Bensalem

I don't think the goal is for people to "(live) congruently with (personal) beliefs and values." I think the goal is to live congruently with Christ's beliefs and values. And since the LDS Church represents those beliefs and values, we should try to live according to the Church's beliefs and values.

As I have said, at a minimum we should live a repentant lifestyle.

I have not judged; I have only spoken to answer the question of the OP. Others have taken offense to what I have said and so I am placed in a position to defend it. That is hardly extraordinary for a discussion forum.

His love was made true on the cross. The grace of His Atonement stands as witness of His love for us. Our love can only be demonstrated through obedience to repentance as his Word guides us to partake of the sacrament.

My words forbid nobody; they call the disobedient to obedience. But if they repent not they shall not be numbered with the saints. Aren't inactives just fooling themselves? I do not wish to support their delusion.

Glad to have you back. I hope you have spoken with your bishop about how you feel. He will surely direct you appropriately. I don't see how anything I said would make you feel you are "wasting (your) time trying to rekindle (your) relationship with the church and God". I have recommended repentance and partaking of the sacrament. All inactives should work with their bishop toward that goal, which I have equated to active faith. Good luck, brother.

God will force no man to heaven. That is why our choices here are so important. Neither can man obtain what they do not deserve. Don't confuse His flexibility with His inevitability in justice.

I believe your comparison of my intentions to that of Lucifer's is misplaced. I am calling inactives to repentance and obedience to Christ. Would Lucifer do that? More likely, he would be happy to persuade them that everything will be just fine in spite of their disobedience and hypocrisy. You see, he wants everyone to be like he is.

Until you specify my incorrectness, I find it unproductive to address your opinion.

Well that throws out about 30%+ people that show up every Sunday.note - I disagree with the above statement. Quote: Originally Posted by Bensalem. You actually think withdrawing physically is preferable? I certainly hope you are NEVER in a position of authority.You can't teach them if they are not there. The Church is not a resting place for the perfect, its an aid station for the ill. Are those 30% repenting of not paying tithe? Doesn't repentance include restitution? Are they paying tithe the following week or are they just 'repenting' again? Doesn't repentance mean change? In my mind they are spiritually inactive. Physically active or spiritually active, which defines faith? Hypocrisy is worst than disobedience because it is dishonest disobedience. You say, "You can't teach them if they are not there." But neither can the Spirit teach them if they are not spiritually present. The best outcome is to repent and stay in the Church.

Sorry I misunderstood. I equate guilt with self-examination not with God's condemnation. And when you said, you "reconnect(ed) with the truths I love", I assumed repentance and being healed through the Atonement was one of them. Would God lead you out of the Church? Perhaps if He wanted to save you from the crime of hypocrisy, He would. But I think He would lead you to repentance first.

No, that's not what I am saying at all. I am saying it is better to be a sinner outside of the Church, than a hypocrite inside the Church. There are plenty of examples in scripture of Christ pointing out his disdain for hypocrisy, but in regards to Church inactivity I will highlight his teaching of the father who asks one son to go and work in fields. The son refuses, so he asks another son who agrees to go but does no work. Christ leaves us with the question, which son is more condemned? I am answering that question. The more condemned is the son who made an agreement with his father. The first exercised his free will before making the promise. He at least was truthful. The second son was a hypocrite.

Thanks for sharing so tenderly. Great to have you back. It is clear you first condemned yourself, no doubt you repented, and God was there for you. If my words shed light on His condemnation, perhaps it will start the process of self-evaluation and lead others to repentance. That is my goal. I think the greater sin would be to portray to the inactive that there disobedience does not come without consequences.

You just gave me a warning and you called me to repentance. By my words, I have done the same. Are you allowed to, but I am not, or are we both allowed to? Regarding your accusation of unjust dominion I would like to direct you to Paul in the epistles, who teaches to call a brother aside and reprove him and if he does not change to seek the counsel of an elder regarding the matter. I have done the same, albeit, electronically. I don't mind being corrected, so long as the correction is supportable in the Word of God. In other words, please address the incorrectness of what I have said, not the offence you my feel by the words.

You say, "(my) attitudes will need to answer to God". Yet they come out of love for my brother. Meanwhile, many here seem to be saying that obedience is not required. Will they have to answer to God for such a lesson? Or how about the inactive in faith, will they be held accountable for their inactivity? My words may offend, but that does not make them any less true. If the truth offends them and they are "chased away" they will be held accountable, not me. My words, which call them to action and activity, are the same as calling them (back) to Christ. You say, "I think we all need to watch better what we say". I say, we all need to watch what we don't say. If God was standing in front of these interactive members, would He be silent? Or would He call them back to obedience? As a priest I have the authority to act in His name; so I open my mouth. I never claimed to be sinless. And I never called the inactive to perfection. I called them to repentance and the sacrament. Neither did I cast stones. I spoke the truth; it is God that wields the sword.

Oh my, it appears I have ruffled some feathers and have a lot to answer for. Let me go and have lunch and think about it further. Sometimes I take a lap after lunch, so please be patient with me. While I am away I hope you will consider all that I have said related to this topic and how the discussion has come to this. We will serve the reader better by removing the emotion and by addressing the doctrinal points I have made. I remain confident that it is my just duty to have said these things to my brothers and sisters in the Church. I have not cast anyone out. I have only warned them of their own lack of obedience to the covenants they made and "condemned" them to not receiving the blessings promised by God from His side. I believe such a warning is supported by scripture. It seems to me that my detractors need to prove to me that scriptures support the opposite of what I am sharing. Namely, that broken covenants means nothing to God and that His promises to us are obtainable regardless of our obedience to our covenants.

What you say about the need for a change of heart vs pure informational persuasion is true. That is why in my earlier post I addressed the hope each religion teaches and compared them; hope comes from the heart. My approach in so doing is to change the hope one has in their heart. As I implied, my wife's heart was not changed. But at least she has the information of what LDS hope for. Maybe she will someday hope for the same things and be motivated to seek them out. Thanks for the example of Korihor. It answers a question I had during my own conversion. I was always concerned about Elijah killing all the prophets of Baal after proving their god to be false (or at least absent) and his God to be true (or at least responsive in fire). I felt that all those hundreds of witnesses would serve God well. I guess like Alma, Elijah knew better. Satan continues to wield his power to "strike the heels" of the descendants of Adam and Eve. His victory is to stop the progression of God's children anywhere short of exaltation in Israel or eternal families in the Priesthood. As you said, "the lack of testimony regarding the power of the Priesthood" (which I believe is crippling) derails the receipt of the covenants, which lead to the "steps needed to change the heart" and progress beyond doctrine frozen in time. Revelation and a belief in the only living church on earth is the antidote for Satan's poison. What else will allow people to break his grasp and reach for the new hope found in His everlasting gospel?

You are right.

In as much as the designer reveals himself to someone, understanding the design would certainly be benefited. And I think we are talking about understanding the science behind the design. But I don't think it is guaranteed in this life. I don't believe our human brain is capable of understanding all things related to God and His universe in this life. My ultimate hope is that God will share all knowledge; the promise in the LDS church is that we too can be omnipotent like Him. I think we need a glorified mind to understand all things.

The question is not, "Do you want to be honest?" The question is, "Have you been honest?" And I think it is an opportunity to BE honest. If something is bothering you about your dealings with your fellow man, it is an opportunity for repentance before entering the House of God.

I agree that "the Holy Ghost is pure intelligence (intellect)" but what about those who claim spirituality or spiritual insight outside of an understanding of the Holy Ghost and who he speaks to? And couldn't the spiritual intellect of the devil also influence the human intellect?

First, I am a latter-day saint. Notice, I didn't simply say, "I am LDS" or "I am a member of the Church". We become saints when we are baptized and I want us all to remain saints through repentance and partaking of the sacrament. Second, teaching the gospel comes with the territory. It is a requirement. Maybe you have heard the phrase, "Every member a missionary". I take that to heart. My stewardship over my brothers (and sisters) in the church is directed by the bible. It is supported by the Church. It is an act of Christ's love. Third, inactivity is a serious problem for the faith and well being of the individual member. It puts in jeopardy their eternal salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God. Inactivity equals inactive faith. Forth, in regards to condemnation. The promise of our obedience to God comes with His promise of blessings to us. The example was given that the "damnation" I am speaking of was one of not receiving the blessings. It is the same lesson I have heard out of the mouth of many missionaries. Fifth, inactive members are already "out of the Church", at least spiritual if not physically. Therefore, my lesson in warning can only have a positive outcome in that they will return to an active faith or withdrawal physically, which is better than living their present hypocrisy.

Honesty is a virtue and so the question relates to your self-perceived virtue. In all the questions the interviewer has the gift of discernment by the Holy Ghost to determine the truth of your answers. Of course, deception is possible but that is no way to gain access to the Temple.

I like your perspective. As a mechanical design engineer, I try to understand not only the design but also the designer.

Okay, so give me a legitimate reason for not paying tithe that is also supported in the Word of God. Repentance is required for rectifying the sin of not paying tithe. And part of the repentance process is to make amends if possible. If you steal something, you should replace the item or the value of the item to the victim. Who is the victim of the non-tither? God himself. When we don't pay our tithe we are robbing God. May sound harsh but I am not a Bishop so I cannot judge or absolve an Israelite of his debt to God. I'm sure there are allowances made in the office of a Bishop.