mirkwood

So this weekend's episode of "Sammy Hagar's Top Rock Countdown" is him playing spooky songs from various artists because it's Halloween next week. 
He was rolling through such classics as "Werewolves of London" and "Welcome To My Nightmare", but I had to change the channel for a few minutes when a certain infamous Rolling Stones number came on. I've had enough go wrong today, and don't want to invite anything else to happen. 

I know what it says.  I can go read it myself (and re-did that before posting).  I asked what you meant.  It shouldn't take paragraphs of quoting to answer what you meant.
Nowhere does the essay say that the priesthood ban was revealed by God.  Nowhere does it say that the priesthood ban was not revealed by God.  The essay is silent on whether the ban was by revelation from God or was of man.  Anyone who thinks otherwise is lacking in reading comprehension.
The essay comments on the facts of the ban (who did what when).  The essay comments on after-the-fact explanations and justifications which various parties used to explain the ban.  Only these after-the-fact explanations are rejected.
Nothing in the essay negates that statement.
Other parties can twist and distort and believe what they will.  That was not my question and cannot be my concern.  My only concern is to reiterate and ensure there is no confusion on your part (nor on the part of others who will read this) that the essay is silent on the question of whether the ban was instituted by God.  Therefore, no one can use the essay to say "it wasn't revealed by God" (nor to say similar things such as, "it was instituted by Brigham Young because he was racist") - you cannot use the essay to support such an assertions, because it doesn't.

I would agree, but I'm also not wrong about the topic.

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.

Yes, because you are wrong.
 
 
 
 
As for the genocide question, God seems to think there are times it is okay.
 
Deuteronomy 20
16 But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:
17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee:
 

Airth Castle.

 

That's a good, spooky story. I had a companion, not known for "telling stories," tell me of an experience of being followed home by something evil following an appointment at a woman's home where they experienced things moving on their own. They used the priesthood to rid themselves of it. I had an investigator, getting ready for baptism, who had an encounter with a man in white in her bedroom that scared her to death. She called us at 10:00 at night and asked if we could come over and bless her home. So yes, I firmly believe that evil can interact with this world.

Around 2012 I took a nightshift job at a luxury 5 star hotel having spent 6 years caring for my mother who had just passed a few weeks before hand. The hotel was out in the sticks and it was split into 2 parts. 

The newer building which had all the trapping that a weary traveller would expect in the 21st century. Bar, restaurant, and a top of the line pool and spa. On top of the hill however, sat a very very old castle. 

I settled in just fine and nothing seemed out of the ordinary. Well, not quite. You see every now and then I'd start a shift and do my nightly walk around the premises to do the fire alarm checks. I did those twice a night. And sometimes, I'd come across a pile of washing dumped outside the rooms. And sometimes, I'd even come across a vacuum sitting in the middle of the room, still plugged in blasting away. I now know this is because the chamber maids were asked to work in the castle by themselves and when they got spooked they'd cut and run. Nobody else during the day would go up given the state the maids were in. 

So after settling in the months of hard work and drama passed. December arrived and one night ( i believe it was around december 23rd ) if memory serves me well, I think this would have been a Sunday because it was the second last shift of my rota and it was very very quiet. Only 1 guest was with us that night although I didn't know this at the time. 

So my boss and I were hanging in the office at around 2:30 am, when she announced she was going for a cigarette break. I sat on the chair and watched the cctv with one screen focusing on her. It was then i received a phone-call from the castle. Room 4 I believe. There was nothing there. Just a little static and crackling before the line going dead. Another minute passes and another call comes in. Room 11 this time. Same thing happened. When the third call came in I figured the lines were dodgy  but there was clearly some disturbance up at the castle. Noise complaint is how I figured it. 

My boss comes back and I grab the device I use to for my fire checkpoints. Just before I left reception and went through the door I said to my boss I was also going to go up to the castle and  check on the noise complaints. When I get to the door of the castle she hits me up over the radio and asks '' what complaints? '' then after I told her about the calls she radioed back and said '' there is only one guest booked in tonight and he's down here in the main complex. ''. 

From there, I told her I was going to do a full sweep of the rooms because it sounds like maybe a homeless person had found a maids key and used it for a place to sleep over the festive period. She informed me that she'd switched the cctv to the castle and had all 3 entrances and exists covered. 

I sweep the whole building and come up empty handed after 40 minutes. My boss asks me what actually happened during her break and I gave her the full details. The reason I came to the conclusion about the homeless person is because I'm convinced I heard a snicker down the line just before the last call cut off. 

I said I'd do one more sweep which she was dead against as she wanted to call the police. But this time, I checked the basement, the hidden passageways and all the cupboards. Anything that had a blanket on it I pulled it off. I looked under every bed, checked every closet and pulled back every shower curtain. Nothing. 

I go to the main lobby in the castle after another hour of checking and my boss radios me, you see its hard to radio when in the castle as the signal gets jammed so often whatever is to be said, needs to wait until you can see the person on camera. She sounded panicked and was urging me to return to the complex and she was now definitely going to call the police but I could tell something was stopping her. Apparently, during my second sweep, she had taken 3 phone calls from the castle. I knew by her voice, that the stalwart and headstrong boss was shaken. 

I took it personally and said I was going to check a third time. Half way through the third check she radioed me and asked me where  I was. I was at room 17, just out of shot of the camera. With a cracked voice and weak radio signal I heard the words '' call '' and '' 14 '' room 14 was just round the corner. So i walked over and went straight into the room using my masterkey. 

Nothing. Nobody, nada. 

I even touched underneath the taps in the bathroom with my finger to get an indication of how recent it was used. Everything was bone dry, even dusty. The castle was only really for wedding guests and high paying customers. By now I'm beginning to think my homeless man hypothesis had some major flaws in it. 

So, I exit room 14 and look up to the camera and shrug. I told her I'd checked the phone. Last number was dialled 2 weeks previous. So I tell her I have 4 rooms to go and I'll head back. 

I turn the corner and right there at the bottom of the corridor was a tall dark figure staring right at me. No emotion, dead eyes and a gaunt look on his face. When I say tall I'm talking 6'8'' maybe. He cleared the door frame anyway. There was something of a 10 to 15 second stand off which felt like an eternity. I remember sliding my hand into my pocket and crunching my keys up into a make shift weapon. I looked this guy right in the eyes and didn't flinch. 

He moved towards me with one step then as cliche as it sounds, hung right ( my left ) and went straight through the wall. I pulled myself together and went through the nearest door to where he disappeared. Room 20 I believe. 

Nothing, nobody. All that was there was a bone biting cold that I have never experienced before or since. It was a dry cold, unusually deep setting. Like it bypassed the flesh and went straight to the bone. I nearly jumped out my skin when the radio crackled and my boss asked me where I was. I said nothing, I just headed back to the complex. 

I didn't mention a word about the tall man in the old watchman like cloak/jacket. I simply said I couldn't find the source of the calls and offered the excuse of local phone works being the cause of the disruption. 

I finished up my work and headed home early morning. I told my father all about it, we then hit the gym and I went to bed. 

Oddly enough the next night ( my last shift ) everyone was looking at me. Turns out my boss stayed behind and told everyone about the events of the night before. All the old timers who had kept their distance until that point were now talking to me freely. Even the maids apologised for all the times I entered the castle and found it abandoned and a mess. The bar staff, who were sometimes sent up alone to get extra glasses etc would ask me when I was doing my fire check so they weren't alone. 

Someone told me that they felt sorry for my boss, because it has happened twice before. 

In the end, I stayed there for another 6 months before finding something more on my level without further incidents. A few years later my dad was sitting on the sofa and he pulled my attention to his paper. There had been a 4 page spread on the countries most haunted castles. My old work was one of them. 

Way down the page, it told of account where a business man was up in the castle one night on his own. He ran down to reception wearing nothing but an open business shirt and his boxers while holding his luggage. he reported to the front desk that he went walk about in the castle looking for an ice box seeing that his phone wasn't working to call reception. Then all of a sudden he spotted a tall dark cloaked figure staring at him from the door of one of the rooms. 

My dad and I said nothing, we simply nodded at each other and moved on with the rest of our day. 

Those events, have raised more questions than provided answers. I have confided in very few people over the years because I find their responses to flicker between childish and accusatory. All I know, is that I know what I saw and I have no answers. I just know I was there and what happened happened. How it fits into the grand scheme of things I'll probably never know. But my opinions on death and life had changed drastically because of it. 

I've never been back there, although I have tried to convince people to come join me. But I know of many people who have either stayed there or worked there and all admit to feeling freaked out on a regular basis. 

I'll happily answer questions given that there is no Micky taking. This event had a profound affect on me as a person. When our prophet speaks of personages not of the flesh, I don't have to look far in my own experience to grasp the concept. 

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. 

In a lot of ways I'm all about that "relationship with God first" but I think there comes a point where it's like, what's the point of a church, then? And that's not the best place to be. I'll go out on a limb and say that many members of their churches have their pet focuses and quirks, but when I truly think of "Protestant Mormons", the ones I've interacted with have the gospel watered down so much that the resulting church isn't anything special or remarkable.
I've certainly heard my share of people going off the rails with their own personal interpretation of everything, but if not more so it seems their personal revelation is that much of our doctrine is simply a story or tradition. Book of Mormon isn't real, temples are just a fun little thing, etc. 
 

Still the best found footage movie out there. 

Here is my take:
If you do not believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christ's restored church, led by Jesus Christ himself, then disregard everything else I have to say as it's irrelevant without that belief.
 
If you do believe that, then you only need to trust in Jesus Christ.  Because if he's in charge then:
1. He called the President of the Church and the apostles.
2. If they lead us astray in some way, then trust that Christ will stop them.  (D&C 43:3-4, for example.)  (You don't need to trust the prophet, you need to trust Jesus Christ.)
3. If they lead us astray and for some reason Christ doesn't stop them (yet?), trust that the sins will be on the leaders' heads, just as scriptures say the sins will be on the parents' heads if they fail to teach their children (or on Laman & Lemuel's heads for generations of their descendants - there's a staggering thing).  (And just as the sins will be on the heads of priesthood holders if they fail to do their duty - think temple....)  (Again, you don't need to trust the prophet, you need to trust Jesus Christ.)
In other words, you can't go wrong following the prophet - if this is Christ's church.  That does not mean you have to follow him blindly.  You can compare his teachings to the whole of scripture from Genesis 1 to Article of Faith 13.  You can ponder and pray about it for a testimony of its truthfulness.  You can ask questions and work through difficult things (e.g. Nephi's working through the command to kill Laban).  There's nothing wrong with any of that.  The wrong comes when you start trying to lead others away from the prophet or publicly declare him not a prophet or some such thing.
My testimony is that Jesus Christ lives.  He is the Son of God.  He loves us.  This is his church restored to the earth.  It comes with his priesthood, complete with its keys, ordinances, and covenants.  Ergo, the prophet is led by him and if the prophet goes astray, Christ will deal with it and I don't have to worry about it because I trust Christ.
FWIW.

This reminds me so much of the parable of the wheat and the tares, that grow so closely on the same patch of ground that they almost become intertwined. And this situation is not immediately resolved, it is permitted to continue for quite some time. 
27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30 Let both grow together until the aharvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together bfirst the tares, and bind them in bundles to cburn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

This is the cancer infecting the Church.

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.)

Martin Luther may not have wanted a schism.. but actions have consequences.
Public displays are going to provoke public reactions.
While we do not control how other may react, we need to be aware of our potential as influences.  So we do not get to entirely excuse ourselves by saying we do not control others.  
When we nail our complaints to the door (Or Post to social media) we do need to take responsibly for some very predictable reactions

This post reminds me of a recent Instagram post I scrolled into. The individual was a member of the Church who said, paraphrased, "I'm a member of the Church who stays in the Church and seeks to change it from within to be more inclusive."
This follows the thought provided, "We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church."
I'm, very much, in agreement with the idea and concepts being shared. This is definitely happening in the Church today. I'm pretty sure someone posted here a while -- a while -- back sharing a video from some movie, episode, or podcast where the individual said, "I can do more damage to the Church by staying in the Church..."
President Nelson's quote regarding having the Spirit with us is the only that we will make it through these last days before Christ comes as strong followers/disciples of Jesus Christ. The purpose of the Spirit is to bear witness of truth, and to help us see things as they really are.
@MrShorty "Perhaps Goff is wrong and maybe the church will figure out how to keep people together in spite of such a divisive issue."
As to the following thought here, the Church already figured this out. The answer is Jesus Christ. If a person truly believes in Christ and His Church, the focus will be upon Christ and building up the Kingdom of God/Zion. Those who focus on this will be able to work together in peace and harmony -- despite their difference of thoughts and opinions (because these individuals will wait patiently on the Lord and how he moves His Church).
This notion extends both ways on the spectrum -- far right and far left. We have been counseled and taught to avoid any and all "religious hobbies." Religious hobbies is one of the easiest ways for the adversary to gain control and place into the heart of individuals to follow forbidden paths.
When any individual places any idea, any action, any decision above the Lord and His Church then they (the individual(s)) will choose to separate themselves from the Lord and His Church. The doctrine is very very clear on many things (the easiest one is marriage), and yet we have members who seek to blur the clarity, and place their thoughts, their decisions, their life choices above the Lord and His Church. This brings up the notion provided by Jacob in the Book of Mormon, "they despised the words of plainness." And we have that happening in our day -- words of plainness being despised by members of the Church such that they seek to change it and are angry with it.
 
 

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.