MrShorty

A few additional thoughts:
 
1) How do we see the concept of doubt? Is the "unbelief" mentioned in Mark 9:24 ("Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief") considered doubt? Or is doubt limited to refusal to accept some truth ("I refuse to believe that Joseph pulled a gold bible out of the ground and translated it. It is just too fantastical of a story.")?
 
2) How important is humility and teachability (is that a word?) to the question? I can see some like Jennamarie describes who have doubts but are earnestly and humbly seeking to understand. There are also others who have no desire to even approach the subject.
 
3) Doubt is a good thing if we are "doubting" a falsehood. In spite of his claims in the premortal councils, I doubt that Satan really has the power to get me to heaven. It seems to me that some of this question around doubt is centered in the process of discernment. It might be all about the process of trying to find out what is truth and what is error.

Perhaps a more concrete example: http://lds.net/forums/topic/53930-is-april-6th-official-doctrine-as-jesus-birth-day/
 
I find the discussion around Apr. 6 as Christ's birthdate to be an interesting example of the issues I see coming up here. The linked discussion starts with Elder Bednar's rather certain assertion that "we know, by revelation" that Apr 6th is the correct date, and he even goes so far as to document several other statements by previous prophets and apostles to the same effect. But, there is some fairly solid evidence and rationale for "doubting" this alleged historical fact.
 
In introducing this example, I don't want to open up the debate on this specific fact, but to illustrate the process of doubting that I see. Prophets/apostles make an assertion -- hearer has questions about the issue -- studies the issue using scriptural and other sources, prays for wisdom and understand -- doubts not resolved to satisfaction --- ???? what comes next?
 
Some of what comes next could be patience in waiting for the Lord to clarify -- we all know the Lord does not always answer immediately. Some of it could be a person who has hardened his/her heart against the truth so that God cannot give him an answer. When you are in the middle of that step, the honest seeker of truth may very well need to grapple with the possibility that the prophets and apostles are not speaking for God in this thing (without necessarily losing credibility in other things) and how to discern between man's wisdom and God's truth.

Perhaps a more concrete example: http://lds.net/forums/topic/53930-is-april-6th-official-doctrine-as-jesus-birth-day/
 
I find the discussion around Apr. 6 as Christ's birthdate to be an interesting example of the issues I see coming up here. The linked discussion starts with Elder Bednar's rather certain assertion that "we know, by revelation" that Apr 6th is the correct date, and he even goes so far as to document several other statements by previous prophets and apostles to the same effect. But, there is some fairly solid evidence and rationale for "doubting" this alleged historical fact.
 
In introducing this example, I don't want to open up the debate on this specific fact, but to illustrate the process of doubting that I see. Prophets/apostles make an assertion -- hearer has questions about the issue -- studies the issue using scriptural and other sources, prays for wisdom and understand -- doubts not resolved to satisfaction --- ???? what comes next?
 
Some of what comes next could be patience in waiting for the Lord to clarify -- we all know the Lord does not always answer immediately. Some of it could be a person who has hardened his/her heart against the truth so that God cannot give him an answer. When you are in the middle of that step, the honest seeker of truth may very well need to grapple with the possibility that the prophets and apostles are not speaking for God in this thing (without necessarily losing credibility in other things) and how to discern between man's wisdom and God's truth.

I know this will get a rise out of Suzie and a few others, because it has in the past, but I simply don't buy that I need to get a specific testimony of every single thing spoken by our leaders.
 
I have a testimony that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, the Book or Mormon is the word of God, Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and that the keys were passed by him to Brigham Young and the 12 and then on to the succeeding leaders.
 
By virtue of the fact that the spirit has revealed to me that this structure, organization, and pattern is true and correct, I may safely follow the words given by them without a specific spiritual witness of every word they speak.
 
I do not, of course, see any problem with praying about principles they teach, but for myself, I know that going to ask God if a specific principle they give is true and correct would, in general, be faithless and ungrateful.
 
For example, I never prayed to know if the lowering of the missionary age to 18 and 19 was given by God. And yet I have full and absolute confidence that it was. I trust, implicitly, that President Monson, his counselors, and the twelve guide this church through revelation.
 
You are dead-on correct about the fact that we must have testimony in Christ, the fact that this is His restored church, and that He leads it.
 
The Brigham Young quote given by Suzie means that we need this testimony so that we may safely and surely follow our leaders. We must have spiritual witness that Christ is at the head of this church, or we are putting our faith in man and our confidence is reckless. But, as you said, there is no implication that once we gain this testimony that Christ is in charge that we should not show absolutely loyalty and confidence in our leaders.

A few additional thoughts:
 
1) How do we see the concept of doubt? Is the "unbelief" mentioned in Mark 9:24 ("Lord I believe, help thou my unbelief") considered doubt? Or is doubt limited to refusal to accept some truth ("I refuse to believe that Joseph pulled a gold bible out of the ground and translated it. It is just too fantastical of a story.")?
 
2) How important is humility and teachability (is that a word?) to the question? I can see some like Jennamarie describes who have doubts but are earnestly and humbly seeking to understand. There are also others who have no desire to even approach the subject.
 
3) Doubt is a good thing if we are "doubting" a falsehood. In spite of his claims in the premortal councils, I doubt that Satan really has the power to get me to heaven. It seems to me that some of this question around doubt is centered in the process of discernment. It might be all about the process of trying to find out what is truth and what is error.

So, the only way to be in line with the current Church's stance is to shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno...."? Ignorance and unknowable mystery are the defining traits of Satan's organizations, not God's (Revelation 17:5; Alma 12:10-11).
 
In the earlier days of Utah, the Brethren were very clear as to why the ban was set in place (I won't bother cutting/pasting here, as I don't want to threadjack. You can look up quotes for yourself; they're not hard to find). The recent essay on blacks and the priesthood pins the origin of the priesthood on... well, it wasn't God. The racist tendencies of early Americans (which included Brigham Young, et al.) seems to be the culprit without being explicitly stated as such. In less than 40 years, the Church's official stance on this issue has done almost a complete 180-degree turn, and I guarantee that it hasn't stopped turning yet.
 
When the spirit of man is the driving force for an action and not the spirit of God, then that action has come about by the will and power of man, and not the will and power of God.
 
By the way, your replies (JAG, anatess, and thefolkprophet) emphasize the point I was making. Marion G. Romney, in his remarks, described being in "harmony with the leaders of the Church and the counsel and direction they give" as part of the "full spirit of the gospel". The changing position on blacks and the priesthood (from what it used to be--blacks couldn't hold the priesthood because of the "curse of Cain"--to today) and the ban itself highlights the difficulties that position presents. If the Gospel is eternal and unchanging but Church practices change radically with no reason given from God and no explanation even being attempted by the leaders, then can lockstep obedience with Church leaders really be considered one of the basic requirements of Christ's eternal Gospel? Or is that level of strict obedience one of the hedges we make around the law?

I wonder if early members who thought blacks ought to have the priesthood and the priesthood ban was put in place due to the will of man and not God was out of harmony with the spirit of the Gospel. I guess, if they lived in Brigham Young's day they would be, but if they lived today, they wouldn't.
 
And yet, the Gospel is eternal and unchanging. Hmmmm....

I think this accountability is important. It might be the key that keeps this line of reasoning from becoming a form of universalism or moral relativism. It hopefully keeps us aware of the need to cross-check spiritual impressions against scripture and against (fallible) reason. Keeps us humble enough to continue to grow and change rather than get stuck in one place.

I cannot help but think that there's something more to it though. Someday, when we stand at judgment day, we will be accountable for ourselves. Yes, there are those who won't have the opportunity to be accountable for themselves in this life. But ultimately we will all stand as agents for our own choices and our own willingness to be humble and submit. But, overall, I agree.

Confirmation bias is definitely a real thing, and I think it show up frequently in the way religious people interpret their experience. As personal as religious experience can be, it might be a necessary part of religious experience that cannot be completely eliminated from the equation.
 
 
 
I don't think God choosing our paths violates our free agency. He always lets us choose whether we will follow Him or choose to follow our own paths. Based on several scriptures, I think much of the "test" of this life is determining whether or not we will follow God wherever He chooses to lead us.
 
In many ways, I think I can agree that other people's spiritual experiences have no bearing on the validity of my own experiences and my experiences have not bearing on other's. Other's can claim I have been misled by a false spirit, but they cannot really prove it to me. I can claim that others have been misled by false spirits, but they are under no obligation to heed what I say. In principle, then, that seems true to me. But it also seems to lead me back to the same conclusion. If the only thing I really have is my own spiritual experiences suggesting to me the path God wants me to follow, then all I can really do is follow that path until He chooses to correct my errors. and that is all that anyone of us can really do.

Confirmation bias is definitely a real thing, and I think it show up frequently in the way religious people interpret their experience. As personal as religious experience can be, it might be a necessary part of religious experience that cannot be completely eliminated from the equation.
 
 
 
I don't think God choosing our paths violates our free agency. He always lets us choose whether we will follow Him or choose to follow our own paths. Based on several scriptures, I think much of the "test" of this life is determining whether or not we will follow God wherever He chooses to lead us.
 
In many ways, I think I can agree that other people's spiritual experiences have no bearing on the validity of my own experiences and my experiences have not bearing on other's. Other's can claim I have been misled by a false spirit, but they cannot really prove it to me. I can claim that others have been misled by false spirits, but they are under no obligation to heed what I say. In principle, then, that seems true to me. But it also seems to lead me back to the same conclusion. If the only thing I really have is my own spiritual experiences suggesting to me the path God wants me to follow, then all I can really do is follow that path until He chooses to correct my errors. and that is all that anyone of us can really do.

Sorry man, I also stand by what I said, b/c that is exactly how it came across to me as a non-LDS browser.  Perhaps you didn't mean for it to come across as arrogant as it did, but it did.   
 
"The fact that people become "converts" to all sorts of things based on their feelings does not invalidate the witness of someone who has truly received communication from God. The cynicism of this approach is not useful. It's also not useful to teach those filled with pride and their own sense of wisdom that they must be humble and submissive. It does no good to explain to those who have never seen and felt the sun that their false claims of sunlight are blatantly obvious to those who have come out of the darkness if they refuse to experiment upon your path to the light themselves."
 
"Those on the other side of the aisle, as you put it, may be blinded, confused, unknowledgeable, or unfamiliar. That does not make them bad, but it doesn't prove that someone who has had a true witness of the Spirit is also confused."
 
"I believe that anyone who would so contend ("I have a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is false" or the like) is, at some level, deceiving themselves."
 
The "warm fuzzies" are not what I referred to as arrogant, I couldn't agree more with you more on that point, I'm referring to you judging the previous poster, implying that they have never received "pure knowledge" from the Spirit, and inserting your own garbage into what the previous poster wrote, about not converting based on emotion, you quoted her and replied,
 
"And reason doesn't? You mean to tell me that every "reasonable" thought you've ever had you still retain? So what you considered reasonable when you were 2 years old is still your view? So what we once thought was reasonable concerning science has never changed? You are incapable or unwilling to every update or alter your reason? Sounds like a sure path to growth". 
 
This is unnecessary and not at all what the poster was trying to say. 
 
If I have shown any arrogance, then God will judge me, but I will never deny you, nor any other Christian a truly authentic witness when it comes to the Holy Spirit and Truth, even if it leads them to a Church that I don't understand.  That is why I'm here, on this forum, to better understand my brothers and sisters in Christ, to learn directly from those who are authentically living their faith, rather than go to anti-mormon sites. 
 
God bless!  

I usually enjoy reading your posts TFP, however, your arrogance in this post, is a bit over the top.  Who are you to assume that this poster has never had any spiritual experiences, or witnesses, that has led him/her to where they are now?  Simply b/c this person is not LDS, you assume they couldn't have possibly felt the Spirit??  *Facepalm*  Lack of humility indeed!!  The OP is a very valid question, and as someone who ardently prayed and fasted about the veracity of the BOM and received a very definite negative witness, your ignorant replies that those on the "other side" are somehow deceiving themselves is insulting.  Have I felt the Holy Spirit?  Can I tell the difference between mere emotions and a truly answered prayer?  YES, YES and YES.  I have felt God Himself physically present before me, Love so great there are zero words in the human language to adequately describe Him and just how beautiful He is (I had no visual, but trust me, I didn't need one, I probably would've passed out!!!).  He didn't speak audible words to me, but He spoke gently to my heart, my very soul, just how much He loved ME.  This beautiful grace, so completely unexpected, is more than I could have ever hoped to receive, but I know now that that is what I was made for, to receive this Love and to love Him in return w/everything that I am, and that is what I strive for each and every day.  This is only one of many, many experiences, which can only be ascribed to God, which have guided me into the faith I am now, and I couldn't be anymore in love with Love!  A joy so great, I feel as though I could burst at times, and a peace in my soul that surpasses anything I've known or felt before.  Freedom so sweet, I know that there truly is nothing in this world to fear.  And I believe that you, as a mormon, can feel this too, I refuse to box this in as only a thing Catholics can know and experience. 
   
So do I believe other people of other faiths can also receive spiritual experiences by the Holy Spirit?  Yes I do!  I believe God loves ALL of us so much that He is always calling to us, calling us to Himself, no matter what religion we ascribe to.  We are all on our own path home to God, and none of our paths are identical with anyone else's path.  Your cross to carry is not my cross.  And to those who truly love God and wish to know Him and listen to Him, they will receive witnesses from the Holy Spirit that God does exist and He loves us.  God will take each of us where we are and guide us to Himself in a way best suited to each individual.  Gods ways are mysterious, but I have faith that He will always bring the good about in every situation b/c He loves us so much. 
 
I have been in the daylight too Sir, and I know I have, regardless of whether or not you believe it to be possible. 
 
God bless!     

It is a leap...  The Folk Prophet gave the biblical standard for Modesty.  Which a sleeveless sundress could qualify under.  But this group is largely LDS... And we have temple garments.  For the temple garment wearing group, modesty includes keeping the the temple garment covered, because that is the promise we made.
 
That sets a very clear standard for us.  It is however human nature to take what we think is right and correct for us and apply it to everyone else.  Many times this works just fine, and of course we want to teach our kids this standard to prepare them for the temple.  But it can in the course of being taught also distort to the idea that a sleeveless sun dress woman is (as you linked together) "without principle".
 
That would be a failure in judgment/teaching/understanding etc.

You are reading my statement of 'fair game' as an absolute.  Whereas I used it to try to describe a mindset or the emotional response.   A guy simply does not have to have the same level of self control with his wife.  This is not the same as saying he has none.  Its simply goes from what should be an absolute to one based on context, personality, and personal preferences (Both his and hers).  For most guys that is a hugely profound difference, which 'fair game' sums up decently well.

Thought 1: Sometimes I think this modesty discussion gets too focused on "what my clothing might make men ( and women, if we want to be gender neutral) think." With due appreciation to the Savior's teachings in Matt 5 (thoughts about something are the same as actually doing it), I think, socially, there is a dramatic difference between a man who sees a woman and spends the next week fantasizing about her and a man who sees a woman and seduces/rapes her. This kind of hit home to me in a brief internet exchange. One man said, "if you knew what a man thought, you'd be scared out of your mind." and the woman replied, "I am not afraid of what men think." It has made me wonder if the modesty discussion is too much about what others might be thinking. In some ways, as long as they keep their thoughts/hands/lips/etc. to themselves, it does not matter much what they are thinking.
 
Thought 2: Another observation that I have found interesting comes from the nudist community. Nudists are fond of claiming that they learn how to properly separate nudity from sexuality. We have all heard of "native" cultures where women go topless, and they do not sexualize the nudity that they are exposed to -- it is the cultural norm for them. It emphasizes to me that some of this modesty discussion is "cultural" and not "theological." I'm not promoting nudism or other less modest cultural dress standards, but it helps me see that no one is forced to think anything (let alone do anything) because they see a certain amount of skin. Everyone can properly respond in thought and (especially) action to what others wear or don't wear.

This is probably said in a lighthearted, maybe joking, way -- it can be hard to tell on the internet. If there is any seriousness to it, I would respectfully disagree. I don't think any form of "nudism as higher law" would include "only beautiful people should be seen nude (by whatever society's standard of beauty is -- BMI or age or whatever)".
 
It is another interesting claim that I see come out of the nudist community -- they claim to have an overall better handle on body image issues. Maybe because they have seen it all (short fat thin tall old young etc.) and put it all on display.
 
I'm not a nudist, nor am I promoting nudism. A lot of the time I find that parts of our modesty discourse are contradicted by some of the claims coming out of the nudist community and I find that interesting. I wonder if there is an opportunity to better understand what modesty means to us by understanding those contradictions.

I would also add that, in certain poses, tight yoga pants better lend themselves to modesty than BYUI's gym shorts (unless they've changed them since I attended.)
 
And to throw out my opinion on the topic at hand, I see a balance.  I do not believe the ultimate purpose of modesty is to keep male minds clean, but don't justify immodest dress on that principle.

What I find interesting is that none of these things is completely wrong or unimportant in our quest for truth, but it is the "overemphasis" of any one of these that he identifies. It seems to me that each of these can be an important part of discerning truth from error. The real challenge I think is trying to understand how each of these fits into the process of discernment and apostasy.
 
I also note that he speaks mostly from an "in hindsight" perspective -- which is always easier to see things. The real challenge is being able to see, in the moment, when we are overemphasizing these.

Did we just concede here that nudists are living some kind of "higher law"??? :)

The national park service publishes information and maps for the Mormon Pioneer historic trail: http://www.nps.gov/mopi/index.htm

Did we just concede here that nudists are living some kind of "higher law"??? :)

Did we just concede here that nudists are living some kind of "higher law"??? :)

This isn't a problem that is specific because it is same-sex attraction.  This is a problem with attraction and priorities.  I am attracted to the opposite sex.  Somehow I manage to control myself and not cheat on my wife.  This is something many, many people deal with in their daily lives, being same-sex attracted does not make a difference in this situation.

Its also taught in secular theology department in the universities that I've had contact with.  I've not read or heard anyone teach that deaconess was simply the wife of a deacon.  It is clear in the NT and in the documents of the early church fathers that there were female deacons, there are even secular accounts of female deacons being tortured for information on Christianity.  So from a purely historical point of view, and from the sources of the time we can only come to the conclusion that there was in some way, shape or form a position in the early church for female deacons.  What that role was or even if it was a priestly office is where the contention lies.  As I have said previously, it has been said that it was a role relating to ministry to other women, and that role simply was withdrawn or seen as redundant and never re-organised with the restoration of the Gospel and the church, or is what is now the relief society.  
Let me make it clear, I'm in no way saying that this is evidence that there should be female members of the priesthood today.  As clearly that is not the case as revealed to the prophets of the restoration in whom the keys of the priesthood reside.  Heavenly Father has clearly laid out his teachings on the priesthood in these latter days through his servants the prophets, from Joseph Smith to Thomas S Monson, that the priesthood is available to and bestowed upon all worthy male members in the church is clearly the teaching of the restored church today.