Fether

Who? My exact thoughts haha

They definitely don’t like it. But it’s the truth. I. Perplexed whenever I see Christian vs Mormon debates. In such debates, the Bible is the only common denominator that is a reliable source. It’s like having someone wanting to debate you on the theory of relativity, but he only accepts the works of Darwin as scientific.

It truly is amazing that we still have revelation today. However, traditional Christian beliefs still creep into our lives. I remember a few friends in high school voicing to me their wrestle with the fact that certain gospel teaching aren’t found in The Bible

That is exactly the point. We say “they aren’t perfect” out loud, but that isn’t the picture we focus on painting when we speak of them. To more perfectly explain my point, I’ll share my experience. Growing up, I learned about Joseph smith through Sunday school classes, church made media, and general conference talks. Everywhere I looked, they spoke of Joseph Smith was such reference, respect and admiration (with good reason, save Christ, he did more for humankind than anyone else in history). Occasionally we would read or hear that he wasn’t perfect, but that wasn’t a shock. I’m sure he got grumpy sometimes. Later in Life, I read “Mormon Enigma”, “Rough Stone Rolling”, read through the CES letter (which I did see right through as I read it). The historical documents and in depth stories about him did not match the picture that was painted for me growing up. I knew he wasn’t perfect, but I thought that meant he got grumpy some times, that maybe he made an occasional inconsequential rash decision. But not that he hid his initial plural marriages from the church and even his own wife, and him shouting hosanna to a call for the death of the Missourians was a long way from the Nathan Mitchell portrayal I was use to seeing. So my question is this. Do we teach other and our children in depth about Joseph smith and some of the concerning things he did? Or do we play “Prophet if the Restoration” on repeat and hope they never come across the CES letter, or if they do, hope they know how to respond to it? When we confront an enemy of the church or a fool on this forum, it is easy to say “ya... we don’t teach that, we have been saying they are imperfect for a LONG time... since the beginning even.” And walk away knowing we won an argument. But when it comes to our own children, The words we say and the things we teach are important... but just as important, we need to paint the correct picture. If those pictures don’t match historical records and they find that out, it may cause issues. That particular illy happened with my sister

Thanks for the insights. I, personally, am not a fan of secular explanations for “anti”. It is sometimes interesting, but that’s it. Rather, the responses that I have had the biggest effect on me have been those that point out fallacies in my own thinking and traditional church cultural beliefs that aren’t necessarily supported by the church itself. ie Comparing current church teachings to the Bible. A lot of times people will ask members to show them where in the Bible a certain principle is taught (word of wisdom, becoming like God, degrees of glory, temple ordinances, etc.). If they can’t find it, they will count that as a point against the church. Antis and active members themselves often times wonder “why isn’t this in the Bible?” And have a difficult time with it. Instead of trying to use some vague reference of Christ saying “ye are gods”, or Paul being caught up in the third heaven, realize that we don’t believe everything is built on the Bible. Our teachings don’t need to be found in the Bible because we actively teach and believe that all truth is found in many different sources. The Bible is just one source. There are answers like this for almost every “anti” question out there. Almost every question people have can be answered by gaining a stronger understanding of the basics of the gospel. Often times it is met with a “oh duh... I was taught that in primary” (at least that is how it is for me when I have such realizations). What I will likely do is teach the principles the best I can. Once they reach an age where they can start reading seriously (like 10), I’ll start suggesting books to read and Why I suggest them. I will encourage them to read “rough stone rolling” as one of the books to check out. From there, IF they show more interest, that will open opportunities for further conversation. Though I do understand not everyone cares the least bit about it all

You have been successfully click-bated... sort of. I may be late to the party, but I discovered Jim Bennett the other day through a newish online Latter-day Saint podcast “Midnight Mormons”. He is an “apologist” and has some amazing insights and rarely take. Opinions when it comes to the gospel. Since then I have been looking up other podcasts and talks from him and discovered a series of long form podcasts 2+ hours where he and John Dehlin (popular anti-Mormon advocate). I started watching them and they have been extremely entertaining in that Bennett exposes many preconceptions we have when we talk about the gospel. He also does a an incredible job of faithfully expanding the conversation that prophets are not perfect. Anyway, I wanted to share this with some family members and friends, but I also did t want to expose them to John Dehlin had they not discovered him yet. That leads me to my question. What is the best way to introduce and teach these topics? Should it be done? Is it worthwhile to continue teaching our children that all our previous leaders were void of big mistakes and prejudices? Is it worth while to teach them our leaders were somehow mythically pure, nigh unto the purity of Christ?

One thing I do not love is the unreasonably long prayers. the person giving the closing prayer in This previous session spoke extremely slow and used as many words as he could to ask for very ordinary blessing and giving thanks. I am all for spending hours on your knees in personal prayer to wrestle with the spirit, and even thoughtful and drawn out prayers among groups when seeking to overcome and issue. but opening and closing prayers during meetings and conferences should be fervent, specific, and to the point. This isn’t an opinion either... definitely doctrine.

Not an accepted teaching today, though I know during Brigham Young’s era, it was somewhat understood that plural marriage was a requirement for exaltation. But is it true? Maybe. we are taught that if we are sealed to multiple women throughout our lives due to death, we would still be sealed to them in the afterlife. We also don’t know the nature of sealings in the celestial kingdom. Why would God not have been subject to similar laws as us? This is not a doctrine I would teach. I give room for it to be possible, but I wouldn’t teach it.

Which is quite clear haha cause I didn’t relate very well to Holland’s talk.

Just an observation, maybe you currently have too high of a view of yourself. Maybe you don’t value talks about faith, hope, charity, temples, family, etc. because you feel you are “good enough” and there is no need for future growth. The talks I find most boring are the talks on topics that I feel I am good enough on. Even excel in. If I humbled myself a little more, I may find more benefit in them

I really enjoyed the first few talks. Felt inspired on way I could better teach my kids. I have felt bored during sessions before... this was not one of them for me

To specify, I would eat the same amount that I normally do, just all of it in a 6 hour period. I did a longer fast once every two weeks

I have only ever done “long fasting” as a health benefit. I actually had dedicated daily fasting and occasional long fast with minimal exercise and I lost 15 lbs in a few months. It felt great. That being said, I never considered I could use this sort of fast as a spiritual fast. I always assumed a spiritual fast included abstaining from water as well. I really appreciate these insights.

I would also add that a major catalyst for mass shootings is broken families. I have heard a few times that the large majority of mass shootings are done by people who grew up without a father figure or an abusive father. As the US starts moving further away from the nuclear family, this problem will continue to grow

@laronius the more I ponder this, the more I ask myself the very same question haha. I feel like I have answered a question that may be the underlining question, it’s a bigger and far more meaningful question ... but not the actual question . “Why do two people need to suffer if no repentance is made? Was justice not satisfied with the suffering of Christ?” This question mostly comes from how the scriptures are worded and not how we understand it. Why is it that I must suffer for a sin that has already been suffered for if I do not repent? Is it God that is punishing me at that point? Like you said “What DOES justice demand?” Is it just a punishment like Christ experienced? Or is it a punishment that lasts as long and as deep as the sin that causes the punishment? If it is the latter, that would explain things a bit. Perhaps justice isn’t satisfied until the sin is stopped? Hence why we will have to suffer for eternity, but Christ’s atonement allows for an end date of the sin. Perhaps now we only suffer until we have repented. That is why two must suffer. Christ and I suffer together until I stop the sin and become Christ like?

I do see where you are coming from. honestly, the best answer is that it would thwart the whole plan of salvation if it worked that way. It is easy to look at questions like this in light of the traditional Christian doctrines and dogmas mingled with our own. I see that happening in this question (and admittedly, I got caught up in it a little in my previous answer). Purpose of Life: Traditional Christianity: Be saved through Christ Latter-day Saint: (1) get and keep a body, (2) Be saved through Christ, and (3) become like Christ Desired destination: Traditional Christianity: Heaven Latter-day Saint: Which ever Heaven you want The question you are asking would be a great question for a traditional Christian that believes that our actions effect our eventual salvation. However...The Latter-day Saint church is not that. I would argue that Christ did suffer for everyone’s sins. I would also argue that the first two purposes of life are covered entirely by Christ; and because of that we will all have access to some degree of glory. But as for the highest degree, that is saved for those that want it and are actively seeking to become Christ like. There may even be people in the highest degree that will suffer more for their unrepented sins than those who choose the terrestrial kingdom. Our destination has far more to do with what we want than what we did and “earned”. Repentance doesn’t seem to be a qualifier for not going to hell, but rather a tool we use to show God which kingdom we wish to be in.

Christ surely did suffer for our sins and satisfy the demands of Justice. But justice is only satisfied once the laws stop being broken. In a world without Christ, the punishments would continue beyond the point of repentance. If I had a short fit of frustration with my wife, but quickly apologized, and made amends, I would still face eternal punishment. Because Christ suffered for us, we can remove the eternal punishments of past transgressions and start fresh every time we repent. So to answer your question: Christ’s mercy only covers mercy from sins which are not currently being committed. If you continue in sin, you are actively fighting against the power that is trying to save you. Now, this power isn’t stronger than Christ’s power to forgive and have mercy, but leaving people free of the responsibility of their own sins is contrary to the plan of salvation, which is not about doing righteous things, but being a righteous person.

From what I read earlier this week, it it may have been a family member that made the donation in the family’s name but the default name was Elder Uchtdorf’s. Something to that effect.

Obama is the beast. ... Oh sorry, I forgot it wasn’t 2009 anymore

We too had an impressive sacrament meeting. One speaker, a youth preparing to serve a mission, shared his experience with Pornography and how he overcame it. Another speaker shared a lot of difficulties he had growing up. At a certain point, when he felt he had overcome and beat those trials, he moved to a new ward. Now that he was passed the trials of yesterday, he began to see that there were many in his new ward that were facing many of the same things he had overcome. He then made the observation that not only do we need to purify ourselves for the sake of salvation, but we have a duty to seek purity so that we can strengthen our brethren (Luke 22:32)

I remember on my mission to the south, we came across countless Christians that just loved Jesus. They would shout it from the roof tops and proclaim their love to everyone around them. It was so intense that you could approach someone mowing their lawn, tell them you are representatives of Jesus Christ, and they would immediately stop what they are doing and start spouting off half quotes Bible verses and proclaiming the goodness of God. This wasn’t just holy rolled Pentecostals (though they took it to an impressive level), but traditional level headed Protestants and people who seemed to be members of fairly conservative churches. I remember attending a mega church once. The Christian rock started and people of all walks of life and all incomes (the church was between 2 drastically different wealth class neighborhoods) placing their hands on their hearts and swaying back and forth. Raising arms in the air and praising God. All to “Our God” by Chris Tomlin. My thoughts towards these experiences were often times at least a little judgmental. I found myself being annoyed that do often people would proclaim their love... but they never seemed to do anything about it... which I guess is a problem to them because many churches teach that all you have to do is believe and you are saved. Why do we not experience this same level of emotion in our own church? Should this be something we ought to seek? Are we lacking in that raw love we see many Protestants carry with them everywhere? Or perhaps is this show of immense motion the symptom of loving Christ but not knowing where or how to focus that energy? Much like a toddler who struggles to explain that he wants to watch toy story 2, not 4. Is the teaching that all you need for salvation is to accept Christ limiting the amount of love they can trurly show? Why is it we have such conservative speech and song lyrics when it comes to Christ. Our speech about our savior is very pointed, careful, and as literal as we can be. However Jamie Grace is making songs about Christ that sound like Justin Bieber’s recent hit single (seriously, is “Hold me” a a cheesy teenage love song or a song praising Christ?) I think about this often, however I always get bogged down in trying to make sense of what my question is and what may be right or wrong. why is it we don’t see this in our own faith. My thoughts and opinions on this are no where near as complete as I want them to be. Hoping someone can share some insight on this topic. TL;DR: Why do traditional Christians have more passion about loving Christ and shouting his name. Should we be seeking to adopt that passion? Or maybe adopt it but adjust it to be more deliberate and meaningful?

I imagine for the first few decades of the church, and The first few decades as it became a world wide church, the focus was on hashing out the doctrine clearly and unapologetically so no one questioned where we stood. Today, we have all the doctrine laid out before us. But it is up to use whether we will partake. The church is creating a culture where we can partake at will and when we are ready, we can leave the milk section and partake in the steaks that lay waiting further down the buffet line.

Apology accepted

My feelings are more authoritative

I am familiar with the sense of humor... however when he starts going on about doctrine (which is fascinating and great to read), I have a difficult time paying attention