puf_the_majic_dragon

I seriously doubt that anyone will be in the Celestial Kingdom that does not really really want to be there. Likewise I doubt that any one that wants to be in the Celestial kingdom will not find the way to sacrifice (meaning to make sacred) what ever is necessary to insure they will be there.
The Traveler

I would say they are much more commandment than mere counsel.
Why are "wise counsel" and "optional" mutually exclusive terms?
Here's some food for thought:

I think Brigham was a great Prophet. He was definitely an inspired and inspiring man, who held the Church together during one of its most difficult times following the death of Joseph and the forced removal across the plains. One of the problems we run into is that many fundamentalists seem to think that revelation stopped with Brigham or shortly thereafter. Those same fundamentalists like to point to the mainstream church, the one that most likely excommunicated them or their fathers, and claim that this is not the same church that Brigham presided over.
 
But that 'criticism' is somewhat true. We aren't the same. That does not mean that our doctrine or tenets have changed. Truth has not changed. Yes, we do some things differently now than we did then. But just as Brigham did some things differently than Joseph, successive Prophets have done and said things differently than Brigham. That's why we we have living Prophets, so that we can constantly receive 'course corrections', and remain on the path laid out by Jesus Christ. We receive revelation from our current Prophets to help us deal with today's issues and problems, so that we don't remain stuck in the 1850's mindset. We live in 2015, not 1865. I for one, am glad that we get those things, those renewed focuses, those 'course corrections' so that we can deal with today's world, not the world of our ancestors.

It is my observation that human nature is much more happy to call others to repentance than to have someone call them to repentance - especially if one thinks themselves more repentant (righteous) than whoever is issuing the call to repentance.  And if there is anything that will definitely anger or offend someone - it is a call to repent in how they go about calling others to repentance. 

It was not my intent to make it sound that way. And as I said, I'm not going to list examples, because that would be counter-productive. Anyone interested in the subject of false doctrine can do the research themselves - but false doctrine is perhaps not a field a person should spend time becoming an expert in.
 
1: As I said - I'm gaining a greater appreciation for him. So yay :)
2: My two cents: NEVER be worried about the truth. Just remember the source of all truth is God, not history books or the Journal of Discourses. If you ever find a teaching in the church that worries you, take it to God in prayer. He will answer you and instruct you in what is right.
3: "The Mountain of the Lord" is perhaps one of the most famous and best, though it's more about the temple than Brigham. I'm not aware of anything else, it already sounds like you do more reading than I do though most of the first-hand stuff you can find in Journal of Discourses or History of the Church. 

It was not my intent to make it sound that way. And as I said, I'm not going to list examples, because that would be counter-productive. Anyone interested in the subject of false doctrine can do the research themselves - but false doctrine is perhaps not a field a person should spend time becoming an expert in.
 
1: As I said - I'm gaining a greater appreciation for him. So yay :)
2: My two cents: NEVER be worried about the truth. Just remember the source of all truth is God, not history books or the Journal of Discourses. If you ever find a teaching in the church that worries you, take it to God in prayer. He will answer you and instruct you in what is right.
3: "The Mountain of the Lord" is perhaps one of the most famous and best, though it's more about the temple than Brigham. I'm not aware of anything else, it already sounds like you do more reading than I do though most of the first-hand stuff you can find in Journal of Discourses or History of the Church. 

It was not my intent to make it sound that way. And as I said, I'm not going to list examples, because that would be counter-productive. Anyone interested in the subject of false doctrine can do the research themselves - but false doctrine is perhaps not a field a person should spend time becoming an expert in.
 
1: As I said - I'm gaining a greater appreciation for him. So yay :)
2: My two cents: NEVER be worried about the truth. Just remember the source of all truth is God, not history books or the Journal of Discourses. If you ever find a teaching in the church that worries you, take it to God in prayer. He will answer you and instruct you in what is right.
3: "The Mountain of the Lord" is perhaps one of the most famous and best, though it's more about the temple than Brigham. I'm not aware of anything else, it already sounds like you do more reading than I do though most of the first-hand stuff you can find in Journal of Discourses or History of the Church. 

Perhaps your answer could have simply replied, "No I didn't mean that." Instead, you have to cut at me. Where does that leave you on the long-suffering, gentleness and patience scale?
 
 
It's simple: My thinking on the matter stems from scripture.
 
2 Nephi 9:28
O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken notunto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.
 
and...
 
Psalms 111:10
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
 
No matter how "learned" we are, if we are not humble, meek, obedient, etc., then we do not know the Lord, are not filled with His light and knowledge, etc. Therefore, I believe quite firmly, that as much as I know a whole lot more about electricity than Abraham did (even though I know, relatively, little about that subject), I am quite certain that a presumption that I know more than he did about God, righteousness, obedience, how to obey, faith, etc., would be arrogance.
 
 
In the context of this thread, the related links, the discussion at hand, etc., you did not simply say "love" and I translated that to pandering, pampering and spoiling. One of the points here is that I am trying to make is with the thread is that, perhaps, some of our efforts to show "love" amount to these things. If you aren't getting that then maybe it's you who are speaking the different language and misunderstanding.
 
 
Who cares about legitimate data behind the reasons for suicide? We'll just cry "SUICIDE!" and that's sufficient? Why bother to actually understand what's really going on, what's really causing it?
 
Asking for supporting data is not "choosing to argue the point". It is asking for supporting data. I read the news article you posted. No supporting data sources. How did they come up with their number? And even if the numbers are entirely accurate (I'm not saying I doubt them...just pointing out that they don't source anything that I saw) -- I didn't see anything about Mormons killing themselves because they're gay and the church rejects them. I don't doubt that is the cause sometimes...but where's the backing data -- and where's the support that the true reason might not be other factors?
 
Once again, you say, "When faced with rather staggering statistics about teen suicide among LGBT mormons, sticking to the "hard line" seems to be rather obtuse" you really need to show supporting data, for example, that A) there are "staggering" statistics for LGBT "mormons" committing suicide B) that being "mormon" is statistically related C) that the "hard line" relates to the cause D) That other factors involved (drugs, mental illness, etc) are not the real problem.
 
Some things the article did mention:
 
-Ninety percent of young people who complete suicide have some form of major psychiatric disorder, although the majority are not taking medication at the time they take their lives.
 
-63 percent had contact with the criminal justice system, and half of those had referrals for substance use, abuse or possession.
 
-Combining mental illness with drug abuse is the deadliest of combinations. "Having both of these raises the risk another level," Gray said.
 
 
Now who's inferring things that the other did not say -- or even hint at?
 
 
If, and when, evidence (real evidence, not a bunch of anecdotal fluff) comes to light that being gay is an un-treatable condition then maybe this stretch of my metaphor might work. But half the point of the thread, as discussed in the second of the two OP links, is that maybe, just maybe, by demanding that it was just who he was, something that could never be overcome, and that any sort of therapeutic help on the matter was "the wisdom of man", Ty was condemning himself to something that he did not actually need to.

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.

The problem with admitting faults, especially in prophets, lies in specifying what those faults were. No one here (and probably no living mortal at all) is capable of specifying Brother Brigham's faults correctly.

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.

Crowther is entirely and inescapably full of it.

I'm guessing only in "Outer Darkness"
 
Serves 'em right. 

I guess I'm a minority. I just perused mormonandgays.org While it didn't repeat the phrase "You are a sinner" a million times it quite tactly points out that sexual relations outside of marriage are sinful, and that marriage is between a man and a woman.


Exactly what is your takeaway from that if it is not that homosexuality is sinful? I'm sorry that a focus on the healing power of the atonement isn't direct enough for some people I guess. I'm sorry that a site dedicated to helping individuals who struggle with SSA to live within the boundaries of their covenants doesn't declare loudly enough for some what is sin. I think they've gotten that message loud and clear. They understand that the behavior isn't condoned.

Could it be because of our culture and also because of the availablity of technology? Years ago I worked as a flight attendant and was talking with a few other flight attendants and often our conversations got pretty deep. When I mentioned that I felt a certain behavior was sin I offended many of them. One of them proceeded to tell me all the inappropriate things she could do to me and asked me if I thought that was sin. I kind of felt like my effort to share my beliefs had backfired. I just don't think the approach used thousands of years ago works in this day and age.  I think of a man I give a ride to every Sunday who used to be homeless and addicted to narcotics. Perhaps he would not have responded to the gospel if my friend would have yelled at him and called him a bum and told him to get a job rather then pulling over while cycling (spandex and all..lol) and had a conversation with him followed by inviting him to hear the gospel. I would say our Missionaires are crying repentance in a modern way, rather then judgeing and chastising people, they are doing so by showing an example and then showing the way to those that are willing to hear.   Back in the day the Prophets cried and yelled because they would not be heard otherwise, now days we broadcast our message. Everytime I hear our General Conference I feel chastened but also encouraged to do better. Anyway..those are just some thoughts. I think it's a great quesiton though.

Who, in 1844 or even in the whole of the 19th century, was calling down plagues, breathing fire from their mouth, or turning rivers in to blood? Or, who came back to life in 1844 after being dead for three days?
 
-Finrock

David ben-Gurion was the first prime minister of the modern state of Israel.

Who is going to step up and speak with their actions rather than their words? Because it seems that is what it is going to take in order to convince many that what is being spoken is not an attack but rather an invitation. The Brethren are making the same call to stop living beneath our privilege, to hasten the work, etc.
 
The state of home teaching is a great sign of our illness and lack of faith as a people. We are happy with crackers when we could be feasting on steak!
 
I freely admit that I am a coward. I have cowered at the thought of exercising the type of faith that I see witnessed in the scriptures. I've used the same ideas pointed out in this thread to pacify myself in to believing that I don't need to follow in the footsteps of those saints who have come before and who have made it.
 
I am constantly rationalizing away the powerful thoughts, the powerful ideas, the ideas that seem like they belong to the scriptures and not to real life because, well, in real life I need to be satisfied with crackers and being satisfied with crackers is true faith! But, in my life I have found that God has provided more than just crackers to sustain me! In fact, He has demonstrated to me that I have been rejecting Him by rejecting what He wants to give me. Therefore I reject the notion that being satisfied with crackers is true faith! I believe that God wants to give me a lot more than just crackers and that He intended me to have a feast and to enjoy all that He wants to give me...today!
 
But, I'm a coward and I shy away because I don't want to be let down, I don't want to admit that I'm weak, or that I just may not believe in God as much as I profess with my lips. I am glad that I have time to repent still. I am glad that God is merciful. I am glad that God is patient. I am glad that God does not condemn me for my weaknesses but rather is lovingly helping me to see them and turn them in to strengths.
 
-Finrock

From a bishop I know:
 
He and a friend (both returned missionaries) were traveling along the Alaska Highway (towards Alaska) in an open jeep for seasonal work.  The highway is often nothing more than a dirt road.  One particular part passes through a mountain range and is hundreds of miles from any towns.  This part of the highway is particularly dangerous with rock faced cliffs on both sides - one a drop off the other almost straight up.  The road is also steep with hardly room for one vehicle - meeting a vehicle going the opposite direction is a dangerous hazard.  In addition, with the altitude of the mountains - there are patches of ice even in summertime.  An accident along this section of road - even a minor accident disabling a vehicle could result in death.
 
As my bishop friend drove along the road with his friend beside him they rounded a turn and faced a large truck coming towards them.  One side was a cliff of several hundred feet and no guard rail; the other side solid rock and over a hundred feet up.  But part of the road was washed out and there was hardly room for even one of the vehicles and almost no time to react.  The truck applied brakes but started to slide on ice - someone would likely be killed in the next few moments.  Then in an instant the friend grabbed above the windshield of the jeep and stood up - then with a loud voice holding up one hand against the mountain commanded the mountain (by the power of the priesthood and in the name of Jesus Christ) to move.  Without a sound the solid rock shifted to the side some 20 feet or more giving ample room for the jeep to pass by the truck.   Immediately after passing and without a sound the mountain moved back.
 
My bishop friend was greatly astonished  but mostly because his friend was not at the time living in obedience to all his covenants.  His friend was also astonished and said it was almost as if something else took over him and caused him to do it.  The event was a life changing event for both of them and even after many years the memory still prompted them to remember their priesthood covenants.   When I listened to the story the spirit prompted me that it was true almost to the point of my being there.
 
I give this story rather than one of my own for personal reasons - but also as a witness that such miracles do occur in our day.  I have seen and heard of many miracles - all done through the power of the Melchizedek Priesthood and in the Name of Jesus Christ.  However, other than the story in Matthew I have never heard or received any witness of the miracle of someone walking on water.  I would be interested - especially if anyone has received a witness of this particular miracle.
 
One last point - in my experiences with miracles (including those that involve angles) is that it is perhaps more likely that  miracles come with a prompting to repent rather than as a conformation of exceptional righteousness.

I do not want to be the guy who says, "Be healed!", and then the recipient of the blessing dies.
 
But I also do not want to be the guy who feels prompted to perform a miraculous healing, but through self-doubt or timidity does not do so, until the time is passed and the miraculous result withdrawn due to failure to act. I can't imagine that the former case would feel much worse than the latter.

A thought - in the scientific world we define intelligence as the ability to learn - which in essence means that through experience, being able to learn and modify our behavior.  Some of us (obviously from my post - myself included) need experience in order to learn and change not just our behavior but understanding of things.  Laying one's hands on someone and saying "Be healed!" can be such an experience by which someone can learn and grow spiritually - learning to listen more carefully to the spirit and realize that blessing someone to pass in faith is a great miracle - perhaps even greater that being healed.
 
As priesthood holders - fear is the opposite of faith and is more likely to take us away from the spirit than a mistake of presumption - which BTW - is easily covered up in the workings of the spirit but fear to act cannot ever be overcome.

That's one of those times when you have to be sure you're listening to the Spirit over your own feelings; I've heard from more than one Priesthood holder who showed up intending to give a healing blessing to a very sick person and ended up blessing them for a peaceful passage.  All said it was a hard realization that they needed to speak those words to someone they had hoped to keep around for a while longer.

Hi Vort! :)
 
It's okay. Perhaps this time you aren't the intended audience but rather just the catalyst!
 
-Finrock
 
 
I submit that those mountains are being moved by no other force than faith. To expound, it seems to me that God is teaching me that I have more faith than I think and because I am not special and God is no respector of persons, it then means that all people have more faith in them than they believe. I have been able to do and witness some powerful miracles, not because I am or was superbly righteous or good, but rather because I exercised faith in Jesus Christ. Within me and each of us is the power to do more than we suppose or think. We limit ourselves too often. The limits that exist in my life, exist because of the limits I place due to my unbelief in the Father and in His Son.
 
-Finrock

No of course not. But as Puf has stated, it is very common in the church to say we don't receive certain blessings because it wasn't God's will. This absolves us from facing hard truths about our lack of faith. I am simply commenting on a such a scenario in the hopes that some might recognize the error.
 
Don't worry Folk Prophet I'm not attacking your post. I can see your point. 

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"?