RMGuy

Short answer, its not. I would rather have my son or daughter come home that night and help them through the repentence process, than to not come home at all. Your results may differ. -RM

Short answer? Yes. Since you like Corinthians 14 (see below, we can start there) 1 Corinthians 14:33-34. If that was written to me from an apostle I would read it as written, namely that women should not speak in church. Comparing that with past experiences of the Saviour (who had a great respect for the women in his life) and after careful pondering and consideration I would be forced to conclude that perhaps Paul was a little off here and perhaps teaching his personal beliefs as doctrine. Am I right in that? Perhaps not, but at least I am being honest with you in where I am or would be. Your words not mine. We as LDS recognize that these are not perfect men. Would they intentionally lead individuals away from the Lord? You have stated no. But would they perhaps allow personal biases, opinions, and believes to influence their council? I think we have to acknowledge that this is possible since the church itself does. That makes them good men. It may imply that they are inspired men. It doesn't make them infallible. Actually the prophet Wilford Woodruff said this....which is what concerns me. We treat the words of a prophet as through they always came directly from the Lord. But what if we are living in accordance with the gospel. What if we are a faithful tithe payer, living the WoW, honoring our temple covenants etc. Your answer seems to indicate a devotion to loyalty over truth. Understand, and I DO agree with you on a lot of this. My questions is posed NOT inorder to find an excuse to not follow the counsel of a living prophet. Rather, it is posed with regards to what happens in the situations in which we are honestly at odds with that counsel and it cannot be reconciled. My example earlier of Nephi disobeying the council to not kill when he has the spiritual prompting to kill Laban. I'm afraid I don't see it as an anti-Mormon question at all. Our Heavenly Father gave us many gifts, including intellect and reason. To suggest that we should not question but rather follow obediantly and meekly without seeking confirmation for ourself is disingenious at best. To suggest that we can only receive the same answer as the leader and that when we fail to do so it represents some flaw in the individual is potentially dangerous, perhaps even evil. -RM

I bet I know how Old Port would have answered this question. Then again, he liked a bottle of Valley Tan from time to time as well, so this might not be the best authority on it. Personally, I figure I would never need a weapon at chuch, but if I do, I need it right now. And I figure all the brethren will need to draw breath if they want to discipline me for violating policy. I could live with myself knowing that I was disciplined for saving the lives of my brothers and sisters. I don't know if I could live with myself otherwise. That said, I abhor violence in all its manifestations. Again, just my $.02 -RM

I recognize what you are saying jollyroger, but at the same time I believe this quote of the prophet Joseph, "One of the grand fundamental principles of Mormonism is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may." Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 199 We should not fear the truth no matter what it is. The truth can stand independent. I have faith in things not seen, where evidence is lacking. Once the evidence is manifest it should support the faith, otherwise the faith has been in vain. Regardless, I seek truth. Even where it may tear down old ideas and traditions. That is what the church was built on. If one, or two, or many GA's left the church and renounced their testimony's, I don't think we need to hide that, or not discuss it. If it is true it is true. If it is not, then it is not. I understand your thoughts, and I can respect them. I just disagree. -RM

There are some really good answers here. Dravin is exactly right, this is not intended to be a minor thing, but rather what do you do when personal revelation contradicts counsel. Now clearly, we recieve counsel about a number of different aspects of daily life. And we will all respond to that counsel differently. My question is which of those to follow where a conflict arises or exists that cannot be reconciled. Estradling, thank you for the clarification. It was not my intention in anyway to question or debate whether we follow Christ or not. Thank you for addressing that. I agree that we need to consider and ponder the counsel that we are given and come to a personal knowledge regarding that counsel. When faced with that choice in the past there have been times when I have chosen to "follow the prophet" even without confirmation and sometimes it has worked out...sometimes it has not. I have tended to lean more towards the seeking confirmation route and then acting appropriately. One thing I have personally struggled with in the past is perhaps being too judgemental with others in the church when I: 1. Know that they have heard the council of the prophet 2. Appear not to be following that council. I have worked on this considerably over the last several years. Do you think that we have a problem with judging our brothers and sisters in the gospel over these types of issues? If so, how do you think we can collectively do better at this? If you don't think this is a problem why not? -RM

FT, Thank you for the response. Let me address the second part of your post 1st if I may. Do we always equate the words of the prophet as synonamous with the gospel? I know that we hold fast to the concept that it is possible for a prophet to sometimes speak as a man and not as a prophet, so the general question resolves around that in some regards. Hence, what happens in a situation where the prophet tells us one thing and the spirit another? It seems that there woud be two possible explinations. 1. The individual is not in tune and is therefore recieving counsel contrary to the prophet. 2. The council of the prophet is NOT what the Lord would have for that specific individual It is possible that some might argue that there is a 3rd possibility - That the prophet is wrong. Let's discount that one for the moment however. So dealing with only the first two explinations is 1 ALWAYS the case or is it possible that 2 exists? Now for the first part of your post, and I'll use a scriptural example. Nephi was instructed by the Spirit to kill Laban, and yet he was in possession of the commandment that THOU SHALL NOT KILL. Not only did Nephi have the commandment issued by an (to him) ancient prophet, but I would assume that all of his church leaders would have reinforced the commandment written by the very finger of the Lord. Yet, the Spirit directed him to do otherwise. That in no way negated the commandment for the rest of the church, or led (as far as we know) to church discipline for Nephi. In all fairness, your advice to go to a bishop or SP and talk through the issue is a good one, but in this case Nephi did not have that luxury. He was faced with a very difficult choice. The question centers around what would you do. -RM

This was a question posed to me by a missionary companion long ago. It is a question that has remained with me ever since and one that I am interested in hearing the thoughts on from all of you here. It is a relatively simple question. If you had to choose between following the prophet and following Christ who would you follow? Follow up. What if the prophet gave revealed council and direction, you were living the precepts of the gospel, prayed for confirmation of that council expected to recieve it, and were told something else entirely? What would you do? -RM

What do you consider to be modestly? What are the ramifications of wearing what you will? For me there is appropriate and inappropriate dress based on the circumstances. I would no more wear a winter coat in the summer than I would shorts in the winter. I also would not wear my shorts to sacrament meeting, but I more than happy to welcome someone that does. I've been known to wear sandels to church on occasion, after all the Saviour did too. At the end of the day you need to be comfortable: physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually with your choice. If you can honestly say that you are, then I don't know that we are here to tell you that you are wrong. -RM

This is a great question, and one that I have struggled with from time to time. After a lot of thought here is what seems reasonable to me: 1. There are clearly words, gestures, experssions that are unacceptable, improper, crude, etc. in almost every culture in the world. 2. Some of the same language in a different context or culture is not considered crude or rude. 3. I don't believe God hears certain syllables and cringes. For example what constitutes the F bomb here (the way it sounds) is used in a variety of other languages with entirely different meanings. 4. What may indeed cause God to cringe is when we willfully use language that we KNOW to be offensive for the purpose of getting the reaction. 5. We pick our vocabulary from a wide selection of available possibilities. There are times when we select the word automobile for example as opposed to vehicle or car. Many times they are interchangible.....sometimes they are not. 6. When we use an "unclean" word because it is easy, or what comes to mind first, or to insult then I can see it being "bad" When it is the best word to describe the feeling or experience then I believe it is appropriate. 7. In short, are we being vulgar just to be vulgar. As an example I have heard may things that would be considered swear words here spoken over the pulpit somewhere else, and no one even winces. Yet we use things all the time here that because of my experience in other cultures makes me cringe. There is not a list of words that are prohibited or allowed and they DO vary from culture to culture. Does that mean that they are culturally based and derived? YES. Does it mean that we don't have an obligation (moral, ethical) to be considerate and respectful to our fellow citizens in the culture? NO. Just my $.02 -RM

You can look for evidences, and some might indicate FAIR or FARMS and those are not bad sites. It should be noted that they are apologist based. Non-LDS affiliated organizations and individuals can also be a good source of information. With that being said, I think you will find many here that will share that for an understanding of the Book of Mormon you will need to have faith, and this is undoubtably true. For me, faith is neccesary to fill in the gaps where knowledge leaves off. Faith does not require evidence, however, where evidence is present it should not contradict faith if the statement or fact is indeed true. Where evidence contradicts faith, I rely on evidence. -RM