selek

And the same to you. First- since I'm in a somewhat playful mood, I'd like you to diagram that sentence. Second, if you would, I ask a favor; Point out anything I stated in any of my posts in this thread that is objectively false or demonstrably incorrect. You may not like my delivery, but I don't believe you can point out an actual error in my argument. If you can, I am more than happy to be corrected. In the same vein, it must be pointed out that your entire premise is (by your own admission) subjective. "[T]the way many of your posts come across to me" is, by definition, an act of interpretation and of assumption- ironically, of the very sort of which you are accusing me. If such "assumption" is wrong on my part, why is it justifiable on yours? As a matter of clarification, I prefer not to assume at all. I am (generally) quite careful to limit myself to statements and arguments made and their implications. I much prefer to deal with "what's on the page" than with guesses about what is not. I've found that there are two approaches to discovering truth: one can be likened to sifting wheat and chaff, the other to panning for gold. When sifting wheat and chaff, I find that a vigorous sifting of wheat and chaff tends to produce truth more readily. By contrast, when panning for gold, a lazy, gentle swirling of the pan is more conducive (and indeed, anything else would be counterproductive). I tend to choose the method that seems most appropriate as inspired by the Spirit and be the tenor of the conversation. Do I get it wrong on occasion? More often than I prefer- but I am at least trying, rather than leaving the heavy lifting to others. Do I come across as adversarial in my pursuit of the truth? Sometimes. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Your mileage may vary. Contrary to the accusation, I have not set myself up as judge, jury, or executioner (despite the temptation to do so)- I am too well aware of my own failings and hypocrisy to engage in that kind of hubris. The only people I have actively condemned are those who have publicly and openly apostatized from the Church. The only people I have actively judged are those who stand in open, active, opposition to the Church of Christ. It is no sin to take their self-proclaimed apostacy at face value. It is no wrong to point out the opposition and adversarial status that they themselves not only proclaim, but celebrate. I have not called Elect of God a false prophet, an apostate, or a Son of Perdition. I have not presumed to judge- let alone condemn- him. Where I have attacked, I have attacked his arguments. Where I have incised, I have incised his reasoning and his logic. Every "cut" and "thrust" (okay, maybe a fencing metaphor isn't all that helpful) has been made to explore and expose not only the underlying assumptions, but the implications of what has been said. My questions and exchanges are seldom crafted to "proclaim" truth, but to discover it. I look not merely for the "what", but also the "why". As EoG himself has pointed out in this thread, it is not merely enough to know; one must also understand. Perhaps. But you are assuming that what you interpret as "bombastic vitriol" is 1) genuine vitriol, and 2) a bug, rather than a feature.Contrary to what you have assumed, I hold EoG in no ill will. I have not judged, let alone condemned him, Second, as any good lawyer (and any theatre arts major) can tell you: "drama" has its purposes, too. You "perceive" anger and contention, and assume that there is no method behind my madness. I will be the first in line to admit that I don't always get things right. Heck, I'll be second in line to rent billboard space along the highway to proclaim that. You may not like my approach, but how is yours any different?

It is my understanding that the Law of Consent operates as it does for two reasons: First, doctrine is not merely "truth" (things as they really are), but it is also a covenant between God and his people. By definition, covenants require the consent (or at least assent) of both parties involved. When we lift our hands (and presumably our hearts) to sustain our leaders and their revealed teachings, we are covenanting to be bound to those teachings and standards. A good example of this is the Word of Wisdom. Latter-day Saints (most of them, anyway) accept Doctrine and Covenants 89 (and its current application) to be "doctrine". Modern medical science, by contrast, has gone back and forth several times over the presumed medical benefits of alcohol, coffee, and tea. We, as Latter-day Sants, covenant to avoid alcohol not simply because it is "bad for us" (which may or may not be objectively "true"), but because we have covenanted to do so. That's the same reason why a non-LDS who drinks coffee, tea, or alcohol is under no condemnation for "violating" the doctrine. The second principle, IMO, is one of "safety in numbers" as the Scriptures cited in the "Who is...?" thread specify, one man may err, may sin, or may be just plain dumb wrong- but the odds of the majority of our leaders and the Saints being out of tune with the Spirit are much, much slimmer. The presumption is that the majority of the Saints will choose wisdom (and harmony with the Spirit of God) over sin and iniquity; therefore, a doctrine embraced by the majority of our people- and the whole of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve- will better reflect the promptings of the Spirit than a decision dictated by a minority. Of course, by engaging in common consent, we are playing with fire on two counts: first, we are pledging ourselves to a certain standard of behavior- and we **** ourselves if/when we fail to adhere to that standard. Second, we invite condemnation if we fail to choose wisely and prayerfully- Mosiah 29 is replete with warnings about what happens if the voice of the people should choose iniquity.

If I have misunderstood you, I am more than happy to be corrected.If you have misspoken, I am more than happy to listen to your clarification. For the record, I am interested to know what views you hold that were so "heavily" emphasized in the early Church, but are now considered "apostate". I suspect that the revelation will be enlightening. I find that somewhat problematic since it was referred to three separate times in the very article you cited in condemning President McConkie. Very well. It is not President McConkie's veracity or iteration of events that I was questioning. Not only did you do so then, you are doing so now.No one here has argued that President McConkie or any other General Authority is perfect. You are attacking positions we do not hold. Your exact words were: There are a great many implications in this statement.First, you are arguing that you are correct for believing this "certain doctrine" and that the Church is wrong for not believing with you. You claim that this "error" on the part of the Church is the result of "one man under opinion"- and continue to ignore the fact that this characterization of how the Church works is simply false. You imply (falsely) that the faithful are wrong to embrace "Mormon Doctrine", despite the fact that the Church and its leaders have explicitly done so for nearly fifty years. Not only did the Church embrace the revised edition of "Mormon Doctrine", but they borrowed heavily from it in creating the chapter headings and summaries in the current editions of the Book of Mormon. You state that the book was denounced and imply both that it is false doctrine and that the Church is wrong to cite it in General Conference, while steadfastly ignoring the fact that you have no authority to make such declarations. Not only are you failing to sustain the generations of leaders who endorsed and commissioned the revised work, arrogating their authority unto yourself, and condemning the rest of us for failing to put a happy face on your dissidence- you are attacking the authority and understanding of the Book of Mormon in the process. If "Mormon Doctrine" is false doctrine (as you have implied), then so are the materials derived from it. If "Mormon Doctrine" is false doctrine, then the men who embraced it, endorsed it, and cite it are false prophets. THAT is the implication of your attack on President McConkie and his work. Your claim is an explicit accusation that McConkie was a fallen prophet in need of correction, and a willful distortion of the facts cited in the very article you linked. No, I don't. Nor do I particularly care who you are. You have come here making unfair and unjust judgements and accusations. You have come here smearing our leaders and misrepresenting our beliefs. You have abused your sources and cast aspersions on the Saints as a whole.Those facts will not be altered by knowing your name, or who your great-grandfather was, or how many of your ancestors crossed the plains in the Martin Handcart company. I do not care who you are. I do care that you are honest, accurate, and fair in your representations of the Saints and of our teachings and history. In point of fact, I do. But I also know what a false prophet is, and how they operate in their efforts to spread false doctrine and error. This is, of course, yet another strawman.You are attempting to undermine yet another position that no one here holds, and attacking an argument no one here has made. With your tantrum, you are belittling and condemning the Saints for accepting the words of a Prophet, endorsed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. On the contrary, that is precisely what you did with your attack on McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine".For the last forty-seven years, the revised "Mormon Doctrine" and its author have been embraced and celebrated by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. As you yourself pointed out, it is quoted in General Conference. And you deliberately sneered at the Saints and their leaders for doing so. In short, your actions contradict your words. In the same vein, you have (however obliquely) endorsed sources of doctrine other than those we know to be the only ones authorized by God. This is the same excuse used by Rulon and Warren Jeffs and every other apostate group up to and including William Law.You (and they) prefer your personal interpretation of what was said to the living teachings of the men you claim to sustain. Again, your actions contradict your words. Yes. Have you ignored this entire thread and the last two centuries of Church history?Unless and until it is revealed through the Lord's appointed servants, no revelation (no matter how true) is considered "doctrine". As stated, the Lord's House is one of order- not chaos. Revelations for the Kingdom of God as a whole are revealed through the Lord's annointed and ratified by common consent. Anything less is not "doctrine" no matter how fervently you might wish otherwise. As I have said repeatedly, any true revelation will be in harmony with the revealed teachings of the Church. You are a master of the red-herring and strawman argument, but that's not what I have said or argued.To begin with, you are conflating "doctrine" and "truth", with the presumption (despite all evidence to the contrary) that your personal revelation and truth are one and the same. To (again) quote President Joseph F. Smith: "[T]he theories, speculations, and opinions of men, however intelligent, ingenious, and plausible, are not necessarily doctrines of the Church or principles that God has commanded His servants to preach. No doctrine is a doctrine of this Church until it has been accepted as such by the Church, and not even a revelation from God should be taught to his people until it has first been approved by the presiding authority–the one through whom the Lord makes known His will for the guidance of the saints as a religious body. The spirit of revelation may rest upon any one, and teach him or her many things for personal comfort and instruction. But these are not doctrines of the Church, and, however true, they must not be inculcated until proper permission is given.” Personal revelation about something that has not yet been revealed to the Saints as a whole may be true- but it is not doctrine until it has been revealed to the Church as a whole. And that revelation will come only through the proper channels. The latter statement (while true) is not consistent with your earlier arguments. You have argued consistently (and erroneously) that one can only become worthy of Zion by "exceeding" the Church's teachings (you explicitly likened the Church's teachings to "milk" and your own "enlightenment" to "meat"). On the contrary, I am quite familiar with both the reference and the metaphor.The problem is that you consistently argued that your personal version of "meat" trumps the teachings of the Church. That is not so. If what you are receiving is not consistent with the teachings of the Church, then it is not of God. False. The iron rod is a life lived in harmony with the revealed truths, commandments, and ordinances of the Gospel.If your personal "revelation" is not in harmony with those, than it is not an iron rod, but a lead anchor. Moreover, how many times has God's explicit warning to mankind resulted in damnation? Revelation must be accompanied by repentance and walking uprightly before God. Words without deeds are dead. "Revelation" that is at odds with the revealed truths of the Gospel is poison, not medicine. Yet another strawman. Yet another sally forth against an argument no one here has made.Yes- the Lord expects us to become a holy people, where every man is a prophet, seer, and revelator. Yet even in that perfect vision, all men will be in harmony with the revealed truths of the Gospel, not walking in their own paths. I agree with you (and with President McConkie) that personal revelation is essential to our exaltation and eternal growth as sons and daughters of God. Personal revelation, however, cannot and will not obviate the Priesthood Order (which Christ himself has proclaimed is eternal) nor can it eclipse the revealed truths and authority of those whom the Lord has annointed and appointed as shepherds over this people.

Elect of God, In the last two posts, you've demonstrated a near-miraculous ability to shift the goal posts and a merciless, almost vicious tendency to savage defenseless strawmen. No one here has denied (nor is any likely to) that we are entitled to revelation (as predicated upon our righteousness). So you can lay that particular hobby horse (and attendant persecution complex) to bed. Your wiki citation vis-a-vis President McConkie does not support the claim you made earlier. You alleged that the book was denounced (partially correct) and McConkie threatened (a blatant falsehood). You deliberately obscure the fact that McConkie was not only allowed to publish the corrected version of Mormon Doctrine after its review by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, but was REQUESTED to do so. You deliberately obscured the fact that President McConkie remained in good fellowship and standing in the Church during the entire "kerfuffle" and that his calling as an apostle came AFTER the republishing of the book. Despite your denial, I cannot help but feel that you are being deliberately deceitful in your characterization of McConkie and his membership and service in the Church. Moreover, you were explicit in your criticism of your fellow Saints for accepting the words of an Apostle of God whilst simultaneously rejecting your personal insights. Your exact words were: The hubris, wounded pride, and sheer vanity drip like oil from that statement, and the dishonesty might just as readily be proclaimed in letters ten feet high.It is a matter of historical fact that the initial publication of McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" was rejected by the Church leadership. It is equally a matter of historical fact that the revised edition was published (and is now quoted) with the explicit approval and endorsement of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. What that particular rant boils down to is the fact that Bruce McConkie is accepted and recognized as a Prophet, Seer, Revelator, and Apostle of Christ- and you are not. With your tantrum, you are belittling and condemning the Saints for accepting the words of a Prophet, endorsed by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. The petulant aside about "perfection" is a red-herring as noone here has claimed that any Latter-day Saint IS perfect. It was simply snark disguised as a concession. In the same vein, you have (however obliquely) endorsed sources of doctrine other than those we know to be the only ones authorized by God. For all that you cite Ether 4 in support of your claims, you might consider the explicit warning contained in verse 8. There are two central themes being argued in this thread: The first is whether the words of apostates are a valid source of eternal wisdom. In my opinion, that question has been pretty thoroughly buried. The Church and its leaders are the sole source of authoritative doctrine. All other sources (including personal revelation) must be measured against this pure source. Any true revelation that we receive must and will be in harmony with the teachings of the Church- or it is false doctrine. The second issue is your notion that living one's life within the doctrines and teachings of the Church is tantamount to stunting one's spiritual growth. You have argued consistently (and erroneously) that one can only become worthy of Zion by "exceeding" the Church's teachings (you explicitly likened the Church's teachings to "milk" and your own "enlightenment" to "meat"). You have ladled scorn and derision upon faithful Latter-day Saints- both within and without the leadership- and pronounced them damned (as Joseph Smith used the term, meaning unable to progress or grow in the eternal sense). Your argument boils down to the notion that despite all the efforts of God and his annointed, "the Church" will never be perfected (an idea found nowhere in Scripture) and that we only become worthy of Zion by "outgrowing" it. You are arguing that as "perfected" Latter-day Saints, we will exist as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators independent of the Church of Christ and of the Priesthood organization. That's rubbish, and heresy. God's House is a House of Order- and we will never be "independent" of it. There is not a single authoritative statement to be found supporting your claims. We will be sons and daughters, priests and priestesses, kings and queens of the Most High God forever. We will never be independent of God- we become his heirs, not his peers (or rivals). The scriptures and quotes you cited above do not claim what you pretend they do, and so you must twist them to fit your personal interpretation. Given that you have: 1) encouraged us to embrace non-authoritative sources of doctrine in direct contravention of Scripture, 2) insisted that accepting and adjudging revelation against authoritative sources is tantamount to stunting spiritual growth, 3) have deceitfully and deliberately misrepresented the words and ideas of an Apostle of Christ, 4) have elevated (if only by implication) your own opinions as equally authoritative (or more so) than those of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, 4) have taught and proclaimed a new standard not in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and 5) have attacked the Saints for embracing the words of a Prophet of God, ... how then can we take your words as anything other than a counterfeit and false doctrine?

Huh- okie dokie then. Given how often my ward discusses the same topics as my ex-wife's ward (separated by more than a dozen miles and twice that many wards), I just assumed there was a common curricula.

Speaking in total ignorance here- but isn't there a Church-published list of recommendations week-by-week?

EoG, I believe that I can state with a fair amount of confidence that President McConkie would be appalled at your effort to invoke his name in support of your argument. While no faithful Latter-day Saint would deny that (if we are worthy) we are all entitled to personal revelation, such revelation has never trumped the teachings and doctrines of the Church. In point of fact, we are warned explicitly and repeatedly in Scripture that such teachings are the measure by which we must judge our private revelation. We are entitled to revelation within the limits of our calling and stewardship: not to new doctrine for the Church as a whole. President Boyd K. Packer counseled: (Ensign, Jan. 1983, 53). Emphasis Mine. Scripture is replete with warnings that if your personal revelation is at odds with that of the Church leadership (particularly at a doctrinal level), it is you who is in danger. Darn straight, "seriously". While I question the characterization of the Bishop as "threatening", his conduct appears to be perfectly in line with that espoused by President Joseph F. Smith: https://www.lds.org/manual/teaching-seminary-preservice-readings-religion-370-471-and-475/false-teachings?lang=eng Name any apostate group you like- including the "True and Living Church" apostates noted at the outset of this thread- and you will find a group of people who got started under exactly those circumstances- believing that they alone held the truth (invariably through personal revelation) while those whom the Lord had called and annointed were languishing in sin, ignorance, or disobedience. In truth, I cannot think of an apostate group whose origins does NOT fit this description. No, there is not: but there is a single reliable yardstick by which eternal truths can be measured. The keys to Doctrine and wisdom pertaining to all the Saints resides exclusively with the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. To quote President Joseph Fielding Smith: Those keys will not found in the hands of some "hobbyist" who fancies himself the next Jonah. Nor will they be found in the company of those who agitate for the Church to adopt their conventional "wisdom" under threat of public derision or censure. They will not be found among the would-be "independent" thinker who flatters himself as wiser than all of those whom the Lord has called and annointed, nor in the rameumptom of the vain and boastful academic. To quote Doctrine and Covenants 43:5-7 Emphasis Mine. On the contrary, we are. To quote President Joseph F. Smith: (Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed. [1939], 41–42). While we are entitled to personal revelation, true revelation will come through the channels and authority of the Church and the Priesthood. That which we truly receive from Christ and his Holy Spirit will be in harmony with the teachings and doctrines of the Church. If it is not, the "revelation" comes from another source entirely. Call For References, please. "One man under opinion" does not sway the full weight and might of the Church. For your particular idee fixe to have been "purged" from the doctrines of the Church, all fifteen of these men (and their successors) must have gone along with it. Moreover, this notion of "returning to original teachings because the more modern leaders have lost their way" is exactly the sort of heresy and idolatry that brought us the LeBaron murders, the YFZ atrocities and such laudable and creditable figures as John and Lorin Woolley, Charles W. Kingston, Leroy Johnston, Joel LeBaron, and Warren Jeffs. So answer this: why is YOUR understanding of "the truth" correct, while that of all those whom the Lord has called and annointed wrong? What separates your understanding from the legions of godly men who disagree with you and agree with the Church? What makes your personal grasp of truth any more credible than those of Woolley, Kingston, Johnston, and Jeffs? They made exactly the same claims about personal revelation that you have. So why should we accept your interpretation those of these other men, let alone instead of those who are actually called and commissioned by Christ? We are warned repeatedly in Scripture about those who would arrogate to themselves the prophetic mantle- and those warnings have been fulfilled time and time again. So why should we believe that your personal beliefs are any different? Your characterization of the history of the book "Mormon Doctrine" and of President McConkie's relations with the Quorum of the Twelve is one of two things: either willfully dishonest or staggeringly ignorant. Pick one. Those found worthy to dwell in Zion will not be among those who deliberately turned their backs on the Church because of the deceits and conceits of men, or who fancied themselves more "enlightened" than the Lord's servants. Yes- and it was talking explicitly about men like Joel LeBaron, James Harmston, John Koyle, and Ogden Kraut when it did so.

Depends largely upon the party...

For starters, per the information on the Consent To Take a Survey Page, "him" is a "her". Second, as stated above, I DID take it before I started asking questions about its built-in bias. Finally, now you know why my kids hated it when I helped them with their homework. "If you're gonna do it, do it right.":whistling: @Earl: You are correct: my argument assumes that this survey is limited in its scope and sample. "All over the place" is necessarily a vague and unscientific statement. The problem is that the same method used in multiple locations is not a control against bias and does not automagically ensure an unbiased whole. Even a small tainted sample can skew the results: "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump", and all that- or as many of our tech friends would argue, "Garbage In, Garbage Out". What valid methodological lessons can the young Miss Starr take from a (potentially) poorly designed a/o unrepresentative survey? As I understand it, one of the primary reasons for doing this poll is to be familiar with the practice and methodologies involved for use in the future. Are we doing her any favors by simply playing along and ignoring (what I at least perceive to be) flaws in her methodology? Isn't a lesson learned or a new thought added better than a complacent nod and a belly rub, even for an old sea dog? From her response, BluePlastic is at least aware (if she was not before) of the potential problems with her methodology. That's a plus in my book. If the built-in problems with her survey don't skew the data, more power to her. If, however, they do, she needs to be aware of that effect before she engages in real-world (as opposed to classroom) exercises, wouldn't you agree? There seems to be a consensus here that I am nit-picking Blue for mere pedanticism's sake. Has it crossed none of your minds that I genuinely want to help her achieve all that she can? Isn't that the point in participating in the survey in the first place?

Agreed, but the problem is that this poll is targeting a self-selecting minority, rather than a general population; generally a huge no-no in any kind of stastical analysis. By targeting a comparatively small (and self-selecting) subset of Mormons, rather than Mormons generally, the OP has made it extremely unlikely that her results will be representative of the whole. Put it another way: how well do you think this poll would reflect the LDS people if it were answered only by fans of the HBO series "Big Love"? My guess would be "not very well" as only a tiny minority bother to watch that show at all, let alone consider theemselves "fans". By the same token, very few Mormons have the time, patience, or OCD to establish themselves here. There is a very real possibility that our presence here represents a receptiveness (a quite bluntly, access) to technology not shared by LDS as a whole. There is no (obvious) control for such a bias, which may very well render the results invalid. I'm not saying it's a bad poll: I'm saying that the sample demographic may skew the results. There is also the possibility that the poll is measuring one thing under the pretext of another (not an uncommon tactic in polling) and what I perceive as a bug is actually a feature. Time will tell, I suppose. Agreed, but not my point.

I took your survey- but I genuinely wonder of what use the results will be to you. Your stated purpose was to assess the utility and effectiveness of Church produced media and the new media options (such as blogs and podcasts). What troubles me is that your primary demographic (this group especially) is already fairly tech-savvy and our mere presence here makes it more likely that any of us is more likely to both have used- and to respond to- such media. How, then, are you controlling for confirmation bias and obtaining a representative (unbiased) sample?

Without getting a sealing cancellation, yes- but three applications for Temple marriages inside of five years (assuming he doesn't already have a new honey in mind)? That's gonna raise red flags up and down the line, if only from a polygamy angle. Moreover, even acquiring a Temple recommend requires that he be dealing honestly and honorably with wives and children- which he arguably has not. The Church takes these covenants seriously, even if he does not- and this will be an increasingly up hill climb the longer he plays this game, as will the repentance process once he finally gets called on the carpet.

To the best of my knowledge (and a search of the internet) he is not- just a small-time apostate trying to milk his father's "fame" by peddling third-hand conspiracy theories and implausible "scandals" involving Church leaders. You are wasting your time.The only thing Ogden Kraut's writings brought were a life-time persecution complex, a whole-hearted investment in the biggest swindle in Utah's history, and a personal crusade against the Church of Christ. However "fascinating" you may find his drivel (the Expositor is also an entertaining read, BTW), there is nothing of use, nothing uplifting to be found in his personal Gospel.

Welcome- and congratulations.

Ogden Kraut was a self-proclaimed "Mormon Fundamentalist" who felt that the Church was in apostacy over the practice of polygamy- and went so far as to publicly call the Church to repentance. He ran a couple of cottage printing presses in Salt Lake City mostly devoted to other apostate endeavors. He was big on conspiracy theories, the Adam-God nonsense, and quite a few other cultural fragments from the fringes of Mormon society His son is a crackpot in the same vein working to keep his father's books on sale (and the money coming in) whose primary claim to fame is the unevidenced (and improbable) notion that President Bruce R. McConkie had apostatized, admitted to deliberately misleading the Mormon faithful, and confessed "on his deathbed" that he knew the Church was false. Both father and son- and the works associated with them- should be treated with the same respect given to Elvis sightings, UFO abduction stories, and Bigfoot documentaries.

I have to agree with Gwen. The boundary mentioned in the OP is "incompatible" ONLY in that longtang2 believes his family's predilections and preferences are "special" and should be exempted from the same rules as the rest of the Latter-day Saints. The "permanent visitor" crack is likewise a warning of priorities which are seriously misplaced. In my opinion, this isn't a question of "hardship", but of indulgence. The Bishop in the ward he and his family wish to camp out cannot (absent an exception to the rules) recommend Longtang or his family to the Temple. Given that the Temple- and the covenants made therein- are crucial to exaltation, Longtang is implicitly willing to accept a lesser Kingdom of Glory as the price of not dealing with car seats. Does that seem right to you? Home and visiting teachers (assuming they come at all) will likewise come from his home ward, rather than his preferred one. As such, they will be virtual (if not literal) strangers to this family. Again- without an exception approved by the leadership- the Bishop with whom the family is camping out will have neither stewardship nor means to provide for their spiritual or temporal welfare, nor the authority to call them to service (which more often than not enriches those called more than those served). Does this still sound like a minor issue of little importance? If so, what other compromises are you willing to sign off on in the name of "convenience"? It is up to those who hold the stewardship and calling to decide whether they will grant Longtang2 an exemption to the rules. I would not gainsay their decision whichever direction they choose. Given the red flags involved, however, (and were it my stewardship) I would not grant the exemption without considerable prayer and clear direction to that end from the Holy Spirit.

The same argument is justly made about tax withholdings. If Americans had to write a check every month for the moneys withheld by the government, this would be a VERY different country.

Sorry it took so long to acknowledge this, but you are correct.Not everyone's cup of tea, but well worth it if you're quick-witted and listen closely.

Based on the dictum "If you can't say anything nice" I was going to limit myself to pushing the various "Laugh" and "Thank" buttons- but this statement made me sit up and take notice. My ex-wife and I have been divorced for nearly fourteen years now- and we were only married for seven. There isn't a day that goes by that I don't wake up pining for her, wanting to undo the past, and wanting to build a Celestial marriage with her. She professes that she doesn't want me any more, but woe betide the moment she finds I might actually be interested in another woman. She doesn't want me; but can't stand the thought of me being with anyone else. She's made periodic, half-hearted attempts at single's wards, E-harmony, that sort of thing- knowing full well what that does to me; but thus far, nothing's ever come of it. Neither of us has (thus far) been willing or able to make the core changes necessary to be togther; but neither have we been willing or able to walk away. We are trapped in each others orbit, unwilling to be together, unable to leave. And that's no way to live. My advice to you (knowing full well the hypocrisy I offer) is to make the break as quickly and cleanly as you can. Get away before he makes you crazy. Get away before he damages your testimony. Get away before he settles down with his sugar momma and starts wondering if things weren't better before- and tries to use YOU as "the other woman". Get away before he breaks your heart again- because he will. Get away before it's too late. Find youself a genuine man- a good and honorable Priesthood holder who will honor his covenants instead of trying to use God to justify his betrayal. What he did WAS NOT of God. He knowingly made covenants with you and God- and willingly broke those covenants to feed his appetite. Now he's trying to justify that betrayal in the name of God.

You are assuming that because I reached a different conclusion than you did, that I did not pay attention to his posts.That is nothing more than arrogant presumption and condescension on your part. Worse, you're simply wrong. You spend a lot of time in this and other posts speculating about my thoughts, my mindset, and my motives- while presuming to take me to task for allegedly doing the same thing to Upcountry. You are not, unfortunately, gifted with any particular insight, nor are you qualified to make such judgements, and thus fail time and time again. Physician, heal thyself.Your participation in this thread has been nothing but an attemot to affirm your own correctness and my alleged error. I based my initial stance on a careful reading of Upcountry's statements and the attendant contradictions. I took Upcountry to task for what I perceived to be unsupportably hubristic and charity-deprived attacks against our non-LDS brethren. I attacked his statements, his arguments, and his pronoucements. I did not (to the best of my knowledge) attack him as a person, nor belittle his worth in the eyes of God. When presented with new information (and Upcountry's own clarifications), I adjusted my stance accordingly. You, however, continue to worry and snap at my heels as though that grants you some sort of credibility or points for "bravery". Neither could be further from the truth. Which is why I esteem your "correction" so lightly.Every accusation you have made against me in this thread can be answered upon your own head with equal facility. The lenses through which you view things are not one whit less clouded than the lenses through which I view things. The difference is that I am willing to be corrected based upon new information and new revelation. You, by contrast, are simply rehashing the same arguments you made before in the hopes of wearying me into compliance. Partially correct: I said what I did based upon the arguments and statements Upcountry presented, and upon the tone and tenor of those remarks.I responded to a line of thought that appeared to headed in a dangerously counter-Scriptural direction, and one that could only offend and alienate our non-LDS brethren. I believe that my response to those arguments was correct, even as it has become apparent that those arguments were not what Upcountry intended to convey. To refer back to one of President Monson's conference talks, it doesn't matter that the boys only intended to burn one small portion of grass, the adults had to prevent the entire meadow from burning. I appreciate Upcountry's clarification of this opinions, thoughts, and intents- but I will still be one of the first in line to combat prejudice, arrogance, and anti-Christian dogma- no matter who spouts it or why. Gotta love the petulance in this statement. With this single statement, you've just condensed the last ten paragraphs of whinging into a single quasi-coherent statement. You are complaining that I have been trying too hard to understand precisely what was said while just one breath earlier, you were whining that I wasn't trying hard enough. You can't have it both ways. And because I won't simply roll over and play the game by your rules, you're going to take your ball and go home. Wow. I'm heart-broken. "Honestly, there could be tears." Oh, horse pockey. You just got done congratulating me for "changing my mind" and realizing UpCountry's "true intent".Again, you can't have it both ways. On the contrary, confronting false teachings is part of my calling and commission both as a Latter-day Saint and as a Priesthood holder.That is especially true when such teachings might drive an unbeliever away from the true Gospel. Then perhaps you'd best look in the mirror.You have a remarkable ability to quote Scripture to your own purposes, but you also have an equal facility at perverting them to suit your agenda. We as Latter-day Saints are called and commissioned to be proclaimers and champions of the truth. We are called and commanded to be wise and profitable servants, to proclaim the truth boldly, rather than to hide our light under a bushel. I changed my stance based on new information. You are still "contending to straighten out and correct he thinking of another when you have no authority nor reason to do so." I changed my stance based on Upcountry's admission and clarification, and reached out to try and establish common ground (that whole D&C 121 thing). You are still acting in a spirit of contention trying to wring some morsel of submission or contrition from me. Once again: Physician, heal thyself.

I read through this thread, and the previous one upon which it is based. I feel like I've been stuck in a Douglas Adams-inspired LSD trip and can't find the door or my towel!

I find this statement to be a bit broad.The key to pronouncing doctrine for the entire Church belongs to the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. Yet we each are entitled to knowledge and revelation from God as well, within the limits of our faithfulness and stewardship. Mormonism is not a blind faith, nor a top-down, command-and-control organization. Each of us is entitled to personal revelation and ratification that we are, if fact, doing the Lord's will. Then, and only then, does it become a question of obedience.

Zen moment?I would point out two things: First, no one here (contrary to the hysteria) is arguing that organizations seeking exempt status should NOT face review. The problem is that as regards this scandal, the reviews were both extraordinarily intrusive (the content of my prayers is NONE of the government's business) and appear to have been ideologically motivated. Second, the government- especially its enforcement branches- are supposed to be politically neutral. Obama campaigned on restoring integrity and trust to the government and ending the partisan squalor. Now it looks like his top aides not only betrayed that vision, but deliberately subverted their government posts as weapons. As the absolute antithesis of neutralty, they acted as willing participants in a partisan campaign of intimidation and abuse. They set aside their oaths and duty to enforce the law in a neutral fashion and acted to intimidate and punish their political enemies. That's third-world banana republic crap- we expect more of our public servants, even under President Barack Hussein Quaddafi.

Upcountry: I did not see this post until after I'd started (and finished) my soliloquy above. That having been said- I apologize for not returning to this conversation earlier (the last four days have been remarkably hectic). In point of fact, I agree with you. As I pointed out, however, that authority is not a subset of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As you point out above, the reverse is true: we as a Church are subset of the true Church and derive our attributes and ordinances from the whole. As stated above, the LDS movement is temporary and transient. When all is said and done, we will be restored to the greater whole- the Church of God, and sectarian divisions will be a thing of the past. The woman who was raised Catholic and spent her whole life seeking Christ will be afforded the same opportunity at exaltation as is the Sister born and raised in the LDS Church. She will not be afforded access to "Mormon" ordinances, but to Christ's ordinances. She will be judged on her actions and upon her decisions, not by the watermark in her Bible (as you acknowledge above). I took your earlier posts as belittling and demeaning non-members, and as self-aggrandizing membership in the Church. That was the behavior to which I referred as "bigoted". I do not doubt your testimony, but I've got something of a spinal reflex towards those who engage in Christian a/o Catholic bashing. If that's not you, then I apologize for misunderstanding you. Again, your testimony is similar to my own- my training was as an engineer and analytical thinker.I, too, distrust assumptions and unfounded assertions, and yet I have pronounced faith in God. I've outlined a bit more clearly in the post above where I think you were "off the reservation", and if I have misunderstood you, I apologize. I look forward to further clarification of your thoughts and opinions, and exchanging the same with you.

Matthew, I don't pretend that this is NOT a valid interpretation; but it remains an interpretation- one of many.I was very precise in my phrasing: the accounts to which you are referring do not demonstrate that "they were wrong" was the whole, or even primary, reason that Joseph was not to join the various Churches. I acknowledge that it is the only reason stated, but we have no reason to believe that there were not others. Or to put it another way, "the lack of evidence is not evidence of lack". It is quite possible that this reason was only one of many, and history lends evidence (not proof) to support such a notion. Are you familiar at all with the reasoning behind the creation of the District of Columbia? One of the primary rationales behind creating a Federal district was to ensure that no mere state or commonwealth could lay claim to the Federal capital. The states were, by definition, to be a union of equals, with none having any more prestige or authority than another- thus the capital became a district unto itself. In the same vein, had Joseph (the future prophet) been a baptized or even ordained member of a particular sect, Mormonism (as it is commonly understood) would be defined (for better or worse, and with varying degrees of accuracy) as an offshoot of that sect. Had Joseph been an Episcopalian, we as a people would be seen primarily as an offshoot of Episcopalianism, rather than what we rightly are: a restoration of Christ's true church. While I don't disagree that your preferred interpretation is the most commonly accepted, that interpretation is neither mandatory, nor necessarily whole and complete. On the contrary, I need prove nothing of the sort.I neither claim that God told Joseph such a thing, nor that Joseph was aware of the work (at this early juncture) of the work he would be called to do. God's reasoning is his own, and we often understand his methods only in retrospect. The lesson of the 118 pages, and the providential (quite literally, in fact) duplication of the record in 1 Nephi are a similar example. Mormon (and Moroni), Joseph, and Martin only understood the Lord's wisdom and preparation after the manuscript had been lost. The Lord did not indicate WHY this was wisdom before hand. His servants understood only after the lesson had been learned. Neither you nor Upcountry have demonstrated that the fact they were in error was the primary- let alone only- reason why God forbade Joseph to join those Churches. You may suggest anything you like- but you have yet to provide any evidence that I am wrong. Context is the heart of the problem: in order to reach his inflammatory conclusion and continue the bashing of anyone who doesn't believe exactly as he does, Upcountry has to ignore the last two centuries (give or take a decade and a half) of official Church doctrine and teaching.He was cherry-picking a quote, twisting it to fit his agenda, and then pretending his interpretation was held by the Church as a whole. Upcountry didn't get "steamrolled" for bearing his testimony; he got "steamrolled" for spouting anti-Christian bigotry as though it were the official policy of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is NOT, and no barracks-lawyering is going to change that simple fact. For the record, you are correct that the rites and teachings currently contained in Mormon theology are essential.They are not, however, "Mormon" rites and teachings. They belong to the Church of the Firstborn, whose sole current incorporation is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And thus we come to the crux of the matter: "in this life or the next."The terms "Mormon" and "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" are temporary, transient terms. We will not be known as "Mormons" or "Latter-day Saints" in the next world: but only as sons and daughters of God, or as members of the "Church of God". Sectarian differences will be abolished. There will only be two categories- those who follow Christ and those who will not. Do you really believe that someone who genuinely devoted her entire life to Christ would deny him afterward because some schmuck in a pointy hat told her to? You don't think someone who spent his entire life seeking the true Christ will not recognize him when he sees him? Yes- there will be those who were deceived and will choose a lesser glory. But can it honestly be said that such an one was a true disciple of Christ? That they choose a lesser glory does not mean that the deception continues, only that they chose something other than the fulness of God's offering and redemption. I refer you to Doctrine and Covenants 112: 9.On that nore, however, shall we schedule a visit to the opthalmic surgeon together? In point of fact, I couldn't care less how much Upcountry polishes his rameumptom. I DO care about him spouting anti-Christian bigotry on this board (in violation of the rules, common sense, and common decency) and pretending he speaks on behalf of all "right-thinking" Mormons. His rants were ignorant, bigoted, and intended to do one thing only: to drive a wedge between Latter-day Saints and our fellow Christians. For all your complaints about me failing to build bridges, I've yet to see anything from you about Upcountry trying gleefully to burn them. The non-LDS Christians on this board are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They are sons and daughters of God. For a self-professing Latter-day Saint to sneer at them about how we are saved and they are not is to subvert every tenet of the Church. Before you get too busy throw around parables, I suggest you and Upcountry review Alma 31 and decide who among us has been expressing the following sentiments: Contrary to your accusation, I know I am a sinner and do not pat myself on the back for being "not like other men", let alone pretend that my membership in the Church somehow makes me intrinsically better than my neighbor. Indeed- but how many Mormons can honestly say they have followed all the commandments?A membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't guarantee you a cup of warm spit in hell, let alone better seating than your "heathen" neighbor. Only those who are true disciples of Christ (which does NOT automagically equate to membership in the LDS Church) will be truly worthy. Yes- God will be merciful. But if he is more merciful to us than to our non-LDS brethren, he reveals himself to be a "respector of persons"- something we know to be intrinsically impossible. This statement is so overly broad as to render it useless.It is not enough merely to reject the oppportunity: you must do so knowingly. And that means having a testimony (or at least the seeds of one)- and is ultimately up to Christ himself to judge. Brushing off the missionaries is not sufficient- the rejection must be an informed decision, not one made in haste or ignorance. Finally, we're talking about two different things: redemption and exaltation. It is unwise to conflate them. The ordinances you speak of are necessary and mandatory to exaltation, not to resurrection/redemption. Per the conventional Christian understanding, even Sons of Perdition will be "redeemed" (according to LDS theology). Note the difference between redemption and exaltation. Per the Church website: Note, again, the qualifiers: "served Satan and turned utterly against God". Does such a term actually apply to someone who was born and raised in a non-LDS faith and sought to be a good person their whole life? A judgement you are not qualified to make, let alone pronounce as an eternal verity. Only if one chooses to interpet it that way, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.My emphasis has been both clear and consistent: someone who genuinely seeks the truth and embraces it when it is offered, someone who earnestly seeks to become a disciple of Christ, or someone who is truly accepting of and seeks to emulate Christ's love to the best of their ability will find their way into a Kingdom of Glory. None other need apply; membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints notwithstanding. A couple of scriptures come to mind. I leave you to consider them at your leisure.Doctrine and Covenants 112: 5 (The aforementioned) Doctrine and Covenants 112: 9 Doctrine and Covenants 121:43 (in which I am a big believer and in need of the occasional reminder) To Upcountry, I would also offer the following: Doctrine and Covenants 112: 11 If this does not echo the Lord's commandment to love our neighbors as ourselves- even the non-LDS ones- as ourselves, then what possible validity could it contain?Doctrine and Covenants 112: 24-26 24 Behold, vengeance cometh speedily upon the inhabitants of the earth, a day of wrath, a day of burning, a day of desolation, of weeping, of mourning, and of lamentation; and as a whirlwind it shall come upon all the face of the earth, saith the Lord. 25 And upon my house shall it begin, and from my house shall it go forth, saith the Lord; 26 First among those among you, saith the Lord, who have professed to know my name and have not known me, and have blasphemed against me in the midst of my house, saith the Lord. Doctrine and Covenants 121:45 45 Let thy bowels also be full of charity towards all men, and to the household of faith, and let virtue garnish thy thoughts unceasingly; then shall thy confidence wax strong in the presence of God; and the doctrine of the priesthood shall distil upon thy soul as the dews from heaven. Emphasis Mine in all of the above. Note that we, as Latter-day Saints are in no wise commanded to treat the "gentile" as less than ourselves. Indeed, while we as Latter-day Saints are singled out for particular blessings (notably the ordinances Matthew0059 mentioned above), we are also singled out with great responsibilities and great condemnation and tribulation where we fail. Of those to whom the Lord has given much, he expects much- including love unfeigned and charity towards our non-LDS brethren.