estradling75

Yes that is also what they teach... But Oliver Cowdery was not the only scribe. If we pretend there were no other scribes we hide history. If we acknowledge there were other scribes then we should also include their accounts of the events or again we are editing and hiding the facts (aka the historical records). Now we can challenge the accuracy of these records (which is not the same as editing or hiding). But since they all show Joseph Smith translating atypically to a more scholarly method of translation it all works to the larger truth of "By the Gift and Power of God". Therefore there not a lot to be gained to tring to "disprove" these historical records and a lot to lose by ignoring it.

Indeed.. The facts are those records exists. If the church pretends they do not... then the church gets accused of hiding the "truth" Wereas the church teaches that the translation was done 'By the gift and power of God.' (per the testimony of Joseph Smith himself). And here are some reports and records were people who were close during that process and what they have to say about it. There is no hiding and people can decide for themselves what they think rather then having someone force there opinion upon them.

While true... You are forgetting the fact that the RLDS where not and are not hostile to Joseph Smith. While they might be more then happy to call out Brigham Young as wrong and apostate. To do so at the expense of the character of Joseph Smith or truthfulness of the Book of Mormon would be to slit their own throats. Therefore any interview with an elderly Emma by the RLDS church had every reason to get the best possible spin on the character of Joseph Smith and the translation process. Because they also believed in it. It is not until the subject of later church events (like polygamy) do the RLDS have any reason to spin truth in a way that is hostile the 'Utah Mormons'

Do you put on a seat belt when you drive a car? If so why? Statically speaking nothing is likely to happen. But cars are involved in many many deaths. In-spite of that that you know nothing is likely to happen chances are you do so anyways... Because... should something happen anyways... the seat belt increases your chances of survival and lowers the amount of harm. And no the seat belt is not perfect you might die or be seriously harmed anyways. Carrying a gun is like putting on a seat belt. Odds are (and you really hope) you do not need it. And it is no guarantee for when things go wrong, but your chances go up. Are you equally put off by those that wear seat belts because it makes them feel safe as you are gun carriers? because if you are not... you have bought into the anti gun hype.

In the Book of Mormon Captain Moroni Rebukes the people for thinking they can do "Nothing" and that God would just save them... Other places in the scripture we are told that God will fight our battles and protect us if we are faithful. It is a mistake to think those are contradictory statements rather then complementary ones. The trick is learning how to balance the two ideas... And that balance can be different for different people.... it can even be different for the same people at different times

Anger is not a evil emotion... it is a highly volatile one. Which is why God's criteria is moved upon by his spirit... I think it is pretty safe to say that Jesus was moved upon by the spirit when he over threw the money changers in the temple... Given what we know about Moroni it seems safe to say that he was as well (in the above verse)

It is foolish to deny the plain word of God in the scriptures. He has a whole excommuncation process laid out, in our day and he instructed Alma on a similar process in the Book of Mormon times. God loves everyone... But only those that love God in return (by trying to keep the commandments) are going to make the kingdom.

Again way to miss the point... But that seems to be the way you work and I see no point in continuing

Welcome @Jekar You are always welcome to come and join us at church. (The sign says visitors welcome for a reason) You can always read the scriptures. You can always pray. You can always talk to the missionaries. As for coming back... You have already effectively excommunicated yourself even if the paperwork was not done. If coming back is what you want then that is a clear sign of repentance and changing of behavior which is exactly what Bishop want to see.

Welcome @Kazleighton What you are experiencing is what we call "Feeling the Spirit" it a pretty common experience in the Christian Conversion process. (and General Christian experience) Now you probably do not really know what that means so let me break it down. God exists. And he is now reaching out to you. God loves you, and he has a plan for you. Now under other circumstances you would just laugh at me and call me crazy. You would have no reason to believe me. Except now you are feeling it for yourself. You are experiencing it for yourself. And that makes all the difference. So again welcome to the site. It is always exciting when God brings us someone new.

Ohh now who is judging motives... Accusing me of pride telling God how to judge when what I have done was reference what the Lord had said in scriptures. Lets go over that scripture in detail shall we. Here is the Beginning of it in Doctrine and Covenant 121 : 30 This is God saying while he has called many only a few will he choose... Thus God is telling us about a judgement he will make. Then in verse 35 he answers the Question with the statement that its because we did not learn one lesson. Verses 36 through 39 he then teaches the lesson of unrighteous dominion. And then he repeats that is why in verse 40. Then from verse 41 onward he goes from the negative (what we should not do) to the positive (what we should do) In verse 43 he authorized the use of Sharpness.... let read it and note the conditional. This is not me making stuff up. This is not me pridefully dictating to God how he should judge. This is me showing you exactly the Word of God on the matter... Fully expecting that God will keep his word. So lets follow what the Lord has said. The only acceptable condition for us to use sharpness is when moved by the Spirit. (Again this is the Lords condition not mine). Note that truth, righteous, faithfulness, and a lot of other very good things are excluded. If we use sharpness without being moved by the Spirit any other 'Good stuff' we might have as motivation does not matter. We will have shown that we have failed to learn the lesson. And if we ultimately do not learn lesson the Lord is clear he will not Choose us. Does that sound Good to you? Does not being Chosen by God sound like a bad thing? It does to me. Now the good thing is, is that we can repent. That we can try to learn the lesson, that when we screw it up (and I know I do) we can repent and try to do better. But we can't repent if we do not know that what we are doing is wrong in the eyes of God. If we tell ourselves that it is ok because we spoke 'truth' with Sharpness even though we were not moved by the Spirit then we are blind ourselves to our sin, and that will not end well.

But it completely makes mine... Just because something is true doesn't make it the right thing to do... Thus if we say something sharp that hurts someone we do not get to hide behind... "But it is true" Not in God's eyes (and his are the only ones that matter) not as his priesthood holders not as someone that is trying to follow him.

Or they are simply playing the odds. Their is only one way to have the correct motivations... There are thousands and millions of wrong ways. Yet all of them can claim that they are speaking the truth. And we are also counseled against taking the word of another person spiritual experiences as truth. (Unless we get our own spiritual confirmation which is how missionaries work). So even if a person was to claim Spiritual guidance we are instructed to discard it (Again unless we get a spiritual confirmation for ourselves). Thus motivation can be a valid defense specifically if the one using sharpness have shown the possibility of other motives (say like repeated expressions of frustration)

Its the only thing that can be targeted... Truth is a impossible target to disprove... it can only be blurred and distracted from. That being said it is not always the will of God that truth be spoken with sharpness. The are cases in the scriptures were the Lord tells his prophet to shut up. (Yes that is a crude expression but you know what I mean.)

I would like to spin off this point(I am not attempting to disagree but rather to expand on this)... There is an answer to this question. But is not answer that outsiders to the one speaking can usually tell. In the Doctrine and Covenants we are told what it takes to Righteously and Correctly exercise priesthood power. The scriptures also talk about putting on the Armor of God. In both cases the scriptures describe our weapon of 'Sharpness'. In the Armor of God it is the Sword of the Spirit. In the instruction on Priesthood it is when 'moved upon by the Spirit'. Note what the weapon is not... It is not Righteousness, it is not Faith, it is not even Truth... Our weapon is the Spirit (Although Spirit can contain all that and more). If we think we are OK because we have the truth. And we work with sharpness without the Spirit we are simply using damaging words (no matter how truthful they are). The Spirit of the Lord is Grieved and the Heavens withdraw themselves. Now externally it can be very hard to tell if a person 'Sharpness' or 'Hardness' is spiritually guided. (as the example of Nephi shows those getting cut are going to protest either way) All I can say is from my own experience and guidance from Church leaders is that we are very likely using 'Sharpness' or 'Hardness' without spiritual directions more often then we are. And that calls for individual introspection and repentance.

In the D&C the Lord talks about the work Joseph Smith did/was doing. He repeatedly used the statement "Laying a Foundation" When I see construction projects I know the foundation is a critical part... but I am generally not wise or savvy enough to visualize from the foundation what the final product will look like.

If one was writing in a private journal or even venting to friends the flaws of this article could be excused... But when one chooses to publicly say to the world "Stop and listen to what I have to say and then do it." well then one better have some pretty solid arguments... or you will fail miserably, only convincing those that already believe and looking like a fool to everyone else. There are two path a person can take to try to persuade others. Logically and emotionally This article fails on both counts. The logical argument is pathetic. It can be summed up as "Telling some one what to wear violates their agency and there ability to express themselves." The article makes no defense, and offer no support for this argument. We are expected to simply agree and accept it. However the argument is childish and ultimately leads to a satanic place. Let me demonstrate with an example. I am a t-shirt and shorts kind of guy, per the article that is how I express myself and an act of agency. and there is a nugget of truth to that claim. However there are many times I do not get what I want. Work requires me to be in 'Business Casual', Church 'Sunday Best', the weather makes requirements of me, and even when I am home chilling my wife might state 'Your wearing that' (Well clearly not any more). Per the article work, church, weather and even my spouse are all robbing me of my agency and my ability to express myself. It takes very little thought to realize how absurd that is. Point of fact I can choose to wear a t-shirt to work, to church, when there is a foot of snow on the ground, and when my wife is giving me the look. I can totally use my agency and express myself. But there will be consequence and they could be very damaging. The argument the article makes is not about agency or expressing even if that is how she phrases it... It is about avoiding consequences of how we choose to express ourselves. That is the argument of a child. God is the great defender of agency. God is the great lawgiver who warns of punishment for disobedience. These are not conflicting statements. In the gospel we have agency, and the consequences of our actions all have to be dealt with. (Either by ourselves or through Christ). The only place I have ever heard of the idea of 'consequence free' actions is from some members when describing what they think Satan's plan was.. That is not a good endorsement. Then there is the emotional argument made in the article. "Being told what to wear is oppressive" This is another argument that is not supported. The article claim it is oppressive of women and then expects me to jump to end the oppression. Do not get me wrong... oppression of anyone is horrible and needs to stop, but she fails to make the case that is it oppressive. The standard of the Church for clothing for worship is "Your best." We know this we accept this. What we need to be very clear about is that this standard is about attitude. It is attitude that is expressed through clothing, but it is not clothing. In the article she uses her bishop as an example of this oppression. The bishop by her own words is focused on her attitude, her clothes are of no import except as a way for her to express herself and her attitude. Which the bishop asks for clarification on. All the posters in this thread who have express problems with her position have also been focused on attitude. Yet in spite of article declaring that clothes can be used to express ones self, and therefore show ones attitude.. if some member is concerned about what someone might be expressing such member is being oppressive. This makes no sense as outline. The only way it makes sense is a a sly way to be free from the logical and fully reasonable consequence of ones expressions of agency. That is not oppression . Finally by trying to play on the emotional oppression theme... she forgets that large the membership of the church by the standard she endorses suffers under even greater oppression. That group is the priesthood holders who since the age of 12 is expected to wear a white shirt and tie. Where is the talk about this oppression? Where is the support for 'Wear Hawaiian shirts to church day?' Where is the full throated support to help the men of the church throw off the shackles of the oppressive white shirt and tie regime? She does not address the very real issues that the men of the church would clearly have if her claims are true. Which means she did not think it though or she does not really believe it and is trying for something else. Here is a pro-tip for her... If you want play the oppression card you need to 'Check your Privilege'...Because when a large number of your audience says "We wish we had your problems" you are not going to get the support you desire.

Here is it... I dislike white shirts... they stain and discolor too easily. (and ties... who thought tying an noose around ones neck to start the day was a good idea?) From various leaders both local and general it seems clear that white shirts and ties are what is expected from priesthood holders (barring some local exception) Therefore I express my self and exercise my agency to follow and meet the expectation. I also realize that not everyone agrees with me, and it is not my place to make any kind of judgment. (Unless some leader delegates to me [like find worthy priesthood holders in white shirts and ties to help with the sacrament]). So I totally get the idea of not likening what you are expected to wear, but for me I will try to meet the expectation place on me by those I trust and respect... because that is the kind of person I am, and the kind of person I want to be.

Indeed she pushes really hard on the idea that if people can't wear what they want... then they are being denied their agency and ability to express themselves. But apparently she can only be bothered to talk about women and pants and how they are oppressed and suffer... Whereas with but a moment thought I know that the priesthood holders operate just fine under much harsher restrictions.

In the case were you are called to council with the leaders.... then yes... such discussion are part of your calling and stewardship. In the case were you are not called to council with the leader... then no.... such discussions are not part of your calling and stewardship.

My complaint is simple. She calls for empathy and understanding for while showing none.

Context matters. I have been addressing the article in question and showing it clear flaws... Show me in the linked article where she talks about it... Show me anywhere in her writing where she acknowledged that the very people she is complaining about have exactly the same demands (other women) or worse (men).

Indeed. The bottom line is that a couple looking to get married need to have several seriously honest discussions on a variety of topics. Religious status and expectations is just one. Until you do.. you run the risk of serious and potentially relationship killing misunderstanding and assumptions. Now having those discussions might kill the relationship anyways... But in this case sooner that happens (if it is going to) the better.

Indeed.... Per the argument given in the article the church is denying you your agency and your ability to express yourself. Funny how when they try to support that point they never talk about the priesthood holders and how they feel about being in exactly that position.

Actions speak louder then words... It is clearly an issue or she wouldn't have included it. She can call it whatever she wants... the context she gives for says otherwise.