scottyg
-
Posts
603 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by scottyg
-
-
5 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:
You won't find many here willing to walk this path with you, I for one will not.
We have seen time and time again how this line of thinking swiftly takes an individual away from the Church.
Your shroud against the leadership of the Church has successfully been lifted.I have unfortunately seen it in multiple individuals over many years...ward and stake leaders included. They feel that they have become more enlightened, when in reality they are more unhappy and lost. Everyone can see it but them.
-
5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
It was tongue in cheek-I was making the point that this guy has been vastly successful in politics, and I'm sure all the people he has beaten call him a dummy head too.
I'm always uncomfortable when people like you and I call any one else an "idiot" from the privacy of our own homes on our computers and cell phones. Well, if we're so much smarter than these fools, why are we complaining on internet forums and they are like, you know, doing stuff. Like being successful in their careers!Gotcha. I disagree, (and still think he's an idiot) but now I understand what you're saying.
-
8 minutes ago, BobMaster said:
You are correct, Joseph Smith would never have been killed had the Saints truly wanted to hear God's Voice.
"fared far worse", it depends on what metric you are using. In terms of "growth" maybe, in terms of a people who are ready to receive Christ-probably not.
I don't worry about the Church, in fact that's the point that I'm making. Too many people are wrapped up in following the leaders rather than following Christ. They think that by adoring, idolizing and waiting with baited breadth for every word that the leaders make will get them closer to Christ. When what they should be doing is ready their scriptures, studying God's Word, praying etc.
Typical conversation "Follow the leaders!!!", "well they aren't revealing God's word so . ..?", "doesn't matter follow the leaders!", "well if they aren't revealing God's word, then why should I follow lock-step"? "doesn't matter, God will take care of the Church"?. "I'm not talking about the Church, I'm talking about me, why should I treat their words as manna from Heaven when I have God's Word in scripture, why should I value their word above Scripture, when their word doesn't conform to God's Word and they haven't revealed any more of God's Word"? "Doesn't matter, follow the leaders"?, "okay, why?" "because they are the prophets!?", "okay, but if they don't give God's Word, then why should I value their words greater than scripture"? "doesn't matter, God leads the Church, they know best". etc. etc. etc.
It becomes circular argument where the actual proof of them acting in the capacity of Prophets, Seers, and Revelators is very, very slim. In other words, just obtaining the title doesn't make you one, it gives you the right and ability, but doesn't make you one.
When I do a deep dive in studying scriptures and then compare that to the skim milk I get from General Conference-I find our current leaders wanting in their capacity.
You don't think they are giving God's word? You think that the messages shared at general conference are "skim milk"? You must not be listening very closely, and I recommend you just go back to lurking.
2 minutes ago, BobMaster said:That's a great point! I fully recognize that He did not and I don't expect Him to do so today (speak every week, etc.).
Personally, I would like to at least hear His Voice as dictated by a Prophet to an entire people once in my lifetime. A once a generation thing would be nice-keep the fires of Faith burning for another generation. As it is right now, it's been 102 years.
As I have said above, the prophet does speak for Christ...they always have, and he does not have to blatantly say this every time he speaks. You are the one who needs to be more receptive and listen better. Quit trying to force feed yourself meat when you actually need more milk.
-
31 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
All of these guys totally agree with you.
This has nothing to do with right versus left. There are plenty of stupid conservative politicians. This guy in particular is simply an idiot. Maybe I missed something in your remarks, but I don't understand what point you are trying to make here.
-
47 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
I don't fall into the "X doesn't agree with me, so they must be stupid or evil.".
Nor do I, at least I don't think I do. But I don't think that case applies here. He is simply choosing of his own volition to be blind to the corrupt situation going on around him...and with the situation being as serious as it is with so many severe ramifications being possible, he is definitely a complete idiot.
-
24 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
No. He's lying.
Or, he's just an idiot.
-
1 hour ago, BobMaster said:
See the other thread that this one came from. I pointed out very clearly and very plainly that WW never presented God's Voice or His Word on the matter to the body of the Saints. The same thing happened in '78 and the same thing will happen in the future when the Church issues Manifesto 3/4 either allowing women to the Priesthood or homosexual sealing in the Temple.
The claim of a revelation is not the same thing as the Revelation itself; like I said I for one long to hear God's Voice as spoken like in Joseph Smith's days-but that won't happen because very, very few in the Church want it to happen. They seem to believe that what is happening now is the same thing as what happened then and it's clearly not.
The facts are plain, no open visions, nor Voice of God has been communicated and accepted to the Saints as a whole for over 100 years (1918 to be exact). In today's world we have Manifestos and Proclamations-those are just mere public assertions and declarations but not the Voice of God.Perhaps my comment is nitpicking, but the early leaders of the church had to be very bold in their speaking so that the people would know that the Lord's prophet was communicating directly with Him. No one had done this before in thousands of years...so it needed to be made very clear to them that a prophet was upon the earth once more.
The following statement was made by Russel M. Nelson earlier this year. "My dear friends, today I wish to share with you a special invitation. There are a few wonderful occasions in the scriptures when our Heavenly Father personally introduced His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, with a specific charge to “Hear Him!”
Today, this most-important invitation from our loving Heavenly Father to listen to the voice of the Lord and to follow His teachings is extended to us.
In this special year as we commemorate the 200th anniversary of the First Vision, I invite you to think deeply and often about this key question: How do you hear Him?"
The following is also written as part of the manifesto you talk about above as given by Wilford Woodruf. He did in fact present the will/word of the Lord: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place,...The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice....But I want to say this...the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. …"
Now, there are many ways that anyone can hear the Lord. His voice doesn't have to be vocal to us, or to His prophet. However, it is folly to think that just because he doesn't tell us he heard the Lord's voice that he has not. There is no reason that the prophet must say, every time a new policy or practice is introduced, that he heard it from the mouth of the Lord Himself. Who else would it have come from...it is His church after all. As Carborendum referenced above "By mine own voice or the voice of my servants...." There is no reason the prophet or apostles must declare unto us any and all open visions they see. Now again, perhaps my comment is nitpicking, but claiming that things our prophets have and are saying and doing are mere "assertions" or "declarations" places you on very shaky ground. Have more faith. Just because people don't act or speak in a manner that you expect, or doesn't fit your definition of ideal doesn't mean that the revelation given is any different. The Lord and his prophet are deliberate in what they do.
-
12 hours ago, BobMaster said:
No, no, no. This is the thing most people don't understand and can't seem to grasp. The very definition of racism has changed.
Racism according to critical justice theory (which is taught in all the universities and then put into HR departments) is that racism can ONLY be a combination of power and race. In other words, when one race has build the institutions of power in a country, that is the ONLY race that can be racist.
The Church, because it was build by white men and maintained by white man, is by very definition racist. The United States government (Constitution, Declaration, etc.) are be definition racist because they were created by white men. The theory claims that blacks (or other minority groups) CANNOT be racist because they didn't create the power structures. They (the minorities) have the full ability to call names, discriminate, say hateful things targeted to a specific race (whites) and it's not racists b/c they didn't create the power structures.
It's a head I win, tails you lose ideology . . .all designed to overthrow the Western World.
And it is working just like a charm, so when you and I say the Church isn't racist-we think well we do our best to treat everyone the same and therefore we are not racist. But that's not what the critical theory states. Whites can only not be racists by a) admitting that they are and that they created institutions of power and b) implementing policies whereby other minorities get in line first over them.
The only thing that would make the Church NOT racist would be to ensure that that blacks and other minorities are given priority in things like callings and positions of power.
The situation is similar when it comes to the lgbtqxyz ilk. Simply allowing them to practice in a manner they choose is not enough. You must also think and feel the same way they do, or else you are actually a bigot who is discriminating against them. You must embrace their ideals. As Giddianhi said in 3 Nephi: "Therefore I write unto you, desiring that ye would yield up unto this my people,...Or in other words, yield yourselves up unto us, and unite with us and become acquainted with our secret works, and become our brethren that ye may be like unto us...I am the governor of this the secret society of Gadianton; which society and the works thereof I know to be good."
- carlimac, askandanswer, JohnsonJones and 1 other
-
4
-
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:
And there’s still a lot the Church can do within the contours of the law at BYU, which—for example—has long deterred non-Mormon students from enrolling by charging them significantly higher tuition rates.
I think it is better explained as giving members of the church a lower tuition rate, rather than saying non-members are charged more. Even then, the rates for non-members are still quite favorable for a university of BYU's caliber. For example, non-members at BYU can get 12 credit hours for less than half the price of non-resident students at the U of U...and the U of U is still cheap compared to schools in other states. And, you won't find a better Law School anywhere that has prices even close to BYU. I think their prices actually entice outside graduate students to come.
Unfortunately though, I can see lawsuits coming in the future over member vs non-member prices as many lgbtqxyz folks will never be able to qualify for the lower rate. (even though they don't actually want to go to school there, and just want to be a sjw) I believe that when President Nelson states many changes in the church are coming, not all of it is due to the work progressing per se, but also due to the adversary's efforts being quadrupled over the coming years.
- Jane_Doe and Just_A_Guy
-
2
-
I wonder OP's (trolls) "friend" is also concerned about the child marriages of 12 and 13 year olds that still take place in islamic countries...
-
2 hours ago, Carborendum said:
So, Minneapolis just announced that they are dismantling the police and determining a completely new philosophy on how the concept of "public safety" will be handled.
- Vort and Carborendum
-
1
-
1
-
"...Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. WE CALL UPON responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society."
The Family: A Proclamation to the World, 1995
- JohnsonJones and Carborendum
-
2
-
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
That’s a valid point, but I would suggest that the gospel is not the scriptures. The scriptures are not the gospel.
The scriptures contain the Gospel (Heck, 1 Cor 15:3-4 can be argued to contain “the gospel” in two verses); but they are also ancient documents that contain and/or allude to a lot of other stuff.
Spackman’s work maybe doesn’t make my testimony “bigger” or “stronger”, as we typically deploy those terms. But my own experience is that understanding the scriptures in their literary/historical context, does tend to make my testimony a little deeper or richer; and speaking as a history nerd—that has value to me. Anyone else’s mileage, of course, may vary.
I didn't say anything about the scriptures. I agree with your comment though.
- Just_A_Guy and JohnsonJones
-
1
-
1
-
55 minutes ago, tesuji said:
This is all great stuff. I highly recommend them, if you feel that simplistic explanations are no longer enough.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ isn't complex. Communication from the Holy Ghost isn't complex either. It is men who choose to muddy the waters with their so called "intellect". Simplistic explanations are just right for me thank you very much.
-
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Honestly I just wanted to ask him what his motivations were and see if I could get an upfront answer. I expect I wouldn't have.
Methinks they were self-serving motivations, e.g. seeking validation. Just another young buck who recently got an education and wrote a paper who now wants to show the rest of the world how enlightened he is so he can feel welcomed at the adult dinner table.
Perhaps I am too harsh, and I could be wrong, but he definitely came off as pround and unwilling to accept the possibility that others views could be right. He appears to be around my age, and I am sure I have done my fair share of showboating at times as well.
-
If one wants to know the true meaning of the scriptures, the Holy Ghost is the one to seek after for that knowledge...not men who fancy themselves "learned" due to their calling, career, or position. I'll also put this quote here in no direct response to anyone in particular. It was given to Oliver Cowdery and David Whitmer.
“These plates have been revealed by the power of God, and they have been translated by the power of God; the translation of them which you have seen is correct, and I command you to bear record of what you now see and hear”.
History of the Church, 1838–1856, volume A-1, p.25 [23 December 1805–30 August 1834]
- JohnsonJones, Vort, SilentOne and 2 others
-
5
-
You folks need to understand that insurance companies do not dictate treatment. That is a myth. All they do is reimburse. If an insurance company declines to approve a surgery for example, the person and their doctor can still have it done...the insurer just won't be paying for it. These decisions to deny treatment are not made individually from person to person - that would give too much room for bias and error. Legally, everyone's case must be graded the same way. Each surgical procedure for example has medical criteria that must be met, and it is all decided on in advance what that criteria is before members sign up for their plans. Medical policies contain criteria based off of thorough research into best medical practice. That research is done by MD's, Pharmacists, Nurses, etc...not some random group of white collar big wigs. It is all decided and agreed upon up front when you enroll in your plan, and you have the right and ability to know what is and isn't covered. If a certain procedure is not covered by your insurance, then it isn't covered. The potential cost of it isn't included in your premiums...you aren't paying for it...so why should they cover it for you? In fact, they legally can't provide coverage for something not actually specified as a benefit. Saying that insurance is the source of the problem is just ignorance on display. Everyone, including american citizens, share a piece of the rising healthcare cost pie.
-
6 hours ago, tesuji said:
There is a reason that the church no longer sells McConkie's book Mormon Doctrine
David O. McKay actually met with McConkie several times and asked him not to publish the book, and firmly told him to make it clear that it was his own work and opinion, and not endorsed by the church in any way.
I would refute your other statements more, but I doubt you would care to really listen. If all you want to do is criticize then at least get your facts straight from now on...unless of course your aim is to blatantly sew discontent.
-
6 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:
Well...er...uh...:::cough::: Politifact is a left-wing website. It is routinely labeled as such--yes, but conservative media...and, of course, its victims. The site will occasionally call out liberal errors, but in its subject choices and interpretation methods it leans left. In one of the more humorous cases, according to Newsmax, Politifact said Senator Cruz had lied when he said Iran had a holiday celebrating American deaths (can't remember if Cruz said it was rooted in the hostage crisis of the late 1970s, or some event afterwards). In context, Cruz was engaging in hyperbole and was humorously pointing out that Iran could not be trust. Politifact, with straightened face, and utmost seriousness, suggested that Cruz had lied--that no such holiday existed.
I guess they showed him.
Hopefully politifact doesn't find about The Onion or we're all in big trouble.
-
2 minutes ago, Scott said:
Yes, I do a lot of that too.
The reason I used Politicfact is because it quantifies the percentages.
That's hard to do with personal fact checking.
Anyway, you are a big Trump fan, but do you really think that Trump is more honest than Obama was (I do not) and if you do believe so, what evidence do you have?
How exactly does it quantify the percentages when they don't actually fact check everything said? How does it quantify when they cherry pick what statements they do check? Also, if Obama and Trump each tell a half-truth / half-lie they will say Obama's statement is mostly true and Trump's is mostly false. Politifact? Really? C'mon man.
- NeuroTypical, Anddenex and Vort
-
3
-
20 hours ago, estradling75 said:
Indeed. When the ministering program was rolled out Elder Holland was very clear, "We want more Care, Not Less" While they did away with a direct report of Monthly visits... Monthly visits should be the minimum bar... and we should absolutely be doing better then that.
The take away that the program is requiring less of us is a vile satanic lie. The program require less reporting to mortal leaders.. but I have not really been to worried what my leaders thought compared to what the Lord thought of my attempts to keep my promises to him.
We may be getting a bit off topic here, but to me, 1 Ne 16: 1-3 paints this situation very well. John 6: 59-61, and 66-68 is another prime example. The Lord spoke hard things, and many of His disciples left...but He did not vary or change what He had said to bring them back. Think the church is a man-made religion? Don't like being called to repentance? Well then don't expect to abide with the Christ and Father again someday. The Father was willing to lose 1/3 of His children in order to move the plan of happiness forth. I have to wonder if some of those 1/3 possibly thought "our Father won't really cast us off forever. If enough of us show him that we want another way then surely he will change his mind." The Father did not change His mind, because He can't. The bar will not be lowered so that more of His children can partake of eternal life, because that is impossible. It defeats the purpose of eternal life, and that was the great hidden lie about satan's so called "plan". One cannot abide a Celestial glory if they are unable to abide a Celestial law. Now, I am not saying that the ministering program of the church is Celestial law...but hopefully you get my point.
-
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:
Indeed it is pretty typical the people who scream the loudest about openmindedness and tolerance are the most unaccepting of anyone that dares think differently then they do.
The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about as 'old school' as it gets. It is also a religion that has to be applied personally, it always has been. Anyone who is just now realizing this because of the changes the church has made is outing themselves as one of the "Foolish Virgins" but luckily for them there still appears to be time to repent.
It reminds me of the Law of Moses really. The Law of Moses was all about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.. with spiritual 'training wheels' tacked on. People might celebrate the removal of the 'training wheels' that is currently happening in the Church. But the sad reality is.. if you couldn't make it work with the 'training wheels' you are unlikely to make it work without them
Well said. To me the most concerning thing that has been said in this thread so far is "The re-named 'Ministering' program lowered the bar on the assignment." This is completely false, and the exact opposite of what church leaders have taught us about the purpose of the change, and it is disappointing to hear. What did the 5 foolish virgins do when their lamps burned out...they ran to get more oil. Even though they were late, at least they knew it was necessary. One who has this view above is akin to one of those virgins outright refusing to get extra for their lamp when a more pure version of the oil is being freely offered to them and their neighbors. "Oil for my lamp...nah...I'm good. Only 5-10% of my ward and stake are out getting oil...plus, I don't think this oil you have is really better. Really though, all of this stuff isn't necessary anyway. I can have a relationship with the Bridegroom without it and everything will somehow work out in the end." The scriptures have many examples of people who thought this way, and what the end result was...and it was never a better relationship with the Lord.
-
1 hour ago, priesthoodpower said:
You are stuck in time and blinded by your own knowledge of the gospel. You try too hard to speak for God yet we have a prophet that is slowly moving the goal posts so that we CAN welcome more of the lost sheep into the fold, quite the opposite of your beliefs.
I would like to know about some of these "moving goalposts" you speak of.
-
I have lived and served in both. I have nothing against married student wards as they are beneficial to many, but the both of you will likely grow much more in a traditional ward. The various types of service opportunities are far greater, you will likely learn more as there are more experienced members in family wards with different points of view than just young couples. The fact that you are now thinking about this shows you are ready for a traditional ward. It is also easier to make lasting friendships and connections when your ward isn't so transient like student wards. Even if you only stay there for a year or two, you will learn many things that will benefit you when you finally put down permanent roots somewhere.
Help from our leaders...
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
🤦