The LDS Church is true or it is not true. Therefore...

[bytor2112]

"I propose some simple tests that all of us may take to determine if we are true to the faith."- Elder Bruce R McConkie

Or here

The Church is like a great caravan—organized, prepared, following an appointed course, with its captains of tens and captains of hundreds all in place.

What does it matter if a few barking dogs snap at the heels of the weary travelers? Or that predators claim those few who fall by the way? The caravan moves on.

Is there a ravine to cross, a miry mud hole to pull through, a steep grade to climb? So be it. The oxen are strong and the teamsters wise. The caravan moves on.

Are there storms that rage along the way, floods that wash away the bridges, deserts to cross, and rivers to ford? Such is life in this fallen sphere. The caravan moves on.

Ahead is the celestial city, the eternal Zion of our God, where all who maintain their position in the caravan shall find food and drink and rest. Thank God that the caravan moves on!- BRM

Edited March 21, 2013 by bytor2112

[Maureen]

...But there is a huge difference between a gentle reminder, or even an impassioned pleading; versus an attempt at public humiliation....

I don't see how uniting together as a social networking community with a letter writing campaign equates to an attempt at public humiliation. Social medias exist, it's probably the most common way we communicate with each other now. Their request is quite public, but so what; just because their purpose can be viewed by many doesn't mean they are humiliating anyone. I hope the LDS leaders are kinder and more perceptive to realize that. I've gone to the Let Women Pray in General Conference facebook site and it is a very positive site. The examples of letters that have been written are polite and thoughtful. I am puzzled by why so many LDS people think this community is evil.

M.

[Anddenex]

I am puzzled by why so many LDS people think this community is evil.

M.

When comments on these thread say something to this nature, "I know the prophets and apostles will do the right thing."

The "right thing" is letting women pray in General Conference, and the wrong thing is not allowing a women to pray, when it has nothing to do with gender.

Yes, this is a problem. They assume the role of standing above those in the watch tower, and seek to tell them what is right and what is wrong. They seek to entice others to anger and frustration should the prophet and apostles continue General Conference as it is.

I am puzzled why people who profess to be open are unable to see how this is not a problem. Why are people concerned about women praying in GC when women speak every conference and women also pray in "General Relief Society Meeting" which is an extension of General Conference?

[LittleWyvern]

When comments on these thread say something to this nature, "I know the prophets and apostles will do the right thing."

The "right thing" is letting women pray in General Conference, and the wrong thing is not allowing a women to pray, when it has nothing to do with gender.

Yes, this is a problem. They assume the role of standing above those in the watch tower, and seek to tell them what is right and what is wrong. They seek to entice others to anger and frustration should the prophet and apostles continue General Conference as it is.

Not always. I know the prophets and apostles will do the right thing, and I think that the "right thing" will be... well, whatever it is they decide. Maybe women won't pray in General Conference in April, and I'll be fine with that. Maybe they'll also decide to have women pray in General Conference in October, and I'll be fine with that too. I'm fine with both being the "right thing" (and honestly, maybe it would be for the best if they waited until the emotion surrounding the issue wanes a little). I still think it's a good thing to have women pray in conference, but what do I know? I'm just some random Mormon on the internet, really. I freely acknowledge that, in addition to the General Authorities being called by God and given authority, things are run by people who are way smarter and inspired than I am. :)

I am puzzled why people who profess to be open are unable to see how this is not a problem. Why are people concerned about women praying in GC when women speak every conference and women also pray in "General Relief Society Meeting" which is an extension of General Conference?

Maybe I'll start my own letter writing campaign of putting General Relief Society Meeting on the DVD set of General Conference. I'm tired of burning my own DVD!

I'm joking, of course. It would be convenient though...

[selek]

Just once, I'd like to see the Prophet announce, "Thus saith the Lord: 'Women should be seen and not heard. Sit down and shut up.'"

This is NOT because I believe our good sisters have nothing to offer, or that they should be treated as second class citizens- they do.

But aside from the money I'd make selling popcorn, the tongue-swallowing, hair-tearing, and apopletic fits would be very revealing about who are true disciples of Christ and those who just want to be known as such.

[Anddenex]

Not always. I know the prophets and apostles will do the right thing, and I think that the "right thing" will be... well, whatever it is they decide. Maybe women won't pray in General Conference in April, and I'll be fine with that. Maybe they'll also decide to have women pray in General Conference in October, and I'll be fine with that too. I'm fine with both being the "right thing" (and honestly, maybe it would be for the best if they waited until the emotion surrounding the issue wanes a little). I still think it's a good thing to have women pray in conference, but what do I know? I'm just some random Mormon on the internet, really. I freely acknowledge that, in addition to the General Authorities being called by God and given authority, things are run by people who are way smarter and inspired than I am. :)

What you express is the correct mind frame, however, unfortunately this isn't the mind set of the comments I have read. In these threads of comments there is only one "right" solution -- women pray in General Conference. The "right thing" mentioned isn't as you share, "whatever it is they decide...I'll be fine with it."

They openly express, if women do not pray then they are doing the wrong thing. As I have openly shared it matters very little to me who prays in GC, as long as a honest and sincere prayer is shared.

[Magus]

I think the core of Vort's question can be summed up as... How do we sustain a leader(s) (for those who have covenanted to do so) when we have every reason to think they are wrong or in error on a matter.

To me, sustaining a leader means the following:

1.) I recognize their right to receive revelation

2.) if I disagree with them, I express that disagreement properly.

3.) if I know something that would disqualify them to be in their leadership position, I also share that information through the proper channels.

I have been vocal about my disagreements with certain Church leaders before. I have an opinion, I express it. But that doesn't mean I don't sustain them as leaders.

[selek]

To me, sustaining a leader means the following:

1.) I recognize their right to receive revelation

2.) if I disagree with them, I express that disagreement properly.

3.) if I know something that would disqualify them to be in their leadership position, I also share that information through the proper channels.

I have been vocal about my disagreements with certain Church leaders before. I have an opinion, I express it. But that doesn't mean I don't sustain them as leaders.

They key words of course, are "through the proper channels" and "properly".

The bottom line is this:

The moment you seek to compel the Church to conform to your notions of propriety, you become an ark steadier. Even when done with the very best and noblest of intentions, this is playing with fire.

The moment we begin (even in our own minds) to aggrandize ourselves and our judgement over those of the Brethren, we are on the short bus to apostacy.

The moment we seek to use outside influence to compel the Church, we have- deliberately and unavoidably separated ourselves from the body of the Church.

By allying ourselves with those foreign to the body of believers, we not only alienate ourselves from our brothers and sisters and from the Holy Ghost, we become a cancer of disunity, pride, and faithlessness.

Even the supposed war "on the culture of the Church" is a deliberate and prideful division of the brethren and sisters.

It is irrretrievably and inescapably a distinction between "those who know better" and "those who do not".

It is a means by which we adjudge and annoint ourselves as better and "more enlightened" than those naive rubes who simply go along with tide...

The moment that we adjudge ourselves better than our brethren and sisters, we are becoming prideful and lifted up in our hearts. These are the very sorts of divisions that we are warned about repeatedly in Scripture.

The presumption that "fairness" and "justice" can only come to the Church through our actions- or that of outside agitators- is to deny that Christ stands at the head of his Church.

It is the (unwarranted) assumption (and presumption) that Christ cannot or will not bring about that same "justice" or "fairness" unless we are there to jog his elbow.

That is arrogance.

That is presumption.

That is hubris.

It is NOT the spirit of the humble disciple that we as followers of Christ are supposed to cultivate in our countenance.

The moment that our pretensions and predilections become more important to us than obedience and unity in Christ, we cease to be his disciples.

When we preach our own prejudices and presumptions over the counsel of the Brethren annointed by Christ, we cease to be his servants and become our own.

To cling to such a gospel is to reveal a deep and fundamental lack of faith in Christ's guidance, his judgment, and his justice. It is an intrinsic assumption that our wisdom, our "timing", or our sense of propriety is superior to that of the Savior.

To preach such a gospel is to undermine the very foundations of this Church, and to attempt to bring shame and discredit upon those whom God has chosen.

And that makes us an enemy not only to the Church, but to the God who has established, guides, and claims it as his own.

[pam]

This was just posted on facebook. I thought it also could apply here:

But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21).

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had "never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life" (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.

We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't see how uniting together as a social networking community with a letter writing campaign equates to an attempt at public humiliation.

Maureen, if I publicly asked - say - five of the most conservative members of LDS.net to reply to your post and tell you why they think you're wrong, would you say that I was simply trying to facilitate respectful and productive communication?

For my part, I would say I was being condescending, churlish, and a bit of a bully.

[selek]

For my part, I would say I was being condescending, churlish, and a bit of a bully.

That's right.

You do your job and let me do mine.

[pam]

That's right.

You do your job and let me do mine.

And then I can do mine.

[selek]

And then I can do mine.

A new one?

How thoughtful!

The old one was getting kinda tatty....

Taken- one trusts- in the spirit in which it was intended....

[pam]

Thank you. I needed a new target. But I must say..at this time of night..that one makes me a bit dizzy. :)

[selek]

Thank you. I needed a new target. But I must say..at this time of night..that one makes me a bit dizzy. :)

<Channelling my inner optometrist>

Better? Or Worse?

[selek]

Whooaaa!!!! Duuude!!!!

DO NOT scroll past that previous image too quickly!

[pam]

Are you trying to be on my good or bad side?

[selek]

Are you trying to be on my good or bad side?

Wait! There's a difference?

Why aren't I told these things in advance?

[pam]

Wait! There's a difference?

Why aren't I told these things in advance?

Wait..are you saying my good and bad side are the same?

[selek]

Wait..are you saying my good and bad side are the same?

MINE are....

(...except for the cookie list. When I get REALLY ticked off, I stop baking...)

[selek]

For the record, I was going to say, "Wait! You have sides!?!"

But when I did that to my MIL she and my ex took it as a crack about her weight.

...

Thank God for the Witness Protection Program...

[pam]

A wise decision to resist the urge. :)

[Magus]

They key words of course, are "through the proper channels" and "properly".

The bottom line is this:

The moment you seek to compel the Church to conform to your notions of propriety, you become an ark steadier. Even when done with the very best and noblest of intentions, this is playing with fire.

The moment we begin (even in our own minds) to aggrandize ourselves and our judgement over those of the Brethren, we are on the short bus to apostacy.

The moment we seek to use outside influence to compel the Church, we have- deliberately and unavoidably separated ourselves from the body of the Church.

By allying ourselves with those foreign to the body of believers, we not only alienate ourselves from our brothers and sisters and from the Holy Ghost, we become a cancer of disunity, pride, and faithlessness.

Even the supposed war "on the culture of the Church" is a deliberate and prideful division of the brethren and sisters.

It is irrretrievably and inescapably a distinction between "those who know better" and "those who do not".

It is a means by which we adjudge and annoint ourselves as better and "more enlightened" than those naive rubes who simply go along with tide...

The moment that we adjudge ourselves better than our brethren and sisters, we are becoming prideful and lifted up in our hearts. These are the very sorts of divisions that we are warned about repeatedly in Scripture.

The presumption that "fairness" and "justice" can only come to the Church through our actions- or that of outside agitators- is to deny that Christ stands at the head of his Church.

It is the (unwarranted) assumption (and presumption) that Christ cannot or will not bring about that same "justice" or "fairness" unless we are there to jog his elbow.

That is arrogance.

That is presumption.

That is hubris.

It is NOT the spirit of the humble disciple that we as followers of Christ are supposed to cultivate in our countenance.

The moment that our pretensions and predilections become more important to us than obedience and unity in Christ, we cease to be his disciples.

When we preach our own prejudices and presumptions over the counsel of the Brethren annointed by Christ, we cease to be his servants and become our own.

To cling to such a gospel is to reveal a deep and fundamental lack of faith in Christ's guidance, his judgment, and his justice. It is an intrinsic assumption that our wisdom, our "timing", or our sense of propriety is superior to that of the Savior.

To preach such a gospel is to undermine the very foundations of this Church, and to attempt to bring shame and discredit upon those whom God has chosen.

And that makes us an enemy not only to the Church, but to the God who has established, guides, and claims it as his own.

I agree.

But it's interesting to point out that sometimes there are leaders who stop serving God and start serving themselves as well. They are not immune to sin or corruption. They are human.

For example, I sustained my mission president. But the dude had some serious flaws. For example, lying to missionaries in interviews in order to try and trick them to get a confession out of them over rather trivial mission matters. That is straight up unethical as a priesthood leader. I could go on. The man was entitled to revelation. I am sure that at times he received it. But I am positive he did not receive it all the time, and I am positive that at times he was quite in error as well, and harmed the mission, as well as individual missionaries.

I can make that observation and react accordingly without being an apostate or having any pride in my heart.

Furthermore - yes, this is Christ's Church and he is at its head. It is ultimately guided by him. But exactly how much every detail is guided is another matter. I can say for certain that God let's us lead and lets us make mistakes - very often. The 116 pages of the Book of Lehi is a prime example. There are many others.

Edited March 22, 2013 by Magus

[anan]

This was just posted on facebook. I thought it also could apply here:

But make no mistake about it, brothers and sisters; in the months and years ahead, events will require of each member that he or she decide whether or not he or she will follow the First Presidency. Members will find it more difficult to halt longer between two opinions (see 1 Kings 18:21).

President Marion G. Romney said, many years ago, that he had "never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, or political life" (CR, April 1941, p. 123). This is a hard doctrine, but it is a particularly vital doctrine in a society which is becoming more wicked. In short, brothers and sisters, not being ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ includes not being ashamed of the prophets of Jesus Christ.

We are now entering a period of incredible ironies. Let us cite but one of these ironies which is yet in its subtle stages: we shall see in our time a maximum if indirect effort made to establish irreligion as the state religion. It is actually a new form of paganism that uses the carefully preserved and cultivated freedoms of Western civilization to shrink freedom even as it rejects the value essence of our rich Judeo-Christian heritage.

I understand the quotation "never hesitate to follow", but if disagreements about leadership are pointed out that isn't paganism, that is simply people exercising their free agency. This just my opinion.

[selek]

I understand the quotation "never hesitate to follow", but if disagreements about leadership are pointed out that isn't paganism, that is simply people exercising their free agency. This just my opinion.

Kloud, you miss the point: whether with the sort of ark-steadying under discussion in this thread, or with one's adherence to the coming State religion, to choose between that which is of God and that which is not.

Far too many Christians- and far too many Latter-day Saints in particular- are more worried about the praise and approval of the fallen world than about what is right in the Lord's sight.

The quote was not being used to define arksteadying as paganism, but to illustrate that more and more, we will be called upon to choose between Heavenly Father and his servants, and those who serve Babylon.

This is as it has always been: but things are coming to a head in our generation (and perhaps dispensation).

The phrase "Choose this day whom you will serve" is not an empty challenge.

It is the crucible within which our mettle is tested, and the fulcrum upon which our salvation will pivot.