the Bible in light of modern cultural mores. Some even argue that the reader's perspective is primary.
Fundamentalists try to preserve and defend what was. They sometimes insist on the King James Version of the Bible, the singing of hymns, extensive holiness codes, and lock-step doctrinal adherence. From the second group I offer the following example: I went to see my aunt baptized in this type of church. The minister's sermon was aimed at criticizing my church's beliefs. After the service he came up, shook my hand, and told me directly that the sermon was aimed at me.
Then there are those, and I probably fit in this camp, who take the scriptures as mostly historical, mostly literal, and absolutely inspired of God. We try to engage the culture rather than condemn it. Our hope is to focus on Jesus and the Good News and not get sidetracked by secondary stuff. Sadly, we often fail.
 I'm wondering as I read this thread if much of the LDS world is also split into modernists, traditionalists, and the messy middle? 

The idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high. 

@Stacy RiddleI disagree. LDS holiness codes--especially ones related to the WoW and Law of Chastity are areas where I have some holy envy. It's incredible and good to me that young LDS people obey the no dating until 16 rule. Further, the prophet says no coffee/tea so no coffee/tea it is. That's not "cultish" in my mind. That's consistent with church teaching--especially about distinctives like having modern-day prophets. I'm not LDS and I love my coffee, but my theological differences have nothing to do with the reality that LDS folk obey latter-day revelations. If the revelations are true, of course they should be obeyed.

@Stacy RiddleI disagree. LDS holiness codes--especially ones related to the WoW and Law of Chastity are areas where I have some holy envy. It's incredible and good to me that young LDS people obey the no dating until 16 rule. Further, the prophet says no coffee/tea so no coffee/tea it is. That's not "cultish" in my mind. That's consistent with church teaching--especially about distinctives like having modern-day prophets. I'm not LDS and I love my coffee, but my theological differences have nothing to do with the reality that LDS folk obey latter-day revelations. If the revelations are true, of course they should be obeyed.

@Stacy RiddleI disagree. LDS holiness codes--especially ones related to the WoW and Law of Chastity are areas where I have some holy envy. It's incredible and good to me that young LDS people obey the no dating until 16 rule. Further, the prophet says no coffee/tea so no coffee/tea it is. That's not "cultish" in my mind. That's consistent with church teaching--especially about distinctives like having modern-day prophets. I'm not LDS and I love my coffee, but my theological differences have nothing to do with the reality that LDS folk obey latter-day revelations. If the revelations are true, of course they should be obeyed.

Almost.  I believe you may be referring to the oft repeated phrase that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such.
As has been said, we don't believe our prophets to be infallible - even when speaking in an official capacity.  So, why do we follow them?  Because they are prophets.
As an orthodox Saint, I believe that if the prophets and apostles are ever wrong about something, it won't be something so bad that it will affect my personal salvation.  And in the end, that is the only thing that matters.
Some people complain about things that will negatively affect them or a family member.  But every episode that I've been on the listening end of it is because "Hey! That's not fair because that means I get the short end of the stick!"  Or "Hey!  Don't you talk about my kids that way!"
I believe a recent thread talked about how some bratty kid is causing trouble for all the kids in the class. But the parents always want to believe that their child was the saint.  And all the other kids (as well as the teacher) just didn't do enough to accommodate him.  Well, I'm afraid things like that happen with LGBTQ issues and Church doctrines and practices, as well as a bevy of other things.
There is also another principle that I personally invoke as far as checking the Prophet.  There are in my mind some principles and doctrines that are so central and so basic that if you took that away, it would completely destroy everything we believe in.  Nothing would make sense.
Imagine if the Prophet were to say that there really was no Atonement of Christ.  That would be fundamentally flawed.  If we take that away, we're left without a religion.
Similarly (but not quite as fundamental) the eternal nature of families is also so deeply embedded in our beliefs that it cannot be casually discarded.  If we allow gay marriages and transexual marriages in the temple, this would completely destroy the idea of eternal marriage and eternal families.  Without that, we just become another Christian church without any divine power.  And yet, this is one of the things that "Protestant Mormons" use to say that the prophet is flawed?
I know that each person has to draw the line somewhere.  But some people place that line on things that make no sense to me. It is either so frivolous, or so selfish, or so prideful that I can't believe they use that logic to think they can second guess God or His Prophet.
/rant off.

You're probably right about everything. I promise to consider your words once I'm done laughing at (not with) the adolescent environmentalist wacko that you inserted. This may be a case where said insert distracts from rather than underlines your point. 😉 

The idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high. 

The idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high. 

The idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high. 

The idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high. 

The idea of following the prophets (or, in my case, church leadership) and of giving them the benefit of the doubt goes a long way with me. I don't see God punishing Protestants who don't allow female clergy, even though my church does. I doubt that churches that allow moderate drinking will be downgraded, though mine doesn't. I cringe at churches that discourage the moving of the Holy Spirit, claiming that the Bible is enough, but guess that what they are missing out on is more in this life than the one to come. So, I mostly agree that if there is certainty about a prophet's authority than that person should be followed and given every benefit of the doubt. The bar for disobeying a prophet would have to be quite high. 

Concerning signs, wonders, miracles, and other manifestations of God prior to the return of Jesus, a phrase I've come upon recently is, "LORD, I'm not greedy--just needy." So, yes, @Traveler, I am eager for every witness the Almighty brings. 

You're probably right about everything. I promise to consider your words once I'm done laughing at (not with) the adolescent environmentalist wacko that you inserted. This may be a case where said insert distracts from rather than underlines your point. 😉 

This is an interesting topic. I do not know Patrick Mason, but I assume that Brother Mason wants other Saints to accept him as a fellow Saint, despite the fact that he disbelieves that the Priesthood ban was of divine origin. Fair enough. But does Brother Mason so honor those who insist that the Priesthood ban was indeed given by God? Or does he argue against them and try to illustrate how a just God could not possibly have been the author of blah blah blah? Because although I do not know Brother Mason, I know many others who insist that the Priesthood ban was not divine, and they somehow have little compunction to acknowledge and honor the beliefs of those who disagree with them on that issue.
If such people feel so free to proclaim that Brigham Young and the other prophets and apostles were uninspired with respect to Priesthood and race issues, how dare they raise argument and contention against those who maintain that the prophets were indeed prophets, and that the origin of the Priesthood ban was indeed divine? To me, that seems an awful lot like saying, "You must be tolerant and respectful of my opinions, even when I proclaim that Church doctrine was uninspired and wicked. But I owe you no such courtesy."

You're probably right about everything. I promise to consider your words once I'm done laughing at (not with) the adolescent environmentalist wacko that you inserted. This may be a case where said insert distracts from rather than underlines your point. 😉 

I have been somewhat concerned as of late – especially concerning Israel and the divisions of violence that is taking place, not just on a world scale in far away places but things close to where I live and close places I thought somewhat resistant to such things.  One thing that has puzzled me is that throughout the history of Christianity, even in the days of the Apostles, the notion to be ready for the return of the Messiah has always been a prevalent teaching and belief.
I agree that these are the last days as per prophesy.  What I do not know is how close is the time.  You have seen some of my posts.  I agree that it could be soon – perhaps within a year or a few years.  I would argue (not and contentious argument but more impression) that there are still some very important things to take place, otherwise the return of the Messiah would have already taken place.
I have been seeking understanding as of late.  More specifically concerning Israel and what actions I should take or at least how I ought to respond.  Before I proceed with my post upon this matter, I would call attention to Joseph before Pharoah in Egypt when he interpreted the dreams of Pharoah.  Joseph said in essence the two dreams of Pharoah were one but that the dreams were given differently for two reasons or witnesses so that Pharoah would know it was from G-d and that what was prophesied would “soon” come to pass.
Yesterday I was discussing my impressions with a person of somewhat authority, and I told him that my impressions was to be patient, calm and to watch and observe what miracles the L-rd would perform (especially in my life and place).  This person responded in telling me of a personal experience of his this last weekend as he was called upon to give a person a LDS Priesthood blessing.  He spoke of the spirit providing the same impressions during the blessing (which in the LDS community is given with anointing and the laying on of hands).
I am impressed that the return of the Messiah is close and that we ought to be calm and patient to wait up the L-rd and watch what great works (miracles) will be among his covenant children as the world is prepared for his return.   I am impressed that if this is important to you (or others posting) that you will have more than my witness.
 
The Traveler

I though I would clarify to you the importance of Martin Luther to LDS theology.  We believe that the entire “Reformation” movement was both a fulfillment of prophesy and the laying of the groundwork for what we understand as the “Restoration”.  As difficult as it was for the prophet Joseph Smith in America where the law (constitution) granted the Freedom of Religion as a bulwark of freedom of speech – the LDS Church could not have survived the difficulties that would have been without the Reformation.
It is the tenant of LDS theology that many men wore inspired of G-d to move the pillars of Traditional Christianity to allow followers of a movement to live that would have otherwise been put to death for heresy.  As a side note Isaiah defined heresy (turning from G-d) as: 1. Transgressing the Law, changing the Ordinances and breaking the Everlasting Covenant.  Not as a problem of doctrine.
There are some that believe that the ancient reference in scripture to righteousness is not so much concerning those that do not sin (we all sin) but that the righteousness are those that make and keep covenants with G-d.  Likewise the ancient concept of wicked are not those that are evil but rather those that refuse covenants with G-d or break their covenants with G-d.
However, it is interesting to me what Isaiah said to Ahaz about true doctrine.  In essence, he said that the reason that Ahaz did not believe was because he was not loyal (to his covenant) – implying that we was loyal to what he wanted to be doctrine.
Some other thoughts.  Moses was the appointed prophet for the house of Israel, but it was the inspired father-in-law of Moses that taught him to delegate governing (judgments) among the house of Israel.  I believe the point here is that though the law is given through the prophet that it is possible for others that are inspired to inspire those in authority.  In LDS theology this is referenced to as gifts of the spirit – See Book of Mormon – Moroni chapter 10.
The problem is when someone believe it necessary to criticize those in authority rather than inspire them.
 
The Traveler

They were. Luther was sort of like a “conservative revolutionary.” He wanted to get back to what he thought was the truth. He thought the church was the one that was off track. 
 
Hence why he flipped out over other reformers going too far and denying the real presence, etc. He also hated having “Lutherans” be called after his own name.

Except that Martin Luther was right. Indulgences should not have been sold. There was apparent corruption. Further, there may be more qualified historians than me on this, but I am not so certain that nailing objections was a faith-destroying move. We don't know what was going on in Luther's mind, but it is a mostly accepted consensus that he truly was not seeking schism. He hoped the church would embrace reforms and become stronger. He hoped his friends would be strengthened because the church was strenghened. Indeed, I understand that there was something of a Catholic Reformation. Apologists argue it was coming and Luther should have been patient. Luther-supporters argue that the Protestant Reformation drove Catholic hierarchy to those reforms.
We have the advantage of over 500 years of history, but I believe Luther's motives were relatively innocent. Whether he was so right that he was wrong (the benefits did not outweigh the cost of schism) is an open question to this day. 

Except that Martin Luther was right. Indulgences should not have been sold. There was apparent corruption. Further, there may be more qualified historians than me on this, but I am not so certain that nailing objections was a faith-destroying move. We don't know what was going on in Luther's mind, but it is a mostly accepted consensus that he truly was not seeking schism. He hoped the church would embrace reforms and become stronger. He hoped his friends would be strengthened because the church was strenghened. Indeed, I understand that there was something of a Catholic Reformation. Apologists argue it was coming and Luther should have been patient. Luther-supporters argue that the Protestant Reformation drove Catholic hierarchy to those reforms.
We have the advantage of over 500 years of history, but I believe Luther's motives were relatively innocent. Whether he was so right that he was wrong (the benefits did not outweigh the cost of schism) is an open question to this day.