MrShorty

Just make sure your tattoo artist knows how to spell...

 
And how to space the words:

The reality is that all LDS that I know, regard anything less than attaining the Celestial Kingdom is the functional equivalent of hell or damnation.  So degrees of "glory" become very academic.

As I was praying last night and thinking about this discussion, the impression came to me that I should suggest that anyone who is struggling would be blessed by forming a habit of daily study from the Book of Mormon.  Choose for yourself how long to spend or how to approach it, but form a habit of being in the Book of Mormon every day with a sincere intent to come unto Jesus Christ.  It may not make sense, but my own experience is that doing this consistently and persistently brings blessings.  So I encourage everyone (actually, everyone, whether struggling or not) to give it a try and see whether, in a year or two, things aren't better than they were before you started.

@zil2 I understand the idea, and I agree that there is at least part of God's judgement that considers what our parents, teachers, leaders, and even prophets have and have not taught us. At what point does this idea end up at, "none of us is accountable for our sins, because, at some level, our sins are just a reflection of ways that our parents, teachers, leaders, and prophets have failed to teach us correct principles."
If you will indulge a somewhat tongue in cheek case study, I am reminded of something Senator Harry Reid said in a speech at BYU. He said that he is often asked how he can be both a Democrat and a Mormon. He said that he often answers that he is a Democrat because he is a Mormon, followed by some discussion of the different lessons he learned from parents and church leaders and scriptures that motivate him to be a Democrat. Now it is well known among LDS church members (that lean very heavily Republican) that being a Democrat is a sin (not really, but let's pretend for this brief moment). Considering the Sen Reid committed this sin because of things he learned from parents and the church, will Sen. Reid be absolved of the sin of being a Democrat, and his parents and leaders and such will be held accountable for his sin?
In the "proving contraries" theme, we also have a long history of talking about personal accountability and moral agency wherein we emphasize that we are each responsible for our own instruction and learning. I don't claim to know how God will judge us, but, as I noted, I think God will perfectly know how to balance personal accountability against things that we did not know because others around us did not teach us. I'm not sure what that means for the hear and now and how I engage with what our prophets and apostles teach.

@zil2 I understand the idea, and I agree that there is at least part of God's judgement that considers what our parents, teachers, leaders, and even prophets have and have not taught us. At what point does this idea end up at, "none of us is accountable for our sins, because, at some level, our sins are just a reflection of ways that our parents, teachers, leaders, and prophets have failed to teach us correct principles."
If you will indulge a somewhat tongue in cheek case study, I am reminded of something Senator Harry Reid said in a speech at BYU. He said that he is often asked how he can be both a Democrat and a Mormon. He said that he often answers that he is a Democrat because he is a Mormon, followed by some discussion of the different lessons he learned from parents and church leaders and scriptures that motivate him to be a Democrat. Now it is well known among LDS church members (that lean very heavily Republican) that being a Democrat is a sin (not really, but let's pretend for this brief moment). Considering the Sen Reid committed this sin because of things he learned from parents and the church, will Sen. Reid be absolved of the sin of being a Democrat, and his parents and leaders and such will be held accountable for his sin?
In the "proving contraries" theme, we also have a long history of talking about personal accountability and moral agency wherein we emphasize that we are each responsible for our own instruction and learning. I don't claim to know how God will judge us, but, as I noted, I think God will perfectly know how to balance personal accountability against things that we did not know because others around us did not teach us. I'm not sure what that means for the hear and now and how I engage with what our prophets and apostles teach.

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. 

Looking at the history on Wikipedia, human courts have had a mixed history with these "Nuremburg" defenses. I guess I'm just not as convinced that God's court universally accepts a "Nuremburg" defense. I trust that God's judgements are a perfect blend of justice and mercy ("Where justice, love, and mercy meet  In harmony divine" as Sister Snow put it), and I'm sure God knows how best to handle, "I followed the prophet against my own better judgement on that issue, because I decided that is what You would have me do," and "I chose not follow the prophet and follow my own best judgement on that issue, because I decided that is what You would have me do," situations. I don't claim to know exactly how God judges those, but I trust that God knows best. Of course, that trust doesn't always help in the here and now.

I suppose I ought to be careful speaking for Brother Mason, but I don't recall him every saying anything like, "I wish those who believe in divine origins of the priesthood ban (or any other issues he's talked about) would leave the church or be quiet" or anything similar. If you don't think it is out of line, In any case, whatever Mason's views might be, I'm inclined towards saying that, " If we encourage those with[out] doubts to leave, then we all are lost." [If that isn't too far removed from your intention with that statement.]
I recall some years ago, in one of those evolution-creation threads here (or a thread adjacent to one of them), asking if we thought that Elder Joseph Fielding Smith and Professor Steven Peck could share a pew together, as contentious as the creation-evolution debate can be. It sometimes seems to me that this is a central part of whether or not "LDS Protestantism" ends up becoming another splinter group or whether we manage to stay together -- our ability (or inability) to share a pew with someone who believes something different from us. There is a lot of discussion to be had here (like, as @mikbone mentioned, questions of "core" vs. "esoteric" doctrines and which "core" doctrines are necessary to be considered LDS and how to maintain boundaries around those core doctrines and so on).

(Article title: "...the remnants of Harold move west".)  Allow me to demonstrate how you were supposed to relate this news:

(Who knew adults would have such a hard time following a simple rule... Stickmen, people, stickmen!)

I agree that all of these different people exist. I find myself disliking what is said by the strident, "Russell Nelson is no prophet of any God I care to follow" types, because I don't feel like they help me find a foothold on this slippery slope. I find that I like people like Patrick Mason who (for example) publicly says that he doesn't believe that the priesthood and temple ban is of divine origin, but still wants to support the church and its leaders. I think it would be unfair to him and others like him to lump him in with those who stridently claim that Pres. Nelson is not a prophet, but I know there are some who would try to push Mason and others like him into the same end of the continuum. I don't know how the orthodox members of the church ought to manage discerning who is a sincere doubter from the strident unbelievers, but it seems like an important endeavor. I think I've said before that this journey feels like the proverbial slippery slope. My own discernment around who is a "sincere doubter" vs. the "strident disbeliever" is usually based on who is helping me find footholds, which is probably not a good vantage point for telling everyone else how to discern who fits where on the spectrum.
That said, I really appreciate you and anyone who is willing to embrace and encourage a fellow Saint wrestling with doubts and questions and concerns. I think the absolute worst feeling on this journey is the feeling that your fellow co-religionists are thinking (or even say) something like, "don't let the door hit you on the butt on the way out."
Might just have to agree to disagree, but I find this is at the heart of most of my own doubts and concerns and questions (yes, and even the things I reject). In a church led by prophets and apostles built on the rock of revelation, when prophets make mistakes, it can call into question other claims that prophets and apostles have made. A statement like Goff shared that implies a kind of "de facto infallibility" status on the prophets feels like it misses so many of the issues.

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. 

I will call to attention the scripture:
I happen to know a thing or two about foundations.  While the foundations we build are quite different than in Biblical times, some principles remain.  That is why they used to teach us how the ancients did it.  Unfortunately, I've since learned that a lot of the old stuff is no longer taught.  But be that as it may...
When setting up a square or rectangular building, they would set four cornerstones.  One of them was determined to be the chief cornerstone.  Why is there a "chief" corner?  Well, there has to be something that defines the rest of the building.  Something has to be the definition of "correct".  Everything else is relative to that standard.
There was great care to make the chief cornerstone perfectly rectangular by use of the 3-4-5 triangle.  The other stones were also supposed to be squared at each corner. But slightly less care was used in making those.  The "last little bit of imperfection" was hard to get rid of.  So, by getting 95% there, was a huge time/cost saver for the other stones.
Once all four stones were set in place, the corners were then checked.  They were always off by a little bit. So, if the three were in alignment with each other, but they were off of the chief corner, they did not move the chief corner.  They moved the other three, because the chief corner is always correct.
While the other three were allowed some error, the most important part of the other corners was to have a single point exactly at the secondary corners of the building as defined by their location from the Chief Corner.  And again, the 3-4-5 triangle was very helpful in guiding those locations.  If there was misalignment, we moved all three other corners before we'd move the chief corner.
Rotation from that corner point was also important.  It could be off a small amount.  And sometimes construction and earth movement caused some shifting of the stones. But the chief corner was not rotated.  The other three stones would have to move to accommodate the chief corner. 
They did what they could.  But a little bit of error was always expected.  The most important thing was that the actual corner of each cornerstone was set in the correct place as the actual corner of the building.  The rest of the stone could be a little off and the building would still be sound.

I keep returning to the concept of the different types of doctrine.  
Core or Eternal
Supportive
Policy
Esoteric
Our testimonies should be based upon core and eternal doctrines.  Every GC talk dwells on core and supportive doctrine.
What we see in these “Protestant Mormons” is that they don’t have a testimony based on core doctrine. They ignore core and supportive doctrine and are critical of policy and esoteric doctrine.
The adversary is insidious.  He loves misdirection.
My testimony is based upon Jesus Christ.  Not a statement about COVID vaccines.
Policy changes.  Esoteric doctrine is fun but cannot grant salvation.  Esoteric doctrine can also lead to dark nebulous paths.  
Jacob 6:8, 12 O be wise; what can I say more?

I believe I understand and, to an extent, sympathize with this point of view. But I think it distorts the reality. Insofar as the "LDS Protestants" or "progmos" or whatever label you want to give them are simply Saints wrestling with the flesh and the doubts that arise from the flesh, I suspect the body of Saints would be nearly unanimous in embracing them and encouraging them to continue their fellowship. If we encourage those with doubts to leave, then we all are lost.
The problem is not with those who doubt or whose revelatory testimonies are sometimes weak. Rather, it is with those who, doubting the veracity of the Church's claims about itself and the inspiration of its leaders, try to lead the Saints down another path, one more to their societal and political liking. There is no sin in saying, "I do not know that the Restored Church of Jesus Christ is the one and true kingdom of God upon the earth", but there is grave sin in saying, "Russell Nelson is no prophet of any God I care to follow", or "The 'Mormon' Church is wrong in not recognizing the sacred beauty of homosexual relationships, and we should stop paying our tithing and stay away from that cult until such a time as they receive a 'revelation' <wink wink> that gay couples can be sealed in the temple the same as anyone else."
Even if you soften the inflammatory language, the point is that those who encourage apostasy, heresy (a term seldom used among Latter-day Saints), and rebellion against legitimate authority are the majority of the loud "progmo" voices. Theirs is not a mild, honest seeking through personal doubts and struggles; rather, theirs is a revolutionary spirit of pride and intolerance to "the establishment" and "the patriarchy". So if we are limiting our conversation to those people, those who are concerned about imposing their preferences and with absolutely no desire to repent and conform to the revealed word of God, then frankly I completely agree that (in the words of Elder McConkie) such people have found or should find their way out of the Church.
And here exactly is where the progmos completely miss the boat. Of course prophets, being mortal men, are fallible. That is neither the question nor the point. When the First Presidency chose to reduce the missionary service period for elders from 24 months to 18 months, they were attempting to extend the blessings of missionary service to more young men who otherwise might not have been able to afford a two-year mission. After several years, when it became apparent that the anticipated increase in missionary service numbers did not happen and that the net effect was a drastic reduction of missionaries around the world, the First Presidency changed course and returned the missionary period to 24 months. Yet even if we choose to view this effort as some sort of failure or mistake, it makes zero difference. My duty was not to decide whether the First Presidency was making the right choice in reducing the period of missionary service; my duty was to serve as called.
Are our prophets calling upon us to sacrifice our children? To engage in sexually destructive behavior? To lie to our fellow man, or embezzle funds from our work? What, exactly, are the prophets preaching that is so dangerous? To avoid fornications? Yes, in our modern perverse society, chastity itself is seen, not merely as risible, but as dangerous. So what are we to do? We are to ignore the voices of mockery and wickedness and choose to hold tight to the iron rod, and to teach our children so to do. We are to meet together with the Saints every week, drawing strength from those who share our covenants. We are to be a light to the world, so that those with eyes to see (and they do exist) may witness God in action through us, hear his voice through his Spirit and our actions, and come unto him and be our sisters and brothers in Christ.
The "September Six" and their ilk liked to pretend there were great "spiritual abuses" going on in the Church. When asked to show these, they inevitably trotted out examples of aberrant behavior (e.g. leaders engaged in illegal activity) or, mostly, of leaders simply doing what they were called to do, including acting as common judges in Israel. Yes, those leaders sometimes excommunicated people they thought were unrepentant. That's the authority they were given. Excommunicating someone who openly rebels and fights against the Church is not an abuse; it is an obvious action taken by any entity that is concerned with preserving its own survival.
Neither will. This is not an issue that can be resolved by smart people with smooth speech. Our hope lies only and entirely in Jesus Christ and in the Church and kingdom he has restored. Resolution of these issues will come through prophetic guidance from above through the First Presidency, not merely through individual initiative of random Saints. (Though such individual initiative could potentially prove very profitable, if done in earnest effort and honest humility of heart.)

I can't speak to the Protestant Mormons. However, Martin Luther believed that the church would consider his proposed reforms. He did not predict a schism. Perhaps it wasn't so obvious--at least not at first.

My first reaction when I first saw this: Most histories I see claim that Martin Luther never wanted nor intended to separate from Catholicism when he first wrote his 95 theses (and maybe nailed them to the door of the church). But, for some reason, others in Catholicism, rather than engage with Luther's doubts and concerns and criticisms, chose to push him out of the Catholic church which led to the Reformation (obviously, I'm simplifying/oversimplifying the history). In the same way, it really seems to me that the conservative LDS church, when faced with "LDS Protestant" doubts and concerns and criticisms tend to call "wolf in sheep's clothing" or some such rather than really engage and wrestle and struggle with the "LDS Protestant's" doubts and concerns and criticisms. In this respect, I think Goff's observation is likely true. A "schism" is on the horizon. It sometimes seems to me that Goff and other ultraorthodox like him insist that the LDS Protestants bear all the blame for the coming schism and never want to consider their own role in promoting said schism. I think one of the most frustrating ideas that comes from them is a call for "progmos" to hurry up and leave the church, because it's inevitable (somehow) and the church has no place for progressives (or doubters or some such).
I find it interesting that Goff chooses a quote about following the prophet as if the prophet cannot make any mistakes. I find that almost all of my own "LDS Protestant" views center around the question of prophetic fallibility and what God expects us to believe and do in the face of prophetic errors. I'm no Luther, so won't go publishing my own theses, but, if I did, they would probably center around the exact same issue that Goff chooses to highlight here.
I suppose we'll see what happens. I found it interesting in my reading of Paul Reeve's history of the priesthood and temple ban that he noted that the LDS church avoided the schisms the plagued other Protestant denominations around the race and slavery issues, in spite of having plenty of people on both sides of that particular divide. Perhaps Goff is wrong and maybe the church will figure out how to keep people together in spite of such a divisive issue. If there are bridges to be found, I doubt that Goff will be the one to find and build those bridges (someone mentioned Givens -- he might be able to do it, though).

Correct. It’s the members who do it. I’m not sure why they do it, because I can‘t read minds. I’ve never heard a bishop or SP do it. 

My understanding is that Martin Luther did not initially want to start a schism. However, church leadership required that he recant his criticisms. It was not enough that he stop complaining--he had to publicly apologize for his criticisms and say he was wrong. That he could not do. 

The term "schism" is not used by President Lee. He is speaking of wolves in sheep's clothing (bolded above) who deceive the saints. No inroad (a precedent to a schism) has been made within the "authority of the Church," and a consistent message is put forth by the President, First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Members challenging and leaving the Church is not a schism. Wolves are typically called out before long and whether they are around or not, the governing quorums remain intact. President Lee's counsel is for the safety of the members, and not for the integrity and preservation of the governing quorums. Our leadership does not divide and label the membership into opposing camps, and I find it unwise to suggest this approach to dealing with increasing power of Satan as expressed through the hypocrites that are bound to worship among us.

From my outsider lense, there seems to be a similarity between LDS theology and Catholic theology when it comes to authoritativeness. In Catholicism scripture interpretation rests in the authority of the Pope and church hierarchy. In LDS practice church members sustain the prophetic mantle of the President and a few other leaders who have authority as prophets. There really is not room for private or personal interpretations, except perhaps in the area of applying prophetic utterances. I'm I understanding correctly? 

that one of our younger sisters sent him.

Is this the LDS version of that great Old Testament story about Shadrach, Meshach, and "Into-Bed-You-Go"?

I had heard this before. I don't think I heard it as a youth, it was sometime after growing up, but I don't recall exactly when I first heard it.

OK.
YouTube just changed their terms of service so that ad-blockers are now no longer allowed, this despite the fact that the Chrome browser, which is owned by the same company that owns YouTube, has built-in ad blocking. 
Right now if it detects that you have an ad blocker you're restricted to only three videos at a pop. Not sure if this is daily or three final videos period. 
But for those who were watching church videos (et al) on YouTube, you're either going to have to make a hard choice or going to have to find another outlet. 

People do a lot of foolish things--sometimes even evil ones--in the name of their God. Some of these have been Christians. Churches and individuals should want to align with truth. If a church or an individual believes that Jesus is God the Son, then would they not want to identify with the Christian faith?
Jews believe Jesus was a false prophet, so they would not call themselves Christians. Muslims believe that Jesus was a true prophet, but that God had no sons--that Jesus is not the Son of God. So, they do not call themselves Christians. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is a great prophet, a great teacher, and that he is God's son--but not equal to Jehovah--perhaps a god. So, they deride "Christendom," and want nothing to do with it.
LDS, while not trinitarian, do believe that Jesus is the Son of God. How closely the church wishes to align with the greater Christian movement remains an open question.