puf_the_majic_dragon

Working on it :) You did take my statement completely out of context. Had I said only the excerpt you quoted, I would be forced to agree with your inference. Or doctrine... But if you're going to assume that Abraham knew more than you do, why not just assume that Thomas Monson also knows more than you do, and thus end this entire conversation? To use your own words, "speaking harshly, clearly, bluntly, or sharply" can be expressions of love. That means that love is not the same thing as the way it is expressed. Nor is love the same thing as the way it is received. So if an expression of love amounts to pandering, pampering, or spoiling, the love is no less valid than if the expression amounted to arguing, shaming, or even violence. Case in point: My father was abusive. It took a lot of growing up before I realized that that was his way of expressing love and correction. A very poor way, obviously, but still the only way he knew. It was a rather profound day when I realized my dad did actually love me. OK. Fine. I give up. You win! I concede that point, since there's no way for anyone to go to the spirit world and poll suicide victims to find out why they did it. (Not that we need to...) (Tangent: I was also rather perturbed that the Deseret News article didn't cite any sources. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find any useful information if you include the words "mormon" or "LDS" in a web search?! And it only gets worse if you include any variation of LGBT in there... It's almost enough to make me want to do the research myself. Almost.) HAHA! Now we're communicating! OK. That's fair. But while you're waiting for evidence about homosexuality, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have already determined (rather prayerfully, no doubt) that the current approach (that of compassion and understanding) to this issue is the correct approach. To wit: a gay mormon does not need to be reminded that he's a sinner. He needs to be reminded that he's a child of God. (One more thing - it really doesn't matter at all why a person is gay. Not one whit. Maybe you're heterosexual and have never once had even an inkling of temptation to find another man attractive, much less have sex with him. But the fact is that other men, and women, and transexuals, and non-binary, and pan-gender people DO have that temptation. While it may be just as easy for you to be heterosexual as it is for you to get out of bed in the morning, it is much more difficult for others. It doesn't matter why it's difficult for them to be heterosexual, it only matters that it is difficult. It's their trail of faith, not yours, so don't you dare judge them just because they sin differently than you do. It's worth noting that Carole M. Stephens included same gender attraction in the same category as death of a child and infertility when speaking in her April General Women's Conference address.) Maybe it's time to change directions. Instead of asking "What happened to declaring repentance?" (which, as you've mentioned in your OP, is a very thin line from "Our leaders are wrong") we might be asking "Why has the Lord directed His apostles to change tones at this time?" That might be a more fruitful discussion.

How about the example I already gave? The first recorded explanation of the "Adam–God" doctrine was by Brigham Young, who first taught the doctrine at the church's spring general conference on April 9, 1852. (JoD, v1, p. 46-53) In 1976, church president Spencer W. Kimball stated "We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine." (Conference Report, p. 115, October 1-3, 1976) My point is not to debate the doctrines or to wrest the prophets, and I am definitely not trying to encourage people to doubt their faith or dissent from the church - so I will not make a list of such examples. My point is to highlight how our apostles and prophets are just as human and fallible as you and I. That can be very faith-building, as I've mentioned, just as it is faith-building to know that Jesus "was in all points tempted like as we are". I would say that anyone whose faith is shaken by this has put too much of their faith in the mortal leaders of the church and not enough faith in the Immortal whose church it is. I will say this - reading this discussion and participating in it has definitely given me a greater appreciation for Brigham Young. He was God's servant and the right man for his time, in spite of his weakness. I've decided his life is worth further study. So thanks, Roger, for asking the question :)

I think we (Mormons) do tend to put our general authorities on a pedestal. All that talk about "The Lord's servants cannot lead the church astray" kind of puts us into a mode of "The Lord's servants cannot go astray". The truth is that LDS general authorities, prophets and apostles included, can and sometimes do teach false doctrine. Sometimes over the pulpit at general conference. They're human and they're fallible, just like the rest of us. Which should actually give us all a great deal of optimism, since if the Lord determines that these men are worthy leaders of His church, then maybe all of us with our own faults aren't as hopeless as we sometimes feel. We shouldn't judge ourselves too harshly, either.

I haven't known you very long on this forum, but we've had a fair amount of interaction. Where you and I have interacted, I have not once seen you demonstrate that you've understood the message I was attempting to convey. It's like we're speaking two completely different languages... You infer wrong and have ignored the entire context of my statement. Go back and reread it. All of it, this time. On a related note: I can think of no more insidious false teaching than this. "God is love." (1 John 4:16) "Love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:10) "Love covereth all sins." (Provers 10:12) "Charity shall cover the multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8) "Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (1 Corinthians 13:13)(Emphases added) Anyone who would suggest that ANYTHING comes before love has "perverted the right way of the Lord" and "wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!" We understand everything better than our ancestors. EVERYTHING. Metallurgy, biology, chemistry, physics - we understand how to harness fire to propel ourselves faster than the speed of sound (we understand sound!), we understand how to harness light to create electricity, we understand how to harness electricity to create vast global libraries the size of your fingernail. We understand EVERYTHING better than our ancestors, so why should you make religion the one exception? We learn. If we do it right, we pass on what we learn to our children and they learn more than we did. It's called progress. The only thing arrogant is ignoring that fact and thinking we got where we are on our own efforts. And THAT is why we can't understand each other. Because I say love, and you hear pandering, pampering, and spoiling. We absolutely ARE speaking two different languages. And who or what is responsible for that misunderstanding? The people trying their hardest but seemingly unable to bring about the expected change? Or the people telling them their efforts are meaningless if the change never happens? Who cares? ONE suicide is too many. And there have been more than one. Why are you even choosing to argue that point? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635201873/Deadly-taboo-Youth-suicide-an-epidemic-that-many-in-Utah-prefer-to-ignore.html?pg=all Apparently the tables have turned, and now you demand miracles as evidence of faith. If those gay kids would just have more faith, they would instantly be able to walk on water - er - I mean - stop being gay. To use your own metaphor, I have insomnia and central sleep apnea. Neither is treatable. getting up at 7am? puh-lease. I can (actually, I do) have a dozen alarms set, lights on a timer, sunlight therapy, the whole nine yards and I still could not drag myself out of bed until 8:10 this morning (I actually slept better last night than I have all week). You might have no problem getting up on time. But just because it's so easy for you does not mean that it's just as easy or even possible for me. (Tangent: I've actually stopped praying for a good night's sleep because I noticed that I always slept worse when I did. I actually did a study on myself - granted, you can't have a double blind study when you have one participant who is also your researcher and the subject is prayer and sleep, so I can't rule out psychological artifacts, but in this case that's immaterial, since I was measuring the correlation itself, not determining the cause. I'm a big fan of science, and don't be too surprised if you should find yourself unwittingly participating in an impromptu experiment by responding to my posts.) I love that story :) There absolutely is a time and a place for "reproving betimes with sharpness". But I also love how your story illustrates a very key principle - her own words, as you quoted them, "If I didn’t love you I'd toss you out of my house this instant!!" You would have been tossed out of her house if you had not first established that relationship with her. Love absolutely does come first. "Love is the fulfilling of the law" after all. As for loving someone "right into hell", see my above response to Vort's comment. (Tangent: Norma's children failing to be bold in calling her to repentance was fear, and therefore not love. There is no fear in love. Your call to repentance was made with real love, and received with love, hence why it actually made a difference.)

Three words: Adam. God. Doctrine. Brigham was definitely called to lead the church across the plains, and he was the man for the job. But he also had a lot of less than savory character flaws that spilled over into his teaching. He's not my favorite prophet, and there a few corrections made to his instruction even while he was alive because of its.... questionable nature. Now I suppose that us complaining about Brigham's flaws is more or less the same as Aaron and Miriam complaining about Moses second (out of the covenant) wife. I am not aware of any recent official or unofficial efforts by the church or any of its leaders to disavow Brigham or his teachings any more than was done during his lifetime. There may be members, like myself, who choose favorites and don't choose him.

I agree with TFP, this author sounds full of it. But not everything you've quoted is junk. It's pretty clear that the Lord will "cleanse" or "purify" His people. Sorting the wheat and the tares yadda yadda. This may or may not be what Nephi was prophesying, but really that doesn't make a lick of difference. What bothers me is why that author thinks this is limited to a single defining event? More likely it will be a series of events over a long period of time. Gathering the wheat into the barn takes time, especially when you've got to pull tares out of the mix. I will submit Prop 8 in California as one example - it definitely had that effect, where those who were not fully converted to the Gospel became offended and left. There will be many such things to come. Many ways that the teachings of the Apostles will not sit comfortably with many of the Saints (and that may include the "decline of declaring repentance"). The same could be said for both Official Declarations, both of which saw their share of dissidents refusing to accept them.

THIS! I don't think the message is so much "love before repentance" as much as "Love them into repentance". Think of it as calling to repentance "by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—." There are 15 million ways that members misinterpret and misconstrue what the elders of the church teach us. There are Mormons out there right now preaching the theology of prosperity, in spite of the fact that Elder Oaks very EXPLICITLY denounced such as a false doctrine. All the brethren can really do is continue to reiterate the truth, and those who have ears to hear.... I'm not sure the Savior changed the way we declare repentance, but maybe we are better understanding the Savior's way? Not to mention each person has their own personality, including those who are called to teach. On my mission, I taught in a very different way from all of my companions, and that worked for some people and didn't work for others. Our current generation of leaders teach in this way - it doesn't make it wrong or better or worse, only different. And let's be frank - it is working for a large number of people who struggle with sexual addictions or LGBT inclinations. I think the choice of "live in misery, live in sin, or kill oneself" is the product of the "hard line" call to repentance. I have personally experienced and witnessed in others the way that attitude can sap a person's desire and destroy their faith when they are faced with repeated failure at "change". When faced with rather staggering statistics about teen suicide among LGBT mormons, sticking to the "hard line" seems to be rather obtuse. The new message is exactly the opposite - that you can live in happiness and the Atonement can and will work for you no matter how successful you are in your efforts to keep the commandments. What matters is that you keep making the effort. That's the message I keep hearing, and having some personal experience with these issues I think that's the message that the target audience is getting. (It's worth noting that it's the same message we give our missionaries - "success is in the effort, not the number of baptisms". It seems that doctrine has wider applications than just missionary work.)

@Traveler - That is a fantastic story. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe these things happen all the time and we just don't talk about them. If so, why don't we? Is it because we think that every spiritual experience is "sacred" and we equate "sacred" with "thou shalt not talk about it"? Or is it because we're afraid that others won't believe us? Maybe a bit of both. I choose to believe you, because it gives me hope that maybe I'm more wrong than I am right, and this would be a wonderful thing to be wrong about. @The Folk Prophet - Yes, I'm cynical. But nobody is born a cynic. If I doubt the frequency of big miracles, it's because every time I suggest that each and every one of us can do them, I get pooh-poohed and told I'm delusional. The fact that we're having this conversation at all is fully reinforcing my cynicism. I did not ask if you prayed about your life and career choices. I asked if you prayed specifically about that life choice - to quit your job and live wholly on faith and miracles. I am fairly certain that, as often as you've prayed about your career choices, that was never an option you considered. And there are two reasons why you never considered it: either it never occurred to you, or you cast it away as impossible, impractical, delusional, or "not God's will" (before you asked Him). As long as we're conditioned to never ask God open-ended questions, we will only ask about the choices we know we have - and we will always ignore the options we're totally unaware of. Or worse - ignore the options we think are impossible, which is my whole point. No option is impossible. Big miracles ARE important. Less important than the powerful, personal, "small" miracles, maybe, but less important does not mean unimportant. Jesus would not have told us that we could command a mountain and have it instantly remove itself unless it was vitally important. It was vitally important to Traveler's bishop. I am not saying that members of the church in any proportion are faithless (without faith). I am suggesting that we put limits on our faith, and thereby limit ourselves. That we hold ourselves back. That we've created this cultural box, and everything in the box is faith and everything outside the box is "delusional" or "magic" and in all ways just plain preposterous. So preposterous, that when something outside the box does happen, we're afraid to talk about it in a Fast and Testimony meeting because nobody would believe us. We've developed this list of reasons why God won't grant us the big miracle we're requesting, nevermind that most of those reasons are flimsy at best, and several are just straight up false. I question that list. And I ask you to question that list. And if we get enough people to question that list - maybe one of them will tear it up and baptize 1000 people in a day. And maybe someone else will tear it up and baptize their whole office. And maybe, just maybe, someone will tear it up and exercise faith even as the brother of Jared did. @Flinrock - It's nice to have a translator. I get worked up and forceful in my dialogue, which is part of my communications deficiency that I'm working on improving. But yes, this is meant to be an invitation to believe and not be afraid to act on that belief. It's definitely not supposed to be an argument

Taken together, those last two responses indicate unequivocally that I am being completely misunderstood. I have done my best. To explain what I'm trying to say any more clearly or plainly would be beyond my ability. I've never been a good communicator, in spite of the efforts I continue to make to improve on that weakness. I'll give it one last go, because I'm stubborn and optimistic. First things first. Definitions. Miracle: an act of God on behalf of one or more humans, generally supernatural and unexplainable by contemporary means. Small Miracle: a miracle which is visible or recognizable primarily to the person who the miracle was meant to benefit. Big Miracle: a miracle which is visible or recognizable to many, most, or even all observers. The eternal importance of a miracle is not material to these definitions. The most important miracle, the change of heart accompanying conversion to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, is by far the most important and profound miracle, and it would be a "small" miracle in this context. In our LDS context, small miracles are generally recounted as signs to the faithful. Big miracles are generally recounted as signs of the faithful. Small miracles are wonderful blessings to one or a few people. Big miracles are that, but also benefit a great many more people. Since my own faith has been attacked, let me state it succinctly: My life is replete with small miracles. Some of these have been absolutely incredible and, to use a modern euphemism, mind-blowing. I do not and am not and have not at all intended to discount the small miracles happening every moment around us. But were I to recount my small miracles on this forum, it is not likely to have any significant effect on any of you, because they are small - personal and specific to me. This conversation seems to be revolving around the importance of big miracles. The general attitude in the church is that "big miracles don't matter, because the small miracles are usually the most important ones." While that statement may be factually true, I think most of the time we use it as an excuse, a way to rationalize why big miracles aren't more common. Insert James12's remarks here, because he's much more succinct than I am. If I am saying anything more than that, it is to add that if all of us were to truly and honestly examine our faith, some would find it lacking more than they thought, but others would find it stronger than they knew - and in both cases we would see less talk debating "the will of God" and more big miracles. As for quitting our jobs not being the will of God - I dunno, when was the last time you asked Him if that's what you should do? Let's suppose you did ask, and He said "yes, quit your job and go preach my Gospel, and I will fill your gas tank and your belly." Would you do it? I know there are some who would, who do. Mission presidents are the great example to me. I just wonder why these powerful spiritual giants seem to be the minority. If I'm projecting my own lack of faith on the rest of the world, and all of you guys see big miracles in your own lives every day. Well. Pray for me, that my faith fails not :)

I agree with everything you've said. But I also think that many people say that in the same way they say "It was not the Lord's will" to grant some particular, more visible, miracle. Such a phrase may be factually true, at times, but I know of no doctrine that excludes the visible miracles because of the invisible ones. I want us all to be aware of where we're holding ourselves back and blaming it on God. Occasionally someone needs one of the big, visible miracles. Will they even have the faith to ask for it, if our culture downplays the importance of such manifestations of faith?

So I'm being presumptuous. I'll buy that for a buck. If I were talking about specific people or specific cases, I'd say I was being downright judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical. But I'm trying to keep this generic. Speaking of the church collectively, and not individually. Just look at the restoration - We have recent historical records of events like the dedication of the Kirtland Temple, which freaked the bejesus out of non-member witnesses. We have recent historical records of people being raised from the dead. We have recent historical records of the elements being commanded. Based on historical and scriptural accounts, brilliant manifestations of the Spirit of God should be quite a bit more common than they are. (To wit - I'm not aware that any such things happen at all anymore, and THAT really bothers me. Have miracles altogether ceased from out of the land?) I don't expect all 15 million mormons to quit their jobs and use magic to sustain themselves. You're taking a menial example way too literally (not to mention taking the real, tangible power of faith and relegating it to the realm of superstition and card tricks). I absolutely DO expect all 15 million mormons to believe that quitting their job and using faith to survive and share the Gospel is possible and that they should seek for (and obtain) that faith. How they use that faith and how it manifests will be different for each person, based on their circumstances and needs and spiritual gifts. How it manifests is immaterial - the fact is that faith as a grain of mustard seed manifests, and we haven't seen any manifestations in decades. I'm trying to encourage you to take what the Savior said at face value and believe it: "ALL things are possible to him that believeth." I'm astonished that such an idea should meet any resistance! I'm glad that one person understood what I was saying :) Lectures on faith covers that - faith is the principle of ALL action. You probably know that, already :) I guess I'm just saying I agree :)

Latter-day Saints, and Christians in general, tend to make a lot of assumptions about God's will. Especially in the absence of miracles. If we pray for a miracle and it doesn't happen.... Well, we talk a lot about how maybe it was not God's will to grant the requested blessing, or that God gave us a trial so that we could learn from it. Certainly, when these are true, it is wonderful to recognize them. But I believe that, more often than not, these are rationalizations because we refuse to admit that we just don't have the faith. Nobody wants to be the one laying their hands on the sick saying "Be Healed!" and then watch the sick person die. Least of all me.

Actually, no, that is EXACTLY my point. I am not suggesting that we go out and perform miracles against God's will. I am suggesting that God's will is for us to go out and perform miracles. Our unwillingness to confront our own lack of faith is what prevents us from understanding this or achieving it. The reason that I see the lack of miracles as evidence of a lack of faith rather than as evidence of God's will is because, in the scriptures and in my own experience, God's will is fairly evident. Taken together the revelations past and present show me a God who is begging us to have this kind of faith. BEGGING! It's worth mentioning that Moses was able to bring forth water from the rock against the will of God. He was told to speak to the rock, he hit it in anger, the rock still brought forth water. It is very possible to perform miracles against the will of God - but it is not possible to do so without consequences. I do NOT endorse going against the will of God Yeah, I know I have poor communication skills and I'm often misunderstood. So when I read your post I thought "Yeah, I can see how someone could think I was doing that." So I wanted to make what amends I could. I don't know how I can explain this better. Going to work and having a job is not a bad thing. Yes, lots of missionary work can be done through our day jobs. And through many other avenues of our regular lives. That good that many people can do and are doing is not at all in dispute. But I'm sure each of us can say to ourselves on occasion, "What good I am doing now, I could do more good if my faith were just a little bit stronger." That's a common enough thought. What if we take it one step further? "What good I am doing, what more could I do if I had a lot more faith?" Take it to the extreme! "What good I am doing now, what more could I do if I had perfect faith?" No, prophets and apostles are not so different from us. Which is all I'm really saying. None of us is that different from Peter, who walked on water. Walking on water is nothing compared to the miracle of conversion - being a missionary is to be the ultimate miracle worker. How much more effective missionaries could we be if we truly "took no thought for the morrow"?

Perhaps the reason that we are not held as accountable for sins committed in ignorance is precisely because Jesus said this? Maybe this was the moment where He decided that His atonement would cover those who ignorantly sin? I don't know, but it's the thought that came to me when I read the question.

I like this. You make a lot of really good points. Sure, it sounds humble, but I don't think it's a false humility. As for those people who seem to argue that they have sufficient and others do not - if you're referring to me, I desperately want to emphasize what I've already said: I am no exception. Yes, I believe if we all had sufficient faith that we could all quit our jobs and live on faith and be powerful miracle-wielding missionaries - that each of us has the potential to be as great an apostle as Peter. But I typed those words from work, and you will still go to work on Monday and so will I. Believing that such faith, and its consequence, is possible is not the same as having such faith. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. Actually, yes. That is exactly how I understand what the prophets and apostles have been advising us from the beginning of time. Faith is nothing like magic - magic has limits. But why do you call it a delusion? Do you believe that Peter walked on water? Do you believe that Jacob commanded the trees? Do you believe that Enoch commanded the rivers to be moved out of their place? Do you believe that Moses parted the Red Sea? MY question to you is - if you do believe that these men did these things, WHY don't you believe that you can do them? 1 Nephi 4:2-3. Wherefore can ye doubt? Like I've said. I'm no exception. I haven't moved any mountains or rivers lately. I suppose what makes me different is that I know I haven't moved any mountains and I read these scriptures and I ask myself "Why?". Why haven't I moved any mountains? Why haven't I walked on water? I keep searching for answers and the only answer that keeps coming back to me is that I am holding myself back. I'm no prophet, I have no authority for you to respect, so feel free to disagree with me. But I ask that you consider the possibility that maybe I am not delusional.

D&C 76:79 "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God." Granted, it's just my opinion, but I am of the opinion that we very frequently underestimate what it means to be "valiant in the Testimony of Jesus". I do not exclude myself from this assertion. We see faith as a means to accomplishing the ends of this life: "The Lord will sustain me through a hard day of work." "Jesus will help me have patience with my kids." "The Spirit will help me to know whether I should move to a new city or not." These are all true and are excellent Sunday School examples of the application of faith. But if that is all that we expect our faith to accomplish, we are seriously and woefully misled. Of course, the greatest consequent of faith is salvation in the Celestial Kingdom of our God. But what a chasm between getting through a hard day at work and standing before the throne of God! A chasm that can only be crossed - dare I say it? - by having enough faith in Christ to walk on water. (The real secret is when you discover that it's no chasm at all - the faith in Christ is the same, only how we understand and use our faith is different. Imagine how this world could change if every member of the LDS church finally understood that they did not have to have a job at all - that with a word they can turn stones into bread and trees into clothes! If all 15 million of us quit our jobs today and went out as the Savior instructed - Mathew 6:30-33 - and taught as Philip and as Nephi! But most will read that and think how absurd or irrational the idea is. Oh, we of little faith.)

My prior quotation of Moroni 7:37-38 covers that. "...wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief..." "...wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also..." You might say it's the reverse of a faulty generalization. I'll take that. 1. If there are no miracles (in general) then there is no faith (in general). 2. There are no miracles for John (specifically). 3. John (specifically) has no faith. Not every general principle is universally applicable, and, as you've pointed out, the definition of miracle can be widely debated. My point is not to debate the semantics of doctrine, but to encourage believers to believe more. We need fewer fathers crying "help thou mine unbelief" and more Peters whose passing shadow heals the lame and the crippled. The revelations are clear that each of us has this potential, it's only up to us to achieve it. Wow. <insert sarcastic retort here> I intentionally left "latter-day saint" uncapitalized in my initial post to help differentiate between the two meanings. Yes, some people still pay attention to grammar. I suspect you are one, since you've carefully capitalized every instance of "Latter-day Saint" and "Saint" in your communications.Your insistence that the phrase "latter-day saint" can only ever have one meaning is preposterous.A good person without covenants will have a higher seat in the Kingdom of God than a bad person with covenants.If you really feel that the three words "latter", "day", and "saint" can only ever be used when talking about covenant making and covenant keeping members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, then who am I to stop you?The fact that you're arguing so vehemently over the meaning of a label indicates to me that you're more concerned about what you are called than by whose name you are called. Perhaps I'm judging you too harshly, but at the very least, if that word is more important to you than the doctrines of Christ we all came here to discuss, then I think your priorities are a bit mixed up. (Ad hominem? Maybe. My point is - I don't put THAT much importance on this argument to continue it any further, and if you do then that's your problem.) Oh, and on that whole moon thing... This Earth shall become Christ's Celestial Kingdom (D&C 130:9)Christ is God (2 Nephi 26:12)Time does not exist for God (Alma 40:8)Therefore, yes, the moon is part of the Celestial Kingdom of God. Hey, I had to get the sarcasm in there somewhere. 2 points if you can pinpoint the flaw in my logic. Shouldn't be hard, The Folk Prophet probably spotted it a mile away. Cheers!

Wow - I was not expecting THAT to be the most controversial thing I said. "Latter-day Saint" refers to a "saint" who lives in the "latter days". Its use in the official name of the church is to indicate exactly that. Using the term "Latter-day Saint" to refer strictly to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is convention and cultural. The word "saint" is not exclusive to Mormons. To say that there are "saints" who are not Mormon would be no big deal - you're just saying that there are people who are dedicated followers of Christ among other denominations. (I challenge anyone to tell me that Mother Theresa was not a saint. Or Gandhi for that matter. Or the Dalai Lama.) And since such good people are living in the latter days, the same as we are, how are they not "latter-day saints"? You're talking about the gifts of the Spirit. You can call those gifts, and the change of heart that accompanies them, a miracle, and I'd agree with you. But that's totally not the point. "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." "Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain. "For no man can be saved, according to the words of Christ, save they shall have faith in his name; wherefore, if these things have ceased, then has faith ceased also; and awful is the state of man, for they are as though there had been no redemption made." "And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of Samson, and of Jephthae; of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets: "Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,"Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens." But this one's my favorite: "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father." (emphasis added) I wonder - what is the purpose of these scriptures if God does not expect us to stop the mouths of lions or subdue kingdoms or quench the violence of fire? These scriptures illustrate that faith to move mountains is exactly the same faith that leads to salvation, there is no different kind of faith. Spiritual strength? Mental fitness? Why are your expectations so menial? If you haven't healed the sick or raised the dead lately, then you are living beneath your privileges. "Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea."

We are always so quick to set such a high bar for achieving miracles. The Savior's "Grain of mustard seed" analogy, on the other hand, sets the bar pretty low. I suspect a great many latter-day saints (not all of whom are Mormon) have sufficient faith to literally command mountains, they just don't think they do because we have culturally set unattainable expectations for ourselves. Outward manifestations can be faked or rationalized, which is part of the problem with judging a person's faith (or one's own faith) by outward manifestations. However, true and constant faith cannot exist without outward manifestations. So it's fair to say that if you aren't experiencing outward manifestations - if you aren't performing Biblical miracles - then your faith is for naught. Me saying that will no doubt upset quite a few people. We are all too often afraid to confront what is lacking in our own faith.

Why did the Savior rebuke Peter for his lack of faith after walking on freaking water? Because Peter believed. When the Savior says "All things are possible to him that believeth", most people think "Well, OK, so God can heal my kid." A few, like Martha, thought "OK, so God can bring back the dead." But not Peter. Peter thought "You mean that I can do ALL things???!!!" The Lord will praise the minuscule faith of most people because that's all the faith they have. Peter already knew he could walk on water - by sinking, Peter was using FAR LESS faith than he possessed. There is no room in the Celestial Kingdom for spiritual under-achievers. Especially those called to be prophets.

The purpose of the Supreme Court is to identify when a law violates the constitution. They reviewed several states' laws regarding same sex marriage. They concluded that these laws violated the constitution. How is that overstepping their authority? When an entire society agrees on a particular moral, it's quite alright for that moral to be enforced in the society's laws. This is so because nobody is being forced to act against their conscience by such a law. Our entire society agrees that killing is wrong, therefore killing is illegal. I will reference Jarom 1:5 as a case where strict civil laws followed religious teachings. Our entire society does NOT agree on the morality of homosexuality. Therefore laws respecting that morality can not be enforced. To do so would force a significant portion of society to act against their own conscience. The 11th Article of Faith applies. We allow all men the same privilege we ask for ourselves - to act according to our own conscience. False. This SCOTUS decision tells us that marriage is not an issue for ANY government. It could be seen as the deregulation of civil marriage.

I had a companion on my mission who had trouble focusing (girlfriend problems back home) so I taught him how to meditate. Just basic breathing techniques, but it helped a lot. I have a Buddhist background. It's disappointing how much truth is in Buddhism that Latter-day Saints fail (or refuse) to recognize. The value of meditation is one of these truths.

Identity seems to be a seriously misunderstood topic, especially among those who profess a devout Christian theology. askandanswer's response about Jesus' identity is actually spot on. Identity is not one single thing. It is a collection of thoughts, feelings, ideas, memories, and attributes all collated into one and given consciousness. Your arm is not your identity, but without your arm you would not be who you are. (Don't believe me? Try losing an arm and see if you come through unchanged.) Your arms, legs, torso, fingers, toes, gender, sex, chromosomes, sexual orientation, religion, politics, favorite color, first girlfriend/boyfriend, relationship with God are all intrinsic parts of your identity, and if you remove or change any one of them then it changes who you are. These varying aspects of identity all have different levels of importance to different people. Generally, the aspect that meets the most resistance causes the most anxiety (the squeaky wheel gets the grease). A person with a non-traditional sexual orientation will suffer a lot of anxiety from people constantly telling them who they *should* be attracted to rather than accepting them as who they are. Likewise, a person with a non-binary gender identity will suffer a lot of anxiety trying to fit into a cis-gender stereotype. This anxiety inflates the importance of an attribute that might otherwise be a rather small part of their whole identity. A person with a non-binary gender identity could spend a lot more time thinking about themselves as a child of God if they didn't have the pressure to conform to someone else's idea of gender stereotypes. (On my mission, I'd have had a much better and easier time understanding the kind of missionary that God wanted me to be if I wasn't constantly being told by my companions what kind of missionary they thought I should be. More than half the proselyting hours of my mission were wasted on arguments with my companions as they tried to bend me to fit into their cookie cutter missionary mold instead of following the Spirit. And I confess, I tried to bend myself to avoid the arguing, but that only led to me becoming a mishapen chimera of a missionary who was unable to hear the voice of God. When they started working with me as I was instead of trying to change me, the Spirit came in full force and miracles happened.) But the most important thing about identity is that it is intrinsic to you. The only person who has any right to tell you who you are is GOD, and the only person who has any right to receive that revelation is the person whose identity is in question. So nobody here can tell Catelynn Jenner who she is. All we can say is "Catelynn, as you come unto Christ, He will tell you who you really are and who you really should be. And if God tells you that you're supposed to be Catelynn, then we will embrace you as Catelynn and there is a place for you in this church. And if God tells you that you're supposed to be Bruce, then we will embrace you as Bruce and there is a place for you in this church. The details are between you and God alone. And if you don't know who you are, we'll embrace you anyway and there is a place for you in this church."

God has been intimately involved in my life. Even in the minutia. Divine intervention on behalf of the righteous is almost constant (I dare say that it IS constant). Whether or not we recognize it is a different story. God's intervention as a direct result of my prayers is directly correlated with the sincerity and righteousness of my prayer - that is to say, that God always answers my prayers, as long as I am willing to listen. I don't think that I am an exceptional case. God is no respecter of persons. Therefore, I can only conclude that if a person does not see God's constant involvement in their life or a person does not get immediate answers to their prayers, it is because they aren't looking for God's involvement or lack the faith to receive those answers. This attitude tends to offend a lot of people who like to think that their faith is just fine where it is. As far as God intervening against the wicked, the scriptures are very clear that this life is a time of probation, a time given to man to repent, and therefore God witholds judgment for as long as possible, to give each person the maximum amount of time to repent and return to Him. #1. I have personal experience that contradicts this. God has frequently intervened to bless me in ways I could have easily accomplished myself. God's just a nice guy. (If we apply the same logic to man, the entire doctrine of service collapses. "I won't help my neighbor by mowing his lawn because he is fully capable of mowing his own lawn.") #2. Not everying that God does is something we cannot do for ourselves, and not everything that God doesn't do is something that we can do for ourselves. #3. Again, I have personal experience that contradicts this. (Sort-of. It's hard for mortals to measure "eternal benefit".) #4. I agree, but I'll append - sometimes God not intervening is for our eternal benefit. But He'll usually tell you as much if you ask. My example: When I was 11 or 12 years old, my brother and I decided to ride our bikes to the reservoir over in this town. We lived in the mountains. It was about a 30 minute drive. We were young and dumb, so we did it. Took all morning and we got there. We were hot and tired and didn't want to ride our bikes back home. So I prayed and God sent a pickup truck to give us a ride. #1/#2 We could have ridden our bikes home. Might have even been good for us. #3/#4 No eternal benefit, except perhaps that I gained an experience to share with others about God's answers to our prayers. This is just one experience. I have many more. And if you wanted to, I'm sure you could think of ways to twist and contort either my story or your rules so that they fit together, but that's really not the point. I think the best thing I can say is that God's intervention is motivated by LOVE, not by an arbitrary set of conditions. :Edit: I should append, since the question was aksed in an earlier post, that I recognize God's intervention as such, rather than as a coincidence, because I ask Him. He's not bashful and is quite ready to help me recognize His role in my life. (There might be a correlation between His willingness to help me recognize Him and my failure to recognize Him as often as I should.)

Skipped the last 4 pages, just want to respond to the OP. "Is wealth, therefore, a sign of personal righteousness? And conversely, is poverty a sign of personal wickedness?" NO https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-parable-of-the-sower?lang=eng "Those who believe in what has been called the theology of prosperity are suffering from the deceitfulness of riches." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/are-we-not-all-beggars?lang=eng "From the beginning of His ministry, Jesus loved the impoverished and the disadvantaged in an extraordinary way. He was born into the home of two of them and grew up among many more of them. We don’t know all the details of His temporal life, but He once said, “Foxes have holes, and … birds … have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.” Apparently the Creator of heaven and earth “and all things that in them are” was, at least in His adult life, homeless." It doesn't get much more clear than that. To insinuate that wealth, or the lack thereof, is a sign of righteousness, or the lack thereof, is to preach the most wicked and pernicious evil - the love of money. In general, wealth is an indicator of a person's love of money, so poverty could possibly be seen as an indicator of a person's righteousness. However, God does bless some people with wealth - precisely because they do not seek wealth, but they seek to bless the lives of others. So on the level, don't judge a person by the size of their wallet. If you absolutely must judge a person, judge them by the way they use their wealth, not by how much of it they have. The righteous will do as Jesus commanded: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/luke/18.22?lang=eng#21 "Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me."