Suzie

*sigh*

Church ans Crash, I would like to end my part of this discussion on a good note. :) I know you just "met" me online but please do not confuse my style of speech and debate (being straightforward, asking for sources, rebuttal,etc) as being overly-sensitive. I can assure you that when I debate topics specially LDS doctrine and Church history, I only focus on the content of the messages. I never take any of these threads personal. As a matter of fact, JAG and I disagree in a lot of issues but we always remain civil while debating because none of us get sensitive about it or get offended because we both know we only focus on the content and because of that, it is a pleasure to debate with him. So guys, I will just say we see things differently on this issue :) No need to apologize or ask for my forgiveness because there is absolutely nothing to forgive. All the best to both of you. :)

We can spin it anywhere you want it to go, you can claim it fact, I claim it is your opinion and the quotes provided do NOT support the idea that someone who prays more often than you do (is there such a thing as a prayermeter to know exactly how much is too much?) to request confirmation from God has a weaker testimony than someone who doesn't. If I have to reply to this post of yours again, I will be repeating myself for the millionth time but one last time, again.. (and this will probably be my last post to you on this issue) is that you have not, I repeat have not prove that the Church believes that someone who prays more often than others to receive confirmation from the Lord does not have a strong testimony and they are not supporting their leaders as you clearly claimed. If you wish to think that way, it is perfectly fine with me because you have the right to think in whatever way you want but let's not claim it beyond your own personal opinion on the matter and try to imply it is Church doctrine or the Church position on the issue because clearly it isn't.

I have all boys. They love their dad but they loveme.

This part in the reply of President Smith is important, IMO "The Church gives to every man his free agency, and admonishes him always to use the reason and good judgment with which God has blessed him.” I'm grateful for leaders who are not afraid to state that this sort of thinking ("when a leader speaks, the thinking has been done") is not Church doctrine and acknowledge the harm that can be done by promoting such thinking.

Says the guy that admonished me? Telling you that you are new and we have several threads about this and inviting you to search those threads is condescending? Seriously? I enjoy debates a lot but if the whole things turns a little too dramatic, I often leave the discussion, no offense.

I absolutely agree with you. Personally, I do not think it will ever be used and I do not think any Prophet will purposely lead this Church astray (I said that in one of my last comments). Yes, I agree. I am not sure if you understand my position (hope you do ). I am not advocating that we shouldn't follow our Prophet, I am not advocating that we should put in doubt every little thing our Prophet teach us, what I am saying is that I do not see anything wrong with someone praying to God for confirmation. To be honest, I do not pray for most of the things President Monson says but if he tells the Church we should all shave our heads and take a trip to the Aconcagua mountain, you bet I would seriously pray about that and seek confirmation. Having said that, there are people who might feel the need to pray more often and about more things and I do not think they are supporting their leaders any "less" than I do just because they pray more often for confirmation and I do not. It is their prerogative to have that line of connection with the Lord as many times as they want it and as many times as they need it and I personally feel it is actually very responsible for someone to take that time and do that. And again, I absolutely agree with you. :) But I do not think it is wise or correct to say that those who do ask for confirmation more often than we do is because they are not supporting their leaders, that's quite a strong statement to make and is definitely not doctrinal. That's exactly how I think. :) If a person do not need to pray about most of the things the Prophet says, it is just fine if they want to do so. If a person does need to pray about more things, it is just fine as me as well. Again, the assumption that the first has a stronger testimony than the second is problematic and that the latter, do not support his/her leaders because he/she prays more often for confirmation isn't doctrinal. This is definitely not something this Church preaches. If a person wants to believe that, then it is their personal opinion and it is okay but I take issue if it is expressed as the Church position.

Church, did you read what I said about the meaning of "The Lord won't let the Prophet lead the Church astray"? Because I feel you did not (because of the quotes you provided). I have no issues with your quotes. I'm sorry you spent so much time looking for them but I am afraid you missed my point entirely. Having said that, I appreciate you took the time to do so. My main point is that Crash specifically stated that if someone prays for confirmation is because they do not have a testimony and they are not supporting their leaders, that's not Church doctrine and if it is, I would be very glad to see proof of it and recant. If he/she isn't able to provide that, then as I mentioned before I will take it as his personal opinion or personal revelation on that particular issue and nothing more. I feel like I am repeating myself . Crash did state that he is not going to provide such quotes because it is his personal witness then there is nothing else to discuss because as he rightfully said, I cannot challenge his testimony (not like I was planning to). I have no problem with that and I respect it, my issue was only to ensure this is not expressed as Church doctrine.

You are new here but we have countless threads about what exactly means "to lead the Church astray", often times we miss the second part of the statement which reads: President Woodruff is not saying that the Prophet will never ever say anything that is wrong. He is saying that we are ensured that the Prophet won't do anything that lead us away from "the oracles of God", meaning the revelations and doctrines necessary for Salvation. If indeed there is no chance at all that the Prophet or his counselors can lead the Church astray (in any issue) then the Lord wouldn't have established a procedure (First Presidency on trial, read D&C) yet the fact that the Lord included the provision in his plan indicates that it is not an impossibility as it has been suggested. Now, let me be very clear and state that I do not think the Prophet is leading the Church astray, I love President Monson and I do not think he will purposely do so or any other future prophet for that matter, however, I am very aware that they are also menhence, the issue with prayer as previously indicated it is vital, IMO. Admonish me? No offense but I am not here to be admonished or to be convinced, I am just here to exchange views.

Amazing picture! I wish I could see it!

Just to clarify: Are you saying that the Prophet is somewhat infallible while in office?

I read that the baby is very sick and deformed because of the lack of oxygen. It breaks my heart.

Nobody is asking you to justify your testimony but you made a whole set of statements and talked about this not being about your opinion or definitions but Church doctrine when in fact it is just your personal revelation on the issue and if you claim doctrine then I am asking you to prove it with the points I mentioned, it is only fair. But you are clearly stating that you are not going to do that, I suspect because you will not find any quotes or sources that indicate that when you pray to God for confirmation it is a sign that you are not supporting your leaders. So I will be moving on. I have no problem at all with your personal witness. But let's be clear. It is your personal witness, not mine, not my next door neighbor, not the whole Church. We are entitled to personal revelation but starts and ends with us.

It's me, Lynda Carter.

I did not think that at all because I do not know you. Asking you to provide quotes to prove your point in a discussion forum is an attack to your testimony? That's surely a first, that's a common thing in an internet forum but I will take that you read the quotes I provided from Church leaders and you do not have (at the moment) quotes to support your statements that asking the Lord for confirmation is a sign that you are not supporting your leaders and a sign that you do not have a testimony. I have no problem with accepting your personal opinion on the matter and don't worry, no need for quotes for that. Edit: I enjoy intelligent debates but if such exchange of ideas lack sources, then it's useless. I have no problem if someone wants to share their opinion on the matter and they clearly state it's just their opinion and there is no need for quotes on those occasions but when the information provided is trying to be passed indirectly as the Church position or doctrine, then the person must be ready to back it up. Apparently isn't going to happen in this case so I'm moving on.

I joined mostly to discuss Church history related to the topics I research and write about. I am always grateful for my pals JAG and MOE and a few others like Skippy who join the discussions about Church history.

If my Bishop or any other leader for that matter asks me to do something that is contrary to Church doctrine, you bet I am going to question it and if you think that's wrong, that's your prerogative, I can live with that. We are not bound to follow and support false doctrine or evil no matter where it comes from. Hence, it is indeed important and very relevant what is your definition of sustaining. I have no problem in sustaining my leaders as long as I am asked to do things that are in harmony with the Gospel. Granted, we have great Church leaders who do a lot of good for their wards and stakes yet they still men, and if in any occasion (rare or not) they ask of me to do something that is contrary to doctrine, I will question it immediately. I am not going through motions and to be honest, I do not take the GA's list and ask God if each one of them has been called by Him. Your indirect implication that someone who does indeed pray for these things do not have a testimony like yours, is both naive and closed-minded. This has nothing to do with having a strong or weak testimony (opinions such as this are just one of the many things that drive people away from Church). There is absolutely nothing inherently wrong in asking our Lord for confirmation in these things. Seriously, standing in our own rameuptoms and trying to elevate ourselves over our brethren and think we are somewhat more faithful, more obedient, more spiritual because we do not need to pray for confirmation, it's both sad and foolish. Sad because I want to believe we would always encourage our brethren to pray even if they need to have confirmation from the Lord, and foolish because we are not as spiritual or faithful as we might think we are. Well, by now you know I do not agree with this point of yours. I have no problem whatsoever in following our Church leaders, but I also believe the Lord has given us a tool which is prayer that can help receive confirmation through the Spirit of the things we are taught. Of course, we are probably not going to pray for every single counsel we receive however, if someone needs to do so as many times as they want, it is their right. Using this tool does not make anyone's testimony weaker, but quite the opposite. It is called wisdom. But let me just quote a couple of statements to finish my post that illustrate perfectly my thoughts: I think that's clear enough. I would be more than glad to read your quotes where it says that asking the Lord for confirmation is a sign that you are not supporting your leaders and a sign that you do not have a testimony and of course, also feel free to quote where we are discouraged not to pray to receive confirmation from the Spirit.

I am not implying anything. I just have a hard time saying "God will punish gays!", I don't think I am in a position to speak for the Lord, NOT because the behavior of practical homosexuals isn't sin, but because I am unable to speak for Him, I have a problem doing that because I feel inadequate and imperfect.I believe the Lord will judge according to the life circumstancess of every single individual. So you are cool then comparing someone who breaks the WOW by drinking a cup of beer with a rapist or a pedophile?

Another story. When I was in Elementary School there was this cute boy who all the other boys in the class made fun of every single day because they said he talked and walked like a little girl. Even as a young child, I always felt the need to befriend those who were lonely or were considered "different", it is not something that has been taught to me or did it because I felt "sorry" for them, I genuinely wanted them to have a friend in me. I became friends with this boy and after Elementary school I did not see him again. However, just a couple of years ago he found me through a mutual friend and emailed me. He told me that those years were very depressing for him as a child because he did not understand what was happening to him. Many years later, he told everyone that he was gay and ended his email thanking me for the many times I stood by his side and defended him when others were bullying him. That experience alone shaped my view about social responsibility with three clear words: Be a friend.

Anddenex, personally I try not to put myself in God's position or speak for Him, I feel inadequate to do so because of my limitations, sins and wrongdoings. I believe only the Lord knows how exactly is he going to judge, not only practicing homosexuals but all of us. I just find very hard to digest that an homosexual can be indirectly compared with a rapist or child molester. I am not sure if people (generally speaking) are purposely misreading the OP or what exactly? This thread is not about appreciating homosexuality. It says: For me, it is just wonderful that someone would think about reaching out to those who struggle with same sex attraction or even those living an homosexual lifestyle. Reaching out and expressing love for them is what Christianity is supposed to be all about. It is not condoning behavior, it is loving others despite their choices.

Vort, I really have a hard time trying to understand the connection of homosexuality to rape, incest, stealing, arson, vandalism, etc. Raping someone isn't just a "sin", it is also a crime punishable by law. Same for the rest so how exactly is homosexuality thrown in the middle?

Vort, there are gay people who are married (heterosexual relationship). Of course, I do not know the guy in question, but it is a possibly that he was gay, wife and all or yes a straight guy with effiminate mannerisms. The point I am trying to make is that being married does not exclude the person from being homosexual.

Bini, I LOVE Quasimodo in that movie and I was so sad when I saw the ending, too. I wanted the gypsy girl to fall in love with him! But... it didn't happen. Silly gypsy girl, her loss.

I thought the OP was clear : Why hijack the thread? Anyhow, going back on topic my best friend is gay. I love her to pieces! She has been a great influence in my life, a wonderful human being and amazing friend. :)