estradling75

This... Note that when the Church was driven out and then resettled near people (Like Clay County) they asked for and received permission first. There is a huge difference between settling a place where no one is and having to build up infrastructure... (That is called Pioneering) And settling in a place were people already live and you are not welcome. (That is called invasion) Now one might say the pioneers invaded the place of the Native Americans... That could be a fair comparison... But then you have to convince me that experience the Native Americans had with people taking their lands is something I should want or should just let happen.

Indeed... Church is a prime place to be practicing living the Gospel (which is something we all need)

Families are one of the few places were we can truly practice the Law of Consecration . Therefore getting help from and giving help to (within the means available) are totally acceptable and understandable. Where the Law of Consecration fails in practice is when there are "idlers" (See various scriptural references). In spite of the fact that your sister has a job from your description she sounds like an "idler". More directly she sounds like the Prodigal Son, who having received an inheritance is wasting it on "riotous living" You are concerned because you know what happens next and you are naturally worried about the harm that will happen then. However your options for action are greatly limited. You can talk to them, share your concerns with them, but only your parents and your sister can take action to make changes.

No one should be surprised that when one sells their eternal birthright for a worldly mess of pottage (like Esau) that from the perspective of worldly pottage measuring they come out ahead. However like Esau it is only a matter of time (perhaps not this mortal life) before they realize how bad a deal that really was.

Interested

Funny how people are talking about the old missionary program... Last I checked the "six discussions" I taught as a missionary have been long sense obsoleted. In favor of the Preach My Gospel... I am not as familiar with that... When does it have the missionary extend the invitation? Because that is what the Leadership of the Church has set as the standard that we are discussing now. Not the old program.

Did he present it as "Thus Saith" the Lord revelation.. or as a "I have been wondering if" and seeking council from a limited set of trusted people (aka his wife, Brigham Young, Joseph Smith)? The first one is wrong... the second can be good part of our studies. And note the wise council of Brigham Young spot on in line with this idea

Speculation... persay is not the problem.. We are suppose to ponder and question and pray for guidance. But we are also instructed to use the Revealed Word of God (not just anything a prophet or General Authority might say) as our Gold standard, our benchmark. This is what we are to measure our speculation against. And we are also suppose to take Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Scriptures as our teachers. The problem is when we setup speculative ideas and embrace them as truth when they do not have the support of the Revealed Word of God... That is a form of idolatry. Worse yet is thinking the Lord has revealed some "new" truth to us privately... and then we take it upon ourselves to "share" this truth. Christ and the Holy Spirit are the teachers and it is against the order of Heaven for us to "reveal" such. When they want it known to the world they have a path for that and it is not through us.

I am a big fan of people making choices on what to buy or support for whatever reasons float their boat. And I am generally supportive of being able to make informed choices. With that being said I am not a fan of boycotts... To me boycotts cross from being informational (which I like) to trying to tell me how I should Think, Feel and Act... and trying to get me to engage in a PR stunt (which as noted usually back fires). Give me the information, then leave me to vote with my wallet. It will affect the business (or not) based how their customers choose to respond to their actions.

And if you are giving me your money that would be a bigger flaw then "To trusting" Whereas if it is my money and I lose it because I am "To trusting." then it becomes an expensive education.

Very very true... But if I had to have a flaw... "Too trusting" is better then a lot of other options.

And I said you "Quoted" those who were speculating. And then you Cited those you quoted when called on it. Thus you were second hand speculating on the thread the owner clearly asked for no speculations. As a mod that often has to deal with people trying to "cleverly" get around the rules, If I was the moderator in that situation I would have busted you for that. And I say that as a person that is supportive of our General Authorities having their own opinions and sharing them as they see fit. Bottom line is I have no problem with the argument you are making... the problem is how you chose to make it. You were not entitled nor privileged to make it in the way you did (which was against the explicit wishes of the site owner). When you choose to do it anyways the owners response is wholly predicable and justifiable. Please also note that the differences you are seeing (in this case) between this site and theirs is we have not asked anyone not to speculate. You can speculate as to the nature of the angel all you want here. And the only push back you are getting is from a poster with mod experience (not a poster acting as a moderator), who based on his experience thinks the action taken against you is not nearly as outrageous or unreasonable or biased as you are claiming that it is.

Which while true does not change the facts of this case. The owner of that site explicitly stated from the get go in that thread that there was to be no speculation on the identity of the angel. What did Mikbone do (per his own words)??... Quote speculation about the angel. What did he do when the post got removed (per his own words) Quote more speculation about the angel "with citations" because he assumed it was the lack of citations that was the problem. Not the direct flouting of the directions the site owner had given. There is nothing unfair or unjust or fraudulent about the owners actions here. While true to a point. If we state in a thread... "Do not do a certain behavior" Or "Stop a Certain behavior" and the behavior continues the clamps do come out and the hammer falls. And almost always the people we hammer claim to be "innocent" or otherwise justified

And so what if she is? We are partial here when it comes to comments as well. And those we shutdown feel its because we didn't like the opinion expressed... Those people also feel they have the right to make a stink about it... and they very rarely do so in a manner that makes any noticeable difference. Most of the time they do exactly what Mikbone has done. Resulting in being blocked and therefore no longer being heard by the very audience they were looking to be heard by. If we really think we are in a better position then those on the Bloggernacle then we need to employ better tactics when we engage them on their home turf... then they do when they come here. And we can't really call them hypocrites when they use the same tactics as we do without pointing a big old hypocritical finger back at ourselves

Neither am I discounting his frustration... Frustration caused by feeling entitled to the fruits of someone else's labor (no matter how tiny) is a frustration that can only righteously be dealt with by losing the sense of entitlement. @mikbone was never entitled to post on her site. He was privileged to post and lost that privilege (at least in this instance)

Still missing the point... On someone else's webpage you do not have the Right to Free Speech.. To think otherwise is an entitlement mind set. You post a comment on anyone else's page... They have to pay for it... Forcing them to pay for something they do not want is thief and robbery. You do not have the right to rob anyone. Many sites extend the 'privilege' of posting. Said privilege exist for only as long as the owner wants it to. Calling what they did censorship implies you have the right to rob them by forcing them to host your content. You do not have such a right. The sooner you realize that the sooner you can stop making clearly foolish arguments and focus on where you have stronger points.

You miss the point so far it is not even funny. You like this place because we because we by and large agree with you... So you have not had to deal with moderator actions. But I can personally guarantee you that we have deleted, blocked, banned many, many, many posters.. Who argument is a variation on yours.. If we are going to 'express an opinion (aka religion) we should be able defend our reasoning.... And we get accused of Censorship, Name Calling and <Gif Reaction>. And we are then told such a reaction does not reflect being Christian. The response is crap when it leveled against us... And it is crap when it gets leveled against some one else. Being able to defend your reasoning, logic, and beliefs is not the same as allowing someone to use your resources against you. The First makes sense... the Second is stupid. Case in point... when the LDS scholars do counter other scholars.. The ones countering post their counter on their own website... not in the comment section. You want to counter something said by someone in the Bloggernacle... go right ahead... but do it on your own site (or a neutral to friendly third party site)... Do not demand that the person you are countering also pay for it as well.

And it was your money that was paying for the site (or you were given authority by them) you could have that. But you are not.... so you do not get want you want. (Unless of course you want to start your own site where you can publish anything you want and only allow the comments you like... You could have it then.)

I don't know... If the very first post of the comment section is the owner of the site saying And then some one ignores that... repeatedly... Then yeah... I can totally empathize with the owner of the site deleting out of hand. It is not them being rude... but rather the poster who thinks they above the clearly given directions that is being rude.

I think the Lord said it best 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; 42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile— 43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; While talking about the priesthood... it clearly God's way of using any power or influence. We would be wise to follow his lead on the matter.

That would be a good question to ask your Bishop. Unlike anyone here, your Bishop has the Keys and the Authority to make that call. Random posters on this (or any other forum) do not. Therefore anyone's opinion here should be viewed in that light.

Indeed... from what I have read... the other parts of the site read like someone's personal scripture study journal... which is awesome because we are suppose to be studying the scriptures and feasting on the word. However someone's personal study and conclusions is not necessary correct. That passage seems to try to elevated it beyond that into the realm of revealed truth. And the scriptures are clear that God has a pattern for revealing truth to the world... And anyone that does not fit that pattern should not be trusted. This site does not follow the pattern. As for the Restored Covenant Edition itself... I like to study the Bible and compare it to the Joseph Smith Translation. Understanding that something has changed and pondering on 'why' it might have changed can be enlightening. Therefore I think having a way to see the changes and know were they occurred can be good. I am less keen on someone trying to dictate to me on 'why' it changed. That is almost always driven by someone else's interpretation which may or may not be correct.

Indeed... While I know there is a time and place for the "Jesus Loves you no matter what" truth... But the simple fact is that this life is not for Jesus to show how much He loves us (Which he does absolutely) But a time for us to Show how much we love Jesus... And that requires require more then just words... as flawed as our attempts to show that will be.

In this day and age.... I don't see why one could not reach out to their "real bishop" and get help/advice/council... No matter how far away one might be geographically.

Christ had alot to do... If it was not needful then why would he waste time on it? God word will not... can not... return void. In the last days when the books are opened and we are judged everything we have done will be there... but so will everything God has done because that is what we will be judged by/against. So yes I am of the mind that all prophecy will be documented... The only question is what does God consider acceptable documentation? That can be quibbled about. Your example of something everyone knows... someone will still make a record of it. Yes... to have developed our spiritual discernment to the level were we will not be deceived.. (either by other men or our own pride/ego)