mirkwood

HA!  Stabbed yourself in the head.

I'm not going by feelings either.  
 
We busted two trafficking groups in SL County last week.
 
But I guess I don't really have any knowledge on the topic.

This reminds me of Revelations 10:10
10 And I took the little book out of the angel’s hand, and aate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.

Ben Shapiro posted this on social media.  I think it is 100% accurate.
 
I think it has application to this as well:
 
 

 

Sadly not. 😉

Let me point out that what we say in this forum is not necessarily representative of what we say at Church or among Saints in the flesh. On this forum, an opinion/conversation/discussion forum, I am willing to voice ideas and viewpoints in explicit and blunt terms that I would be hesitant to do in a casual, friendly meeting of a group of Saints (e.g. an elders quorum party) and would probably refuse to do at church.
In my experience, blaming lack of attendance or participation on mean things said at Church is usually an excuse rather than a legitimate complaint. Such supposed offenses are often much lighter than represented or even non-existent. I can think of many examples through the years. I can also think of examples of people who really were treated offensively and who stuck it out. Sadly, I can think of a few where the offense, though not intended (or not intended quite as taken), did cause a rift. But that is the small minority of cases. Even in my own extended family, those who claim being offended are normally just looking for a reason to avoid taking responsibility. Frankly, I find it almost refreshing when a cousin or niece simply says she doesn't want to come to Church any more rather than look around for lame reasons to put the blame elsewhere.

Ben Shapiro posted this on social media.  I think it is 100% accurate.
 
I think it has application to this as well:
 
 

 

For the prophet is human and can make mistakes vs the Lord will not allow the prophet to lead the church astray I heard the following story that helped me with it.  (That being said I am not a historian so I do not know if this story is a some what true story or a complete Mormon Myth)

Brigham Young was speaking in the morning session of Conference.  It was a fiery speech full of instruction and direction for the Saints.   Then in the afternoon he spoke again,  He began,  by saying "This morning you heard from Brother Brigham. This afternoon you are going to hear from the Lord."  And the rest of his speech completely reversed instruction he had given in the morning speech.
That to me is an example how those two ideas work together.  The willingness to do the Lord's will over there own is one of those characteristic that seem to exist in all our prophets.  So if someone wants to say that the Priesthood Ban was "Brigham speaking in the morning" and the Lifting of the Ban was the "Lord speaking in the afternoon" I have no problem with that.
The problem comes with the idea Brigham some how bound God and God could not correct the  course until Kimball that i do not accept.  Trying to protect an image of God by rendering him powerless seems foolhardy to me.   That being said.. . Trying to understand what God is accomplishing with the Ban... what greater purpose it served...  That can be a brain twister.  The church has not told us this. So we are left to our own logic an reasons.  I found mine but it is worth exactly nothing to anyone else.

FTR: @Just_A_Guy and I are totally joking.