12 yr old testimony drama

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You, too, betray an "us versus them" mentality; as betrayed by your judgy armchair psychoanalysis of TFP's church service.

Correction: not "too". Just him.

I can't say I have never thought this way in any situation, but in this case, his accusation is clearly...well...as you put it, judgy armchair psychoanalysis.

Which brings up an interesting view that I hold related to church culture. There's been a lot of attacking and criticism of church culture on social media lately. I too see a problem with current church culture. The culture of judgy criticism of church culture.

Who, after all, are ones truly looking down their noses at their fellow saints?

Edited June 27, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[NeuroTypical]

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I too see a problem with current church culture. The culture of judgy criticism of church culture.

Can I still make fun of Utah Mormons without being judgy or critical?  I mean, I was one myself for a quarter-century, so it's really just self-effacing humor, right?

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Can I still make fun of Utah Mormons without being judgy or critical?  I mean, I was one myself for a quarter-century, so it's really just self-effacing humor, right?

In all seriousness, I'm not sure how one can make fun of something that is so diverse. Most of the time when I read jokes about Utah Mormon culture I think, "huh?". Because I've never had green jello at a church function. So I expect there are commonalities, but I dunno. Observation humor isn't funny if the observation is something other's haven't experienced.

On top of that, I find that most criticisms of church culture are really criticisms of people (as if people outside of Utah aren't selfish, judgy, cliquish, etc.) or attempts to actually hurt the church by calling something doctrinal cultural.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I've never had green jello at a church function.

You really ought to try it.  I believe everyone needs to taste something of such combinations of flavors that cause one to wonder if it is good or not.

[Guest]

Being a homegrown Texas Mormon, I have never lived in Utah.

When I stayed with my brother for two weeks up in Spanish Fork, I noticed a certain familiarity with the culture - I felt far more at home in Utah than I have ever felt at home in Texas.  It was almost like somehow coming home...

I guess Mormonism will do that to you!

[Guest]

1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Can I still make fun of Utah Mormons without being judgy or critical?

I would find such behavior to be judgy and critical.

[zil]

Just now, Carborendum said:

I would find such behavior to be judgy and critical.

So, a person in Texas is upset by a person in Colorado mocking people in Utah.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, zil said:

So, a person in Texas is upset by a person in Colorado mocking people in Utah.

Hey, I used to be a Utah Mormon before I was a Colorado Mormon.  In fact I was thinking about looking up NT while I was there this weekend for my BIL's wedding.  But we simply had no time or energy.

BTW, Fort Collins Temple... BEAUTIFUL!!!

Edited June 27, 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Let's compare:

Quote

(FOX 11) Los Angeles:

A Christian preschool teacher fights back tears, after her face to face meeting with school leaders, who tell her, she's fired.  And it has nothing to do with her performance in the classroom.  Nina Skye says, 'I couldn't work there because it goes against their statement of faith that it goes against their views of fornication, like sex before marriage and that's what I'm doing. They say it goes against the paper I signed, saying I wouldn't do that.'

What Nina has been doing, besides teaching the a-b-c's, is moonlighting in another job. A job that's not PG.  That's because Nina Skye is a porn actress.  Nina calls it her dream job, 'having sex.'  She says it is something she really enjoys, not to mention the easy money that comes with making porn.

<Edited for content for Mormonhub> and I got paid $2500 on the spot.  I never had that much money, ever, just handed to me in my life.'

But now, Nina is paying the price for that easy money.  Her days working in a classroom as a teacher could be over. That's because Nina would rather work in front of the cameras, saying, 'No', to a last ditch offer from the Christian preschool. It's an offer to help with housing and a pay raise.                                                                                       

All Nina would have to do is leave the porn industry for good. Something Nina says she's not willing to do right now. Nina says, 'They were really trying to pull me away from staying in the industry, they just really wanted me out. They offered help and advice, but I don't really want out of the industry.'

For now, Nina is only working as a porn actress. She admits missing the classrooms and her young students. But she says she's happy and enjoying her life in front of the camera in the porn industry.

Copyright 2017 FOX 11 Los Angeles

• She signed a contract stating that she agreed to not engage in this behavior.  If I understand correctly, the "statement of faith" indicates that she agrees with the principles and requirements as part of her faith.
• She decided to go against this anyway because A) She likes sex and B) She is making too much money at it.
• She was saddened at the thought of being fired.  But she has chosen a lifestyle and it is not a Christian one.
• They reached out to her with financial assistance and a raise to encourage her (loving the sinner) to give up the sin.
• Again, she refused because of money and sex.
• She says she's happy with the choice she's made.

Compare that to those who leave the Church because of the stance on gay marriage.

• They've made a covenant to obey the commandments.
• They choose to go against it because they want the sex so much that it over-rides God's will.
• They are saddened by having to leave.  But they choose a lifestyle that is not an LDS one.
• We reach out to those struggling with the tendencies and try to help and be supportive.
• Again, they refuse because they want sex.
• They say they are being true to who they are.

The differences?

• She's perfectly happy with the choice she's made to the point she's not making a stink about it.  Not threatening to sue.  Not slandering the school.
• She's being perfectly open and honest about her motives, intentions, and desires.
• She's not trying to get approval from those she's choosing to leave.  She's not trying to justify it to them.  She has simply chosen a different path.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Guest

[priesthoodpower]

 

8 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

I have an areligious anarchist facebook buddy - he says he's studied how change like this happens in cultures.  He claims to have seen enough evidence of change happening in US culture (which includes LDS leadership), that he predicts it is only a matter of time before we're doing same-sex sealings in our temples.  From his perspective, we only need a few generations to rotate through our 1st presidency and Q12 before it happens.

From my perspective, well, I believe God makes the rules.

Amen! There is truth everywhere in this world, as President Hinkley said "Bring your truths and lets see if we (LDS) can add to it". Same-sex is a sin but other cultural shifts are happening faster in the world due to easily accessible information spread through the internet. I dont subscribe to the notion of living in "perilous times" rather we live in a time where truth is being uncovered.

Current and future generations of LDS are growing up in a social environment surrounded by influences that are allowing them to broaden their understanding of all the spiritual truths that exist on earth. Add that to the solid foundation of the true gospel as found in the LDS church and many many lives will be blessed.

[SpiritDragon]

13 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

 

Amen! There is truth everywhere in this world, as President Hinkley said "Bring your truths and lets see if we (LDS) can add to it". Same-sex is a sin but other cultural shifts are happening faster in the world due to easily accessible information spread through the internet. I dont subscribe to the notion of living in "perilous times" rather we live in a time where truth is being uncovered.

Current and future generations of LDS are growing up in a social environment surrounded by influences that are allowing them to broaden their understanding of all the spiritual truths that exist on earth. Add that to the solid foundation of the true gospel as found in the LDS church and many many lives will be blessed.

It is my belief that the very reason you state that you don't subscribe to the perilous times notion, is a huge part of why we do indeed live in perilous times. With a greater out-pouring of truth comes an increased resistance. Opposition in all things. Not to mention that the credibility of information shared through any form of media has been so thoroughly hashed it's truly hard to know what and who to believe these days. It makes the notion of a spiritual witness of true principles that much more appealing.

[Guest]

13 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

Amen! There is truth everywhere in this world, as President Hinkley said "Bring your truths and lets see if we (LDS) can add to it". Same-sex is a sin but other cultural shifts are happening faster in the world due to easily accessible information spread through the internet. I dont subscribe to the notion of living in "perilous times" rather we live in a time where truth is being uncovered.

Current and future generations of LDS are growing up in a social environment surrounded by influences that are allowing them to broaden their understanding of all the spiritual truths that exist on earth. Add that to the solid foundation of the true gospel as found in the LDS church and many many lives will be blessed.

Reading this, I conjured up an image that is often given to chemistry students when describing metals as a "sea of electrons".

Each of those faithful are like the nuclei acting as an anchor of truth.  The electrons are the storm of lies and deception that is being thrown about the world.  But here we stand as those anchors in spite of the devil and his minions weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Are we living in a perilous time?  Yes.

Are we living in a time where previously unknown truths are being revealed?  Yes.

Edited June 28, 2017 by Guest

[SpiritDragon]

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

True religion is supposed to be Top-Down.  Free government is supposed to be Bottom-Up.  That is what many don't understand.  They want to apply democratic principles to eternal truth.  Majority does not determine truth.

 

Interestingly, I was recently reading up on the law of common consent and how the church is supposed to be a sort of theo-democracy. I hadn't really realized this, but if the majority of the church membership voted in opposition to an individual holding a calling, or voted in opposition in general conference then the position could not be appropriately filled until there was common consent. Apparently the sustaining votes are more democratic than I ever fully realized.

I still think your point holds up, but God's way is for people to choose to follow and sustain leadership, not to be subject to leadership with no say. It's just that the say is on an individual basis, to follow or not follow, to reap reward or not, instead of to change the direction of God's church. 

[The Folk Prophet]

13 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

I dont subscribe to the notion of living in "perilous times"

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/2-tim/3.1?lang=eng#p1

13 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

rather we live in a time where truth is being uncovered.

Why is it "rather"? It can't be both?

13 hours ago, priesthoodpower said:

in a social environment surrounded by influences that are allowing them to broaden their understanding of all the spiritual truths that exist on earth. 

Which social environment is that? Facebook?

[estradling75]

11 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

Interestingly, I was recently reading up on the law of common consent and how the church is supposed to be a sort of theo-democracy. I hadn't really realized this, but if the majority of the church membership voted in opposition to an individual holding a calling, or voted in opposition in general conference then the position could not be appropriately filled until there was common consent. Apparently the sustaining votes are more democratic than I ever fully realized.

I still think your point holds up, but God's way is for people to choose to follow and sustain leadership, not to be subject to leadership with no say. It's just that the say is on an individual basis, to follow or not follow, to reap reward or not, instead of to change the direction of God's church. 

We need to remember a few things about this... Common Consent never dictated to God whom he could call.  God always holds the exclusive right to calling prophets, apostles, etc, etc. Common Consent was a chance to exercise agency in following God's command or not (the whole point to why we are here).  Therefore common consent never chose the prophet... it chose if we were going to follow the prophet.  A choice members still make today, and every day.

If you want an example of God's people choosing to follow a leader other then God's prophet all we have to do is read the Old Testament story of the Prophet Samuel and King Saul.

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

We need to remember a few things about this... Common Consent never dictated to God whom he could call.  God always holds the exclusive right to calling prophets, apostles, etc, etc. Common Consent was a chance to exercise agency in following God's command or not (the whole point to why we are here).  Therefore common consent never chose the prophet... it chose if we were going to follow the prophet.  A choice members still make today, and every day.

If you want an example of God's people choosing to follow a leader other then God's prophet all we have to do is read the Old Testament story of the Prophet Samuel and King Saul.

Yes...and No...From what I understand...

The idea behind the voting today isn't whether the people will follow the Lord or not (and if we ever get to that point, the church is indeed in perilous times).

The idea is that enough of the church will have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that if there are ever questions that come up regarding callings or positions, that the Holy Ghost as a guide will lead the members to vote in the appropriate manner.  All confirming and sustaining should be done with the guidance of the Spirit.

A prime example of this in our modern times where the membership as a majority were guided by the Spirit over the correct course of action of who to fill certain roles came upon Joseph's Death and The voting to have the President of the Twelve and the Twelve Apostles lead the church.  There were several that were wanting to lead the church, some that were powerful orators (Sidney Rigdon in particular).  However, it was the guidance of the Spirit upon the members that led to the choice which they sustained, and which has brought about our current leadership today.

Edited June 28, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[SpiritDragon]

8 hours ago, estradling75 said:

We need to remember a few things about this... Common Consent never dictated to God whom he could call.  God always holds the exclusive right to calling prophets, apostles, etc, etc. Common Consent was a chance to exercise agency in following God's command or not (the whole point to why we are here).  Therefore common consent never chose the prophet... it chose if we were going to follow the prophet.  A choice members still make today, and every day.

If you want an example of God's people choosing to follow a leader other then God's prophet all we have to do is read the Old Testament story of the Prophet Samuel and King Saul.

Thanks, Estradling. It's always good to have clarification on such points. I actually ran out of time to add more thoughts to the post you're responding to here.  

Generally, the law of Common Consent is simply showcasing agency on the part of all parties. ie. If I don't agree with the direction the Church is going, I can simply leave of my own volition. If I could not. the church would be a poor vehicle on the road to salvation because the Lord requires the heart, not simply the action.

As you have stated Common Consent may not choose the prophet (or any other position for that matter) but does have the ability to reject an individual from serving in a specific capacity. 

“No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)

President John Taylor has been quoted asking, " Is there a monarch, potentate or power under the heavens, that undergoes a scrutiny as fine as this? No, there is not; yet this is done twice a year." While most of the callings in the church only undergo a single sustaining vote at the time of being issued the calling, certain leadership positions require votes to be cast throughout the time of service. The continued sustaining votes of the church are imperative to the maintenance of the leadership of the church. Therefore Church leadership is under the scrutiny to keep the confidence of the body of the Church or risk a vote of non-confidence which would remove them from there position.

This all ties in with the first presidency's statement in 1907: "We deny the existence of arbitrary power in the Church; and this because its government is moral government purely, and its forces are applied through kindness, reason, and persuasion."

So while the Church (thankfully) doesn't undergo campaigning with different agendas to be voted on every six months, a vote does take place on every position (calling) in the church, and particularly the leadership which does influence whether or not they can serve in a given capacity. Since there is no campaigning on various doctrinal positions and such, the vote is based on the character of the individual and an individual should only be voted against when knowledge of dishonest or immoral dealings are present.

[SpiritDragon]

Let me also clarify my main point I was trying to make earlier in quoting @Carborendum, but think I can articulate better at this time:

 Free government is supposed to be Bottom-Up.  That is what many don't understand.  They want to apply democratic principles to eternal truth.  Majority does not determine truth.

I completely agree with all of this and believe it to be true.

True religion is supposed to be Top-Down. 

This part I believe to be only half true. The direction comes from the top down, but is sustained from the bottom up. It may seem like a minor nit-pick but to me is the difference between a dictatorship and a divine government. In the one the rules are established and enforced from the top down, whereas in the latter the rules are given from the top and upheld by the will of the people (bottom-up reciprocity) who recognize the rules as true principles and choose to obey with free choice, not fear.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Yes...and No...From what I understand...

The idea behind the voting today isn't whether the people will follow the Lord or not (and if we ever get to that point, the church is indeed in perilous times).

The idea is that enough of the church will have the guidance of the Holy Ghost, that if there are ever questions that come up regarding callings or positions, that the Holy Ghost as a guide will lead the members to vote in the appropriate manner.  All confirming and sustaining should be done with the guidance of the Spirit.

A prime example of this in our modern times where the membership as a majority were guided by the Spirit over the correct course of action of who to fill certain roles came upon Joseph's Death and The voting to have the President of the Twelve and the Twelve Apostles lead the church.  There were several that were wanting to lead the church, some that were powerful orators (Sidney Rigdon in particular).  However, it was the guidance of the Spirit upon the members that led to the choice which they sustained, and which has brought about our current leadership today.

The voting is so about whether people will follow the Lord.

The 'people' are not led by the spirit to select someone called of the Lord. The spirit will confirm the truth of it if needed. But that is confirmation in the same manner that people do not write new scripture, but receive confirmation of its truth.

Do you think if the people had voted for Sidney Rigdon it would have changed a thing as to who was authorized to lead the church through revelation? The people would have just gone off following a false church and Brigham and the twelve would have gone on proclaiming the truth and bringing souls to it despite the fallen who had gone after Sidney and his claims.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

“No man can preside in this Church in any capacity without the consent of the people. The Lord has placed upon us the responsibility of sustaining by vote those who are called to various positions of responsibility. No man, should the people decide to the contrary, could preside over any body of Latter-day Saints in this Church, and yet it is not the right of the people to nominate, to choose, for that is the right of the priesthood.” (Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:123; see also D&C 20:65.)

Clearly this is the case because if the people didn't sustain the person they wouldn't follow him and therefore he couldn't preside. But it wouldn't change who was called of the Lord.

When a people turn against a prophet he does not stop being God's chosen voice to that people.

[SpiritDragon]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Clearly this is the case because if the people didn't sustain the person they wouldn't follow him and therefore he couldn't preside. But it wouldn't change who was called of the Lord.

When a people turn against a prophet he does not stop being God's chosen voice to that people.

I understand where you're coming from and think it's a valid point. However, I think the sustaining votes have more value than rubber-stamping the Lord's anointed simply because that's what we do. (I'm not saying that you said this, it is simply where my thoughts went after reading your post)

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were commanded to wait to ordain each other to the positions of first and second elder after receiving the melchizedek priesthood until such time that the small body of believers could gather and offer sustaining votes and establish common consent in the church. Joseph was clearly God's chosen servant to bring about the restoration and was the one granted the priesthood and keys to this dispensation (with Cowdery, who lost them and had them given to Hyrum), but he did not preside over the church until the vote and ordination took place. Had the early church voted against Joseph he would still have had the priesthood, but no church to preside over - which I believe fits your point. On the other hand, why bother having a sustaining vote or a vote of common consent at all if the vote is meaningless in regard to the church? I believe the answer to this question can be seen by looking at a concern that Brigham Young supposedly voiced (I can't find a source right now, please feel free to correct this if it is in error) that he was deeply concerned that the membership of the church would follow the Brethren to hell if they didn't gain spiritual witnesses of teachings for themselves. In this way the Law of Common Consent helps as an added safeguard against church leadership going apostate and leading the church astray. If the prophet is righteous and the people voice dissent, that is their prerogative to turn away. If on the other hand the Brethren were ever to fall prey to the weakness of the flesh and put forth false revelations, then by the lack of sustaining vote on principles of unrighteousness being taught, they could theoretically be expelled and have righteous replacements. It is a check and balance to keep everyone accountable.

Edited June 29, 2017 by SpiritDragon

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

I understand where you're coming from and think it's a valid point. However, I think the sustaining votes have more value than rubber-stamping the Lord's anointed simply because that's what we do. (I'm not saying that you said this, it is simply where my thoughts went after reading your post)

Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were commanded to wait to ordain each other to the positions of first and second elder after receiving the melchizedek priesthood until such time that the small body of believers could gather and offer sustaining votes and establish common consent in the church. Joseph was clearly God's chosen servant to bring about the restoration and was the one granted the priesthood and keys to this dispensation (with Cowdery, who lost them and had them given to Hyrum), but he did not preside over the church until the vote and ordination took place. Had the early church voted against Joseph he would still have had the priesthood, but no church to preside over - which I believe fits your point. On the other hand, why bother having a sustaining vote or a vote of common consent at all if the vote is meaningless in regard to the church? I believe the answer to this question can be seen by looking at a concern that Brigham Young supposedly voiced (I can't find a source right now, please feel free to correct this if it is in error) that he was deeply concerned that the membership of the church would follow the Brethren to hell if they didn't gain spiritual witnesses of teachings for themselves. In this way the Law of Common Consent helps as an added safeguard against church leadership going apostate and leading the church astray. If the prophet is righteous and the people voice dissent, that is their prerogative to turn away. If on the other hand the Brethren were ever to fall prey to the weakness of the flesh and put forth false revelations, then by the lack of sustaining vote on principles of unrighteousness being taught, they could theoretically be expelled and have righteous replacements. It is a check and balance to keep everyone accountable.

I agree with this in part; but I think we have pretty solid promises that the Church leadership will not fall away in this dispensation.  That doesn't mean we don't seek our own testimonies of the divine calling of our general and local authorities--far from it!--but the function of those testimonies is less to innoculate us against deception that may come from our leaders; and more to prepare us for deception that will come from the world about our leaders.  Here is the Young quote you are probably thinking of:

What a pity it would be it we were lead by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are lead by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders did they know for themselves by the revelations of Jesus that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves whether their leaders are walking in the path the lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

Note that Young isn't saying he's afraid the membership will be led astray; he's worried that such complacency will *reduce* the influence of the leadership in the lives of the membership.

Modern sustaining is, in my view, less about democracy and more about binding the body of Christ to its leadership by a covenant of mutual trust and aid.  When you sustain someone to a calling in sacrament meeting, you do so with an act that evokes a very specific covenant made during the endowment.  These are, to a large degree, the ties that hold Zion together--not just "common consent", but "common covenant".

Edited June 29, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[SpiritDragon]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I agree with this in part; but I think we have pretty solid promises that the Church leadership will not fall away in this dispensation.  That doesn't mean we don't seek our own testimonies of the divine calling of our general and local authorities--far from it!--but the function of those testimonies is  less to avoid deception that may come from our leaders; and more to avoid deception that may come from the world about our leaders.

Modern sustaining is, in my view, less about democracy-ex-"common consent" and more about binding the body of Christ to its leadership by a covenant of mutual trust and aid.  When you sustain someone to a calling in sacrament meeting, you do so with an act that evokes a very specific covenant made during the endowment.  These are, to a large degree, the ties that hold Zion together.

Great points JaG! There is no doubt that the sustaining vote is indeed a sacred covenant. I absolutely agree with you regarding teachings that the Lord won't let the church be led astray, but can't help wonder if Common Consent couldn't be a part of how that promise is upheld. 

[Just_A_Guy]

@SpiritDragon  FYI, I tracked down the Young quote I think you were alluding to and added it into my prior post, with commentary.

[SpiritDragon]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What a pity it would be it we were lead by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are lead by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purpose of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders did they know for themselves by the revelations of Jesus that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves whether their leaders are walking in the path the lord dictates or not. This has been my exhortation continually.

Thanks for tracking this down JaG. The bolded part is definitely what I was remembering and roughly paraphrasing. I appreciate your take on it, and now see the quote as two-fold. On the one hand it still speaks to me of the concern about being lead to destruction, by blindly following a man and not confirming for oneself that he is the spokesman for the Lord. On the other hand it speaks of the loss of dedication to the leadership by not confirming for oneself that he is indeed the Lord's chosen servant.Great insight.