Investigator Needs Help

[inactivetx]

Originally posted by Please+Aug 30 2005, 04:04 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Aug 30 2005, 12:22 PM

Inactivetx,

I think you should take that hypocritical feeling and that feeling that draws you to the Church more seriously.  Or in other words, take time to think a lot about what makes you feel that way.  The Lord is trying to tell you something.

And btw, I sincerely welcome YOU to this board as a member of LDSTalk, and I sincerely welcome ANYONE to Church meetings as an investigator, but I feel uncomfortable knowing that some people are getting to know a member of the Church who doesn't correctly represent members of the Church.  Or in other words, ALL members of the Church should believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God, among other things that are true, and we should ALL honor the covenants we made at baptism… otherwise membership in the Church does not signify what it should.

←

I agree heartily. Membership isn't just a game or social move. It means you have taken covenants!!!

←

Thanks for the welcome, Ray!

I agree with Please that one's relationship with God (the covenants) is paramount which is why I take my doubts seriously. I don't want to be part of an organization claiming to be the "true" church and yet is not. Many aspects make perfect sense, like the plan of salvation, yet other things don't click and sound rather contrived. I need to reconcile the two to confirm I am following God's will and not just playacting because I like it and feel confortable. One's religion is not a club but rather a relationship with the Almighty. Hope that made sense.

[Ray]

Originally posted by inactivetx+Aug 30 2005, 03:15 PM-->

Originally posted by Please@Aug 30 2005, 04:04 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Aug 30 2005, 12:22 PM

Inactivetx,

I think you should take that hypocritical feeling and that feeling that draws you to the Church more seriously.  Or in other words, take time to think a lot about what makes you feel that way.  The Lord is trying to tell you something.

And btw, I sincerely welcome YOU to this board as a member of LDSTalk, and I sincerely welcome ANYONE to Church meetings as an investigator, but I feel uncomfortable knowing that some people are getting to know a member of the Church who doesn't correctly represent members of the Church.  Or in other words, ALL members of the Church should believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God, among other things that are true, and we should ALL honor the covenants we made at baptism… otherwise membership in the Church does not signify what it should.

←

I agree heartily. Membership isn't just a game or social move. It means you have taken covenants!!!

←

Thanks for the welcome, Ray!

I agree with Please that one's relationship with God (the covenants) is paramount which is why I take my doubts seriously. I don't want to be part of an organization claiming to be the "true" church and yet is not. Many aspects make perfect sense, like the plan of salvation, yet other things don't click and sound rather contrived. I need to reconcile the two to confirm I am following God's will and not just playacting because I like it and feel confortable. One's religion is not a club but rather a relationship with the Almighty. Hope that made sense.

←

That made perfect sense and I agree with everything you said except that “[some things] sound rather contrived.”

The fact that “[some] things don’t click” for you is an indication that you don’t fully understand certain issues, but when stating that [some things] "sound rather contrived” you are making a judgment, which I suggest you avoid until you completely understand those issues.

The one thing you need to know now is that once you totally understand something and you know that your understanding is true, it will click and no longer “sound rather contrived”, so I suggest you Ask our heavenly Father for wisdom and His assurance to know the truth.

[seamusz]

The thing that has always struck me as wonderful about the church, (It could just be because I grew up in the church) is that all you need to know is that the Book of Mormon is true. Everything else hinges on this. If you know it is true, then everything else has to be true and must then fall into place. If it isn't, then you can think what you like.

[Traveler]

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 29 2005, 10:53 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Traveler@Aug 29 2005, 04:11 PM

1.  Homosexuality does not benefit society.  I see no reason to support it until someone can demonstrate the need for it in society.   I am not talking about respect for individuals - I am talking about a need for society to support that behavior.

2. As a scientist I take a scientific aproach.  Sexual preference is a cognitive behavior.  I do not understand the reason to cloud this issue.

The Traveler

←

1. That's about as silly an argument on the matter I've ever heard. I see no need for Jessica Simpson in society nor any "benefit" that she provides but I don't oppose others in society for supporting her.

2. I would guess that is about an UNscientific an opinion as any. What evidence do you know of that sexual preference is determined by "mental action of processes of acquiring knowledge... " and not some other way?

Do you dig chicks cuz you learned to dig em, or do you just dig em cuz you are wired that way?

←

1. Jessica Simpson is not a behavior. I do not mind you using examples but I could say that because dogs wag their tails your point is disproved. I stated that I do not support homosexuality because there is no reason to do so. No one will even attempt to show any benefit. I assume that since you will not or cannot demonstrate benefit you know of none. Now, can you specify a behavior that does not benefit society that you believe society should indorse or be punished?

Which bring up another problem on the subject? If someone questions homosexuality and asks for an accounting lets attack them - how dare they question such a noble thing? Because it is not noble - the best we can hope for is that it will not cause great harm for society. No one and I mean no one has ever tried to respond to my above question by showing a benefit. I wonder why that is?

2. Do you have any idea what cognitive means? Please explain to me how someone is aware they are a homosexual if they are not "cognitive" of their preference. I assume you have no idea what a cognitive response verses a non-cognitive response is.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

Snow also asked concerning learned verses wired that way. I believe that we as humans are intelligent creatures that have the ability to modify our behavior. The scientific term for the root of such modification is called the lowest cognitive level of learning. The next level is called the higher than lowest cognitive level of learning. Pavlov and Skinner did a lot of studies concerning cognitive learning. I know of no scientific study that indicates any cognitive response that cannot be modified through a learning or acquiring process.

For example, fear is a cognitively acquired response. We do not come wired with fear but with an amazing ability to learn fear (See National Geographic March issue this year). Some people may think they were born fearing spiders – but the truth is that they acquired that cognitive response to spiders. The exact process may have happened when they were very young but what ever triggered their response they made an adjustment that could be with them for life if they do not make an effort to undo the learning or acquiring process.

Likewise children are not born with sexual behaviors. I am quite concerned when someone implies that children are born ready wired for sex. I do not buy the pre-wired come ready packaged propaganda. I believe very strongly that society has the obligation and the need to protect children from such absurd ideas especially those that think to use such things to take advantage of them.

The Traveler

[Laureltree]

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that if ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

Read this scripture closely..

1.)that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them.

2.) And when ye shall receive these things.

3.)ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true.

4.)if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ,.

5.)he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

6.)by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

The lord gives us the way, but sometimes we are not ready to hear it or except it at this point, I would suggest fasting, with deep prayer. Heavenly father does answer us we just have to give him time, and remember a testimony is not built overnight, but created through out a lifetime.

Love and prayers

Laureltree

If you ever want someone to pray with you, I'll be happy to do so in chat or via teleconference. Right now you need to just have faith that he will guide you. Your answers may not come at the pace you and I are use to, Be patient, have faith, pray, and fast...................

I added an attachment that explain how I think the lord would want us to be, and to help us remember we are not all perfect...

[Maureen]

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 30 2005, 10:15 AM

...First of all, I suggest you read section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants to find out not only what our Lord requires before someone can become a member of His Church, but to find out what our Lord has to say about the Book of Mormon.  Note verse 37 wherein the Lord says that a person is to “truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins” before becoming a member of the Church, and one of those “works” involves the work required to receive the Spirit of Christ which testifies that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

Second, there is a test of spiritual purity, as noted above.

Third, there is an orthodox position, as noted above.....But then again, why would someone want to be a member of the Church if they didn’t agree with our beliefs, anyway?

Does this also apply to 8 year old children who also go through baptism to become members?

M.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by inactivetx+Aug 30 2005, 04:15 PM-->

Originally posted by Please@Aug 30 2005, 04:04 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Aug 30 2005, 12:22 PM

Inactivetx,

I think you should take that hypocritical feeling and that feeling that draws you to the Church more seriously.  Or in other words, take time to think a lot about what makes you feel that way.  The Lord is trying to tell you something.

And btw, I sincerely welcome YOU to this board as a member of LDSTalk, and I sincerely welcome ANYONE to Church meetings as an investigator, but I feel uncomfortable knowing that some people are getting to know a member of the Church who doesn't correctly represent members of the Church.  Or in other words, ALL members of the Church should believe the Book of Mormon is the word of God, among other things that are true, and we should ALL honor the covenants we made at baptism… otherwise membership in the Church does not signify what it should.

←

I agree heartily. Membership isn't just a game or social move. It means you have taken covenants!!!

←

Thanks for the welcome, Ray!

I agree with Please that one's relationship with God (the covenants) is paramount which is why I take my doubts seriously. I don't want to be part of an organization claiming to be the "true" church and yet is not. Many aspects make perfect sense, like the plan of salvation, yet other things don't click and sound rather contrived. I need to reconcile the two to confirm I am following God's will and not just playacting because I like it and feel confortable. One's religion is not a club but rather a relationship with the Almighty. Hope that made sense.

←

I have found that it takes some longer than others to get the answers and some don't hang in there long enough to get them and assume the answer is no.

There there are those who receive their answers according to their unrepentant sins. "rebellion' is a sin, and their answers will be 'no' as well.

Then there are those who are willing to believe the seemingly impossible, and after the trial of their faith, they receive an absolute undeniable confirmation.

[Snow]

Originally posted by daizymae@Aug 30 2005, 05:42 AM

Hmmmm....I don't know.  If you believe someone is a prophet of God, would you not believe that all that they preach is of God?

Absolutely not, forbid the thought.

Brigham Young taught that blacks would not get the priesthood until all non-blacks had received the priesthood. He was wrong.

Joseph F. Smith taught that the world was 6000 years old. I don't believe that. Gordon B. Hinckley does not believe that.

I cannot think of one single good reason why a prophet of God should be correct on everything and in fact, history shows us that they are not.

[Snow]

Originally posted by seamusz+Aug 30 2005, 06:45 AM-->

Originally posted by Snow@Aug 29 2005, 11:40 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-seamusz@Aug 29 2005, 01:10 PM

It is, however impossible to separate the two issues... Either Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture, true and accurate; or the Book of Mormon is a not true, and Joseph Smith was a fraud.  There is no middle ground. 

That's incorrect. There are people in the Church, more than a few, that accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and while appreciating spiritual truths in the Book of Mormon, do not accept it as true actual history. You may see it as a black and white issue, but others are able to live in a world less defined and rigid.

←

No, it is correct. There is no middle ground. Those who view Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon as you suggested are inconsistent with the teachings of the Church, indeed with the statements of Joseph Smith himself. He said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”(emphasis added)

←

Blah. No one asked what the Church's position was on the veracity of the Book of Mormon. The question at hand is whether, if the BoM were not historically true, could Joseph Smith still be a prophet... and you attempted to answer that with a statement of dogma.

It don't work that way.

Though it may seem unlikely to you, others see the issue that way, and it is certainly a possibility, albeit it a slight one.

Are you not aware of the numerous times throughout recorded history, both anciently and in the restoration, when prophets have been wrong?

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 30 2005, 08:50 PM-->

Originally posted by seamusz@Aug 30 2005, 06:45 AM

Originally posted by Snow@Aug 29 2005, 11:40 PM

<!--QuoteBegin-seamusz@Aug 29 2005, 01:10 PM

It is, however impossible to separate the two issues... Either Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God and The Book of Mormon is a book of scripture, true and accurate; or the Book of Mormon is a not true, and Joseph Smith was a fraud.  There is no middle ground. 

That's incorrect. There are people in the Church, more than a few, that accept Joseph Smith as a prophet and while appreciating spiritual truths in the Book of Mormon, do not accept it as true actual history. You may see it as a black and white issue, but others are able to live in a world less defined and rigid.

←

No, it is correct. There is no middle ground. Those who view Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon as you suggested are inconsistent with the teachings of the Church, indeed with the statements of Joseph Smith himself. He said, “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”(emphasis added)

←

Blah. No one asked what the Church's position was on the veracity of the Book of Mormon. The question at hand is whether, if the BoM were not historically true, could Joseph Smith still be a prophet... and you attempted to answer that with a statement of dogma.

It don't work that way.

Though it may seem unlikely to you, others see the issue that way, and it is certainly a possibility, albeit it a slight one.

Are you not aware of the numerous times throughout recorded history, both anciently and in the restoration, when prophets have been wrong?

←

All prophets make mistakes, or are wrong one time or another. But starting with the book of Mormon as true or not, Joseph Smith's 'prophethood' wood be proven or disproven.

If we start with Joseph Smith being a true prophet or not, if he were a prophet, then putting out a book that wasn't true, would definitely cancel his prophethood, it couldn't be considered a wrong, it would be considered total heresy.

So, he is or isn't a prophet based upon the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as the works and word of God to men.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Traveler@Aug 30 2005, 02:44 PM

1. Jessica Simpson is not a behavior.  I do not mind you using examples but I could say that because dogs wag their tails your point is disproved.  I stated that I do not support homosexuality because there is no reason to do so.  No one will even attempt to show any benefit.  I assume that since you will not or cannot demonstrate benefit you know of none.  Now, can you specify a behavior that does not benefit society that you believe society should indorse or be punished?

Behavior or not, your argument was that things which do not provide benefit to society should not be supported by society. Even if we now narrow your argument to behaviors, your argument is still just as silly. People listening (a behavior) to Jessica Simpson provides no real benefit to society, EXCEPT, we in this county, and by we I mean we lovers of freedom, believe that man was endowed by his creator with certain inalienable rights which include, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And, by the way, we, and by we I mean we in the Church, believe that the the Founding Fathers were inspired when they said that.

You needed get any personal benefit to support anothers right to liberty and happiness.

The point, at least the one I addressed, is not whether we should accord gays special legal consideration or tax status or special rights of inheritance, but rather whether we should support others' rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Thank goodness you don't have anyone telling you what you can and should do with your genitals. I'm wondering if you can think of a single way that you are harmed by how or with whom others choose to employ their genitals.

Which bring up another problem on the subject?  If someone questions homosexuality and asks for an accounting lets attack them - how dare they question such a noble thing?  Because it is not noble - the best we can hope for is that it will not cause great harm for society.  No one and I mean no one has ever tried to respond to my above question by showing a benefit.  I wonder why that is?

My, my, my... quite the victim today, aren't we Traveler? I'm only mildly interested in your narrow-minded need to stick your nose between other people's bedsheets. What I am interested in is your lack of reasoning in defending your position.

... and by the way, I just did show you the benefit.

2. Do you have any idea what cognitive means?  Please explain to me how someone is aware they are a homosexual if they are not "cognitive" of their preference.  I assume you have no idea what a cognitive response verses a non-cognitive response is.

The Traveler

Oh my Trav. Do you really think that supercillious feint will give me pause? Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

I know perfectly well that you meant that homosexuality was a learned behavior. Well Trav, tell us how you learned to be heterosexual.... diagrams and labels will help.

[Snow]

All prophets make mistakes, or are wrong one time or another. But starting with the book of Mormon as true or not, Joseph Smith's 'prophethood' wood be proven or disproven.

If we start with Joseph Smith being a true prophet or not, if he were a prophet, then putting out a book that wasn't true, would definitely cancel his prophethood, it couldn't be considered a wrong, it would be considered total heresy.

So, he is or isn't a prophet based upon the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as the works and word of God to men.

←

Let me illuminate your reasoning...

Your opinion is right because you say it is right.

I am underwelmed.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Ray@Aug 30 2005, 09:15 AM

And lastly, there is a penalty for heresy, which is excommunication from the Church or to be refused membership in the Church if you don’t agree with the doctrine of the Church… which I testify is the will of our Lord and the word of God.

No one cares what you testify to. You are like the last guy to speak for God... okay, not the last but not in the top 50%. Seriously Ray - that whole testifying thing is silly, it makes you look like a blowhard who will try any self-righteous ploy to bluff his way through an argument. Save that for more appropriate venues.

No one gets excommunicated for heresy [belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious]. They get excommunicated for apostasy. That is, if a person persists in teaching heresy, after having been asked to stop, they they are subject to discipline. You can believe whatever you want, you just can't promote it publically.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow@Aug 30 2005, 09:48 PM

PLEASE SAID:All prophets make mistakes, or are wrong one time or another. But starting with the book of Mormon as true or not, Joseph Smith's 'prophethood' wood be proven or disproven.

If we start with Joseph Smith being a true prophet or not, if he were a prophet, then putting out a book that wasn't true, would definitely cancel his prophethood, it couldn't be considered a wrong, it would be considered total heresy.

So, he is or isn't a prophet based upon the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon as the works and word of God to men.

←

Snow said: Let me illuminate your reasoning...

Your opinion is right because you say it is right.

I am underwelmed.

←

Becoming ignorant so soon?</span>

<span style=\'color:red\'>"Prejudice is the child of ignorance." William Haslitt

[Snow]

Please said: Becoming ignorant so soon?

...Have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water

I'm sure you had a point. We have a team of pointologists working to decipher it right now.

[daizymae]

Ahhhhh.....I finally get it. Not only is it OK for a person to be a member of the church and not really believe the Book of Mormon is true, but we don't *really* have to listen to and follow the prophet on the off-chance that he *might* be making a mistake.

You might disagree Snow, but I believe that God WILL NOT allow the prophet of his church to lead the members astray.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Maureen+Aug 30 2005, 05:09 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Aug 30 2005, 10:15 AM

...First of all, I suggest you read section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants to find out not only what our Lord requires before someone can become a member of His Church, but to find out what our Lord has to say about the Book of Mormon.  Note verse 37 wherein the Lord says that a person is to “truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins” before becoming a member of the Church, and one of those “works” involves the work required to receive the Spirit of Christ which testifies that the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

Second, there is a test of spiritual purity, as noted above.

Third, there is an orthodox position, as noted above.....But then again, why would someone want to be a member of the Church if they didn’t agree with our beliefs, anyway?

Does this also apply to 8 year old children who also go through baptism to become members?

M.

←

Yes, our Lord even expects an 8-year old child to “truly manifest by their works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins” before becoming a member of the Church. And the fact that an 8-year old child doesn't have any sins to Repent from doesn't mean that the Spirit of Christ is not unto the remission of their sins.

Or in other words, nobody should become a member of the Church until they can show by their own works that they have received of the Spirit of Christ unto the remission of their sins (if they are accountable for any), and the way we "truly manifest by our works that we have received of the Spirit of Christ" is to truly acknowledge that we have a "testimony" of certain things we need to be able to truly acknowledge before becoming a member of Christ's church.

Or in other words, our Lord doesn't want someone to become a member of His church only because they like some of the members or the activities, because the Church is not a social organization... although we do socialize and do things together.

Btw, have you read section 20 of the Doctrine & Covenants yet? There are more verses besides verse 37, and reading those might help you to understand things better without having to ask other people on this board.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 30 2005, 09:10 PM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Ray@Aug 30 2005, 09:15 AM

And lastly, there is a penalty for heresy, which is excommunication from the Church or to be refused membership in the Church if you don’t agree with the doctrine of the Church… which I testify is the will of our Lord and the word of God.

No one cares what you testify to. You are like the last guy to speak for God... okay, not the last but not in the top 50%. Seriously Ray - that whole testifying thing is silly, it makes you look like a blowhard who will try any self-righteous ploy to bluff his way through an argument. Save that for more appropriate venues.

No one gets excommunicated for heresy [belief or opinion contrary to orthodox religious]. They get excommunicated for apostasy. That is, if a person persists in teaching heresy, after having been asked to stop, they they are subject to discipline. You can believe whatever you want, you just can't promote it publically.

←

For the record, I share my testimony to state what I know with hope that somebody might pay attention to what I am saying and possibly ask me how I know what I know, as opposed to sharing what I only think might be true which people would be more inclined to brush off because people can think all kinds of different things.

And FYI, our testimonies are being recorded in heaven as well as on Earth, so the people who read my testimony on this board are not the only people who will ever read it.

And btw, you basically proved my point about people being excommunicated for heresy, except that you are saying that people won't be excommunicated until they start teaching false doctrine, whereas I was going further to show that even people who don't publicly teach false doctrine will be excommunicated on the day our Lord judges who will remain as members of His church.

[Guest Member_Deleted]

Originally posted by Snow@Aug 30 2005, 11:47 PM

Please said: Becoming ignorant so soon?

...Have mercy on my son: for he is lunatick, and sore vexed: for ofttimes he falleth into the fire, and oft into the water

I'm sure you had a point. We have a team of pointologists working to decipher it right now.

←

:signs.backtotopic:

[Laureltree]

To tell someone not to become a member because they don't have a full fledged testimony is garbage.... I didn't have one when I joined, I wanted one...but I didn't have one. I think if your heart is in the right place with a real intent to know I don't feel there is any problem...If we went on that rule over half of our members would still not be members....I know dozens of mormons who didn't have a testimony until after there mission and some after they graduated....

Let's get real here We already know things happen in there own time, for there own reason....and we cannot change it, but it doesn't mean we should stop our growth, for some it takes taking that step into baptism to push themselves to search for more. :thinking.idea: And through faith, baptism, and repentance our eyes will be opened and the gift of holy ghost will be given to us, and from there we will receive guidance. Sometimes that step come way before a testimony......

:signs.backtotopic:

[Lindy]

WB to the board Inactivetx :)

And while the boys clobber each other over the heads, let me just say that I'm sure that we all remember what it is like feeling like an 'investigator' a time or two in our lives.

I'll give you my thoughts on your statement "(what's with the brother of Jared stuff - couldn't a man who saw Christ have a name?!)" I'm sure he had a name, and didn't go thru life known as TBOJ...but if no one knew that name, how could they keep record of it? I thought it odd myself when I fist read the story, but then I thought that better to just call him TBOJ than to throw some made up name into the scriptures so it looks better

I know there are times when we meet someone, and only know them as "Bobby's mother" or "Suzie's aunt" or the "lady who screamed at the soccer ref" If a name is not given to us......how are we to differentiate them from anyone else? We tag them with something we know about them.

And I think a lot of us don't want "to get started on the 'and it came to pass' used by every single writer!" LOL I think of it as a historical "you know" or "and uh" or "ummm" that so many people use in their everyday utterances today.

Inactivetx~ I love this church too... there are shades of grey in my world about a lot of things ...but the basic truths of LDS doctrine is not shaded for me at all. I thought at one time that I had to buy into the "whole package" and it drove me nuts cause I couldn't, and I felt very inadequate because of it, so I know how you feel. I know there are things that we will understand as we grow in the gospel, and there will be things that we will never understand....and that's ok....those things will be answered in their own time.

There are a lot of things in every faith that people just don't understand. That's why it is called "FAITH".

Hang in there!

[daizymae]

Originally posted by Laureltree+Aug 31 2005, 10:56 AM-->

I think if your heart is in the right place with a real intent to know I don't feel there is any problem...

I brought this point up in my first reply to this topic:

<!--QuoteBegin-daizymae

Do you have a desire to know if the things you are struggling with are true? In Alma 32:27 we read that "even if you can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words". It may take some time, along with study, pondering, and prayer....but if you truly desire to know and understand it will come to you.

I agree with you that if someone truly desires to know, but is struggling with getting their answer, then there is certainly a place for them in the church.....as long as they have a desire to know and their intent is pure, their answer will come and they will gain a testimony of whatever they were once unsure of.

But if one does not have a desire or true intent to know, they will likely never gain a testimony.

[Maureen]

Originally posted by lindy9556@Aug 31 2005, 10:29 AM

...I'll give you my thoughts on your statement "(what's with the brother of Jared stuff - couldn't a man who saw Christ have a name?!)" I'm sure he had a name, and didn't go thru life known as TBOJ...but if no one knew that name, how could they keep record of it? I thought it odd myself when I fist read the story, but then I thought that better to just call him TBOJ than to throw some made up name into the scriptures so it looks better

I thought that Mahonri Moriancumer was the brother of Jared and that TBOJ was preferred because it was easier and faster to say than Mahonri Moriancumer.

Something like a story my friend and I knew growing up about a father and mother who always had girls and then finally they had a boy and named him: Nicky-nicky-temble-no-so-remble-uma-moochie-gama-gama-goochie. But it was too long for the villagers to remember to they called him Long-name-no-can-say. Did anybody know that story as a child?

M.

[Snow]

Originally posted by daizymae@Aug 31 2005, 07:14 AM

You might disagree Snow, but I believe that God WILL NOT allow the prophet of his church to lead the members astray.

←

Here's the problem with your belief... It is factually wrong. Prophets, when they speak on matters of policy and doctrine and the gospel are leading. Prophets say things that sometimes turn out to be wrong. Therefore, if the people believe them, they lead people astray.

In order for your belief to become true, you have to define "lead astray" to be a qualified "led astray, " as in, not lead astray much, or not lead astray in any foundational truth necessary for the salvation of man and remdemption of the Saints... something like that.

It is not my desire to beat up on God's chosen so I won't enumerate all the times (that I am aware of) when they have been wrong, save one example simply to prove the point. Brigham Young taught that blacks would not receive the priesthood until all non-blacks had received it. The evidence that his mistake had the effect of leading us astray is found in the fact that many, many in the Church, both lay members and leadership believed him - mistakenly. As you know, not all leaders believed him and finally Spencer Kimball corrected the mistake and led us back to the truth, but make no mistake - we, those that believed Brigham Young, were led astray.

[Here are the references: Statement by the First Presidency given on August 17, 1951. "The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father's rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to.'"

On December 3, 1854, Brigham Young said, "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity" (Journal of Discourses 2:143).

President Wilford Woodruff noted in his journal that President Young said, "...that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption" (History of Wilford Woodruff, p.351, as printed in The Way to Perfection, p.106).]