Grunt

Faithful study and prayer won't have the possibility of it leading away. I can't see how it would. My encouragement to anyone whether they are an investigator, coming back to church, or having a faith crisis would be to study and pray, and please reach out to me with any questions or help they may need, and that would include you. My experience with people deconstructing their faith, and I've known more than a few "former" members, has been that they aren't studying the right things. Edited to add: I'm probably a HORRIBLE person to discuss generalities with, though, because my faith is pretty black and white. Something is either good and of God or bad, and not. I don't play with the grey much. There is too much good to uncover and study. Being so black and white often leads me to deliver definitive and blunt advice. Even though I mean it with love and I really do care, if someone comes to me and says "I'm really struggling with what the prophet said" my response is typically "well, he's the prophet". 14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer. In fact, this is the meat of the talk I'm giving in Sacrament tomorrow, so my post tomorrow night may be "help Grunt get re-baptized after his ex-communication".

See, I think this is an issue that those who challenge faith run into and I have difficulty understanding why. We assume because it isn't a talk given every conference that the "Church" hasn't adopted it. Elder Bednar addressed that very point this last General Conference in his talk. President Ezra Taft Benson very directly counseled us "The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer." He didn't say "choose what we follow" or "wait until everyone in the Church gives talks on something before following it." I'm ecstatic to have anyone worship with me. The Lord's house is open to all. I've shared a pew (well, row since our tiny ward still racks chairs after every Sacrament and sets them up the next week) with drunks, atheists, Buddhists, and many other people that don't believe what I believe. I'm not sure why someone would think that I would feel differently. That said, you have to be equally comfortable with the knowledge that if you utter things that run counter to what the Lord has revealed to us through His Prophets and Apostles, I'm going to call that out and cite the people He has chosen to speak through.

-Elder Bruce R. McConkie

1. Errors? I guess that depends on what you consider an error. What others I've spoken with in a faith crisis have considered errors I don't particularly consider to be errors as much as a distancing from the Church. 2. While ANY participation is better than no participation, all is obviously best. Follow the Prophet. If you're rejecting things from the Church, you're rejecting things from God. That's certainly a personal use of your agency, but it does come with consequences. 3. Why would you expect Christ's Church to be comfortable with heresies? Your Bishop's office is likely the space you are looking for.

Based on their modern articles and issues, I wouldn't be surprised if many Latter-day Saints were members, just not talking about it.

I don't think JBS is a sensitive topic in the Church. I don't know anyone in the Church that belongs to the organization. I read just about anything suggested to me and found many of the JBS scholarly articles and Welch's speeches to be insightful, even if sometimes misdirected. Back in Welch's day communism was the boogie man but really most of his supporting writings was more a warning of globalization and the micro steps leading to it. He was convinced many politicians and the media were complicit and playing the long game. Many of his concerns have been realized.

I avoid it. Not because I can't handle it, but because it adds nothing to my life. It's not spiritually uplifting.

If you read "The Politician" it goes into this pretty solidly. One of his largest issues with Eisenhower was his support of Operation Keelhaul.

I've seen that. They were founded as an anti-communist organization before most of us were born, but really they seem to be just constitutionalists. I think that those who find the constitution a nuisance to their goals would be quick to condemn them. I've read many of their books and articles. They have a decent track record of correct predictions.

Have you read The Blue Book of the John Birch Society? I'm surprised more Latter-day Saints don't step up, but maybe I shouldn't be.

That's why I'm amazed I was allowed to choose my own topic. I am continuously drawn to two talks, both 40 years old. I've tried to write on other things, but my heart keeps going back to those two talks.

It's 2020. The year of odd occurrences. If this wasn't a sign the second coming was on it's way, then nothing is.

It was pushed to next week, which makes it even worse. Over the last few days I've carried my notebook and just entered anything that popped in my head. Sadly, as I read them this afternoon, they all seem to focus on things that wouldn't make the most uplifting Sacrament talk: setting the example in your household, repenting, only following the Prophet when it's convenient, finding reasons to not follow the Prophet, choosing faith, etc. "Hey, remember Grunt? He called the entire ward to repentance and got exed. He made it 1030 days, though. It was a good run. Who let him in the Bishopric, anyway?"

That's where I'm at. I've been jotting things down as they pop in my head, hoping that they develop into an inspired topic. I'm very concerned that my bias may be driving my inspiration, and I'm holding off in hopes that something develops.

You should be wishing THEM luck. They've unleashed the beast.

Is it usual to not be given a topic for Sacrament talks? I was just asked to give one at the last minute and was asked to choose my own topic. The pressure is real.

No explanation was given so it is hard to say. My perception of things wasn't a rift of politics as much as it is a rift of faith. This site strongly supports the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That doesn't mean that it is forbidden to question or disagree with some things taught, but I would imagine it can get uncomfortable for those with strong opinions who either are not members or those who are inactive members. Probably more so for inactive members who still profess to be members, because the laws and expectations of Heavenly Father don't change just because you choose to ignore them.

Of course they would. Look what they did with Obamacare. Put the judge on the bench

Disney+/Hulu/ESPN+ has a special now if you get the package and you like sports, although I'm currently not watching most sports.

Pound sand, mutton chops 😁

We just had a change in Bishops and a stake realignment. With the new Bishop, my job just changed drastically overnight.

Divides us how? I also understand, and agree, that you don't want to get it wrong. Honestly, that's what has led me here. The theology and doctrine of Latter-day Saints just made sense to me, if our understanding of God was correct. If it isn't, then he isn't a loving or forgiving God and we're all hosed anyway. Through prayer and faith, I came to understand that this is the correct doctrine. I'm not confident enough to say I understand everything, but I do know without a doubt in my mind that I'm where God wants me to be and on the path He has chosen. I also have come to understand the depths of His love for me, and that repentance isn't "just in case". It's Plan A. Because I know these things, and repent daily, I'm not as concerned with "getting it wrong". I AM concerned with progressing and enduring to the end, but because I know He loves me and has provided me the tools and knowledge to make it back to Him, but I'm not as worried about whether or not I get it wrong. I'm not worried about you getting it wrong either. Don't take it the wrong way, but even though I think you aren't acting with His authority and missing part of His doctrine (I honestly don't know what you believe, so this is an assumption), I think you are still doing His work and He loves you for that. I believe you'll do just fine when we are judged, and will have come to know Christ's true self in Spirit Prison.

It always is. Just ask my wife.

That's pretty much how it went down.

I had a discussion with someone recently that really caused me to go back and review required ordinances and the Plan of Salvation. His stance was that baptism is not required for everyone in order to achieve exaltation (for the purpose of this discussion, we are only talking about those past the age of accountability). He founded that belief upon D&C 137 and the fact that the Prophet envisioned his brother, who had never been baptized, in heaven. I absolutely disagree with that interpretation and believe it must be a future event, as his mother and father were also there. While I'm certainly no expert, it would seem to me that doctrine requires baptism to achieve exaltation. Am I missing something?