Defending the Gospel

[omegaseamaster75]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Does the gospel need defending?

The short answer is it depends. 

Are you defending your opinion about doctrine and policy and church history or are you defending an outright attack on the leaders of the church and that truthfulness of the gospel?

 

[zil]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I tend to think of myself as a rogue scoundrel a la Han Solo. Er...don't let the lightsaber in my avatar confuse.

Uh huh.  Somehow images of Harrison Ford don't appear in my head when I read your posts...  Just sayin'.

[zil]

Is there an echo in here?

Edited November 7, 2017 by zil

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

...people like you or me would charge in, guns blazing.

Only on this forum though. I tend to hold my peace in person. Which.....now that I think of it, is well worth consideration in this thread.

[zil]

ARG!  This thread is broken for me.  I can't see my post, if it posted, and I can't see new posts, though I keep getting notifications of new posts.  The last one I can see is TFP's comment about thinking of himself as Han Solo.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Are you defending your opinion about doctrine and policy and church history or are you defending an outright attack on the leaders of the church and that truthfulness of the gospel?

Can you honestly define the difference. Doesn't every man and woman, ultimately, perceive everything from their opinion.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, zil said:

ARG!  This thread is broken for me.  I can't see my post, if it posted, and I can't see new posts, though I keep getting notifications of new posts.  The last one I can see is TFP's comment about thinking of himself as Han Solo.

It glitched for me that way for a bit too. It's caught up now.

[NightSG]

8 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I lamented the difficulties I felt I often faced, being viewed by so many as a pariah of sorts, declared judgmental, hateful, self-righteous, and generally "everything wrong with the church"

Do you also have an annoying preference for thin, slick toilet paper, hideous taste in wall coverings and an equally poor concept of volleyball court safety?

I mean, without those, you really can't be everything wrong with the Church.

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, NightSG said:

thin, slick toilet paper

Not sure what this is about, but I'm envisioning Saran Wrap. It's not a pretty idea.

[omegaseamaster75]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can you honestly define the difference. Doesn't every man and woman, ultimately, perceive everything from their opinion.

Sure

Example 1. Thomas Monson is not a prophet of God and I as a member raise my hand to not sustain him in conference

Example 2. I refuse to wear a white shirt to church and as such am overlooked when opportunities arise to exercise my priesthood i.e passing the sacrament, giving a blessing even though I am otherwise worthy in every way.

 

Example 1. Should be defended.  It is a blatant falsehood proclaimed by a member who declares himself in good standing 

Example 2. A legitimate criticism of cultural Mormonism, no one needs to go to battle over this. 

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Do you also have an annoying preference for thin, slick toilet paper, hideous taste in wall coverings and an equally poor concept of volleyball court safety?

*sigh* See...now you've gone and attacked the church and I feel the need to attack you back...you.......bully!

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Sure

Example 1. Thomas Monson is not a prophet of God and I as a member raise my hand to not sustain him in conference

Example 2. I refuse to wear a white shirt to church and as such am overlooked when opportunities arise to exercise my priesthood i.e passing the sacrament, giving a blessing even though I am otherwise worthy in every way.

 

Example 1. Should be defended.  It is a blatant falsehood proclaimed by a member who declares himself in good standing 

Example 2. A legitimate criticism of cultural Mormonism, no one needs to go to battle over this. 

Well...that's your perception as you see it based on your opinions.

[Vort]

23 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Example 2. I refuse to wear a white shirt to church and as such am overlooked when opportunities arise to exercise my priesthood i.e passing the sacrament, giving a blessing even though I am otherwise worthy in every way.

Example 2. A legitimate criticism of cultural Mormonism, no one needs to go to battle over this. 

I know you want to bang this drum and insist that all such things are pure evil. But you are wrong. Participation in the sacrament is at the discretion of the bishop, and he may well be inspired to require certain things, including items of dress, from his Aaronic Priesthood charges. To  make a blanket assertion as you have done above is simply false.

[NeuroTypical]

9 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Does the gospel need defending?

Truth is truth, whether someone defends it or not.  That said:

Quote

D&C 71:7-11 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest. Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.  Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper; And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time. Wherefore, keep my commandments; they are true and faithful. Even so. Amen.

Quote

1 Peter 3:15:  But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Quote

1 Thessalonians 5:21: Prove all things; hold fast to which is good.

Quote

Jude 1:3: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Quote

John A. Widtsoe: "Our critics seek to impede the growth of the kingdom through a variety of strategies and tactics, many of which fall in the category of "dirty tricks" (lies, deceptions, false 'spin'.). Isn't it sticking your head in the sand to ignore this fact, or feel apathy towards it?  Those to whom no problems occur are asleep at the wheel of truth." 

And my personal favorite answer:

Quote

 

Austin Farrer, "The Christian Apologist": Though argument does not create conviction, the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be proved may not be embraced; but what no one shows the ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational argument does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish.

 

Is all that answer enough for you and your brother?

[omegaseamaster75]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

I know you want to bang this drum and insist that all such things are pure evil. But you are wrong. Participation in the sacrament is at the discretion of the bishop, and he may well be inspired to require certain things, including items of dress, from his Aaronic Priesthood charges. To  make a blanket assertion as you have done above is simply false.

I haven't banged this drum in a while, nor do I wish to continue to do so, @The Folk Prophet asked for an example and I provided one.  I get that you want to challenge me on every little thing that you can and you are welcome to do so.

I can only share my experience I am not making a blanket assertion even though you may take it as such, which is that Bishops have excluded or not allowed otherwise worthy members to pass the sacrament because they did not wear a white shirt ( i will grant that bishops have their discretion and can mandate what they wish.  I just happen to disagree with it), were as someone wearing a shirt that used to be white, and is wrinkled and worst of all is short sleeved (not even a dress shirt) is allowed. 

It is a small matter and not for discussion in this thread. it has been beat to death. I am done with it.

Edited November 7, 2017 by omegaseamaster75

[The Folk Prophet]

10 minutes ago, Vort said:

I know you want to bang this drum and insist that all such things are pure evil. But you are wrong. Participation in the sacrament is at the discretion of the bishop, and he may well be inspired to require certain things, including items of dress, from his Aaronic Priesthood charges. To  make a blanket assertion as you have done above is simply false.

 

2 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I haven't banged this drum in a while, nor do I wish to continue to do so, @The Folk Prophet asked for an example and I provided one.  I get that you want to challenge me on every little thing that you can and you are welcome to do so.

I can only share my experience I am not making a blanket assertion even though you may take it as such, which is that Bishops have excluded or not allowed otherwise worthy members to pass the sacrament because they did not wear a white shirt ( i will grant that bishops have their discretion and can mandate what they wish.  I just happen to disagree with it), were as someone wearing a shirt that used to be white, and is wrinkled and worst of all is short sleeved (not even a dress shirt) is allowed. 

It is a small matter and not for discussion in this thread. it has been beat to death. I am done with it.

A perfect ensample of my point concerning opinions.

[omegaseamaster75]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

A perfect ensample of my point concerning opinions.

Yes, an opinion can be challenged and argued, but does not attack the church or its leaders in any way and as such does not require the defense that I think you propose/stand ready to give.

I think items that rise to that level would include false doctrine, apostasy, etc. not small trifling matters such as interpretations of what is meant by hot drinks (I know the mandate but others have a variety of opinions) in the WOW of whether or not caffeinated soda is OK. 

[The Folk Prophet]

24 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Yes, an opinion can be challenged and argued, but does not attack the church or its leaders in any way and as such does not require the defense that I think you propose/stand ready to give.

I think items that rise to that level would include false doctrine, apostasy, etc. not small trifling matters such as interpretations of what is meant by hot drinks (I know the mandate but others have a variety of opinions) in the WOW of whether or not caffeinated soda is OK. 

I disagree. My opinion. I think a great many of the more harmful and insidious attacks on the church are couched in the form of attacks on the church "culture".

[lostinwater]

11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Does the gospel need defending?

An excellent discussion.  @The Folk Prophet  - i'm curious as to what defending means to you?    And beyond that, what is the Gospel?  Is it kindness and compassion, or is it all that plus ordinances, church structure and organization, tithing, home teaching, etc.,  

Is the expression and spreading of ideas contrary to one's own an unwitting attack that must be defended against?  Are perspectives something that will be allowed to persist into the eternities, or is a different perspective merely an indication of deception and lack of knowledge, that must be corrected?  

At what point does the way in which one worships become a point of trivial importance - almost like one's preference of whether to eat an apple or orange at a meal.  Does that never happen, or is that not a fair comparison?  

Not trying to start an argument, and not trying to dig any pits, to reference a recent thread.  But the feeling you cite about how the same action is perceived as valiant defense by one, and as aggressive bigotry by another is very good in my opinion - and want try, in a way that hopefully viewed as respectful, to get a better idea of your frame of reference.

[Jane_Doe]

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

For what it's worth, I don't really think either of your equations match what is my understanding of the call/need to "defend the gospel", and both are possibilities within its scope.

"Defend the Gospel" = correcting (putting the how aside) statement of falsehood that, if accepted, cause damage.

Person A says: Joseph Smith was a con man.

Person B says: That is false.

Necessary? Or not? Let it ride? Let the falsehood and lies go? Or speak up?

The fact that Joseph Smith was a prophet is a fact, and doesn't need us to defend it to be True (obviously I'm speaking from my LDS chair).

Now, obviously other people are going to have different views and some folks are just going to think he's a con man regardless of what is said.  They'll never here Christ's gospel from you verbally telling them otherwise, so trying to have a verbal conversation doesn't have much point.  There is a chance that they might listen to your nonverbal testimony of love.

For a different group of people: there are some folks who are legitly interested in learning about LDS beliefs.  I find things like "I believe Y" or "LDS believe X" to be good phrasing.  Always being charitable in your method/approach, and respect their right to believe something completely different (11th AofF).

[The Folk Prophet]

43 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

  - i'm curious as to what defending means to you? 

Protection.

43 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

 And beyond that, what is the Gospel? 

The plan of salvation including all the means therein where we may return to our Father in Heaven and become like him.

43 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Is it kindness and compassion,

Kindness and compassion are virtues to be applied when appropriate. They are not the gospel.

43 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

or is it all that plus ordinances, church structure and organization, tithing, home teaching, etc.,  

By "all that" I expect you mean virtues that we typically call Christlike behavior. Yes. All that plus the above.

If I were going to narrow it down I'd say it comes down to obedience and repentance made possible by the Atonement of Christ. But all that above falls within these primary principles.

43 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Is the expression and spreading of ideas contrary to one's own an unwitting attack that must be defended against?  Are perspectives something that will be allowed to persist into the eternities, or is a different perspective merely an indication of deception and lack of knowledge, that must be corrected?  

Truth is eternal. God is all knowing. Not sure how one applies "perspective" to all-knowing beings. I don't think "allowed" has anything to do with it. At a simplistic level, 2 + 2 is 4. Thinking it is 5 may be a perspective, but one who knows that it is 4 understands that differing perspectives are wrong. As exalted beings inherit all God has, I wouldn't expect that anyone's going to have any perspective of truth other than truth as it really is. The Spirit is light and truth. Pure truth.

And intelligence is salvation. So, yes...to attain perfection and exaltation, mistaken views must be corrected.

43 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

At what point does the way in which one worships become a point of trivial importance - almost like one's preference of whether to eat an apple or orange at a meal.  Does that never happen, or is that not a fair comparison?  

When God gives us His will and ways through his anointed servants then we have the obligation to act according to that will. We need to know that His anointed servants are His anointed servants and have the authority to act and speak in His name, telling us to eat the apple and discard the orange. Then we need to eat the apple and discard the orange despite our preference for oranges. Someone can argue all day that their preference for oranges supersedes the standards set by those in authority but their views amount to kicking against the pricks and hold no water.

Obviously we need not be "commanded" in all things. That doesn't mean we get to make up our own truths and perspectives independent of those God has given through the channels He has established for truth to be delivered.

Obviously the Spirit teaches truth and gives us further light. But when we are claiming something that is contrary to or somehow theoretically ahead of the pattern God has for directing His work then we are out of line. When we express those views publicly we are likely attacking the gospel, regardless of intent, and a defense, I believe, should at some level, in some way, be mounted.

Edited November 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Now, obviously other people are going to have different views and some folks are just going to think he's a con man regardless of what is said.  They'll never here Christ's gospel from you verbally telling them otherwise, so trying to have a verbal conversation doesn't have much point.  There is a chance that they might listen to your nonverbal testimony of love.

When I defend the gospel I am typically not in it to change the view of the person doing the attacking. It is not that person who I am defending. It is those who might be hurt by their views that I hope to defend.

Edited November 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

When I defend the gospel I am typically not in it to change the view of the person doing the attacking. It is not that person who I am defending. It is those who might be hurt by their views that I hope to defend.

Speaking my $0.02, I don't find much value in just presenting views to present views, and find that when it's a situation where ears are closed it'll often result in driving people away from Christ.  The purpose of sharing is to share the Gospel that they might receive it.  The Truth is the Truth, and me stating it/not stating it doesn't change those Truths.

[lostinwater]

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Protection.

The plan of salvation including all the means therein where we may return to our Father in Heaven and become like him.

Kindness and compassion are virtues to be applied when appropriate. They are not the gospel.

By "all that" I expect you mean virtues that we typically call Christlike behavior. Yes. All that plus the above.

If I were going to narrow it down I'd say it comes down to obedience and repentance made possible by the Atonement of Christ. But all that above falls within these primary principles.

Truth is eternal. God is all knowing. Not sure how one applies "perspective" to all-knowing beings. I don't think "allowed" has anything to do with it. At a simplistic level, 2 + 2 is 4. Thinking it is 5 may be a perspective, but one who knows that it is 4 understands that differing perspectives are wrong. As exalted beings inherit all God has, I wouldn't expect that anyone's going to have any perspective of truth than truth as it really is. The Spirit is light and truth. Pure truth.

And intelligence is salvation. So, yes...to attain perfection and exaltation, mistaken views must be corrected.

When God gives us His will and ways through his anointed servants then we have the obligation to act according to that will. We need to know that His anointed servants are His anointed servants and have the authority to act and speak in His name, telling us to eat the apple and discard the orange. Then we need to eat the apple and discard the orange despite our preference for oranges. Someone can argue all day that their preference for oranges supersedes the standards set by those in authority but their views amount to kicking against the pricks and hold no water.

Obviously we need not be "commanded" in all things. That doesn't mean we get to make up our own truths and perspectives independent of those God has given through the channels He has established for truth to be delivered.

Obviously the Spirit teaches truth and gives us further light. But when one is claiming something that is contrary to or somehow theoretically ahead of the pattern God has for directing His work then we are out of line. When we express those views publicly we are likely attacking the gospel, regardless of intent, and a defense, I believe, should at some level, in some way, be mounted.

Thank-you.  It helps me understand that when you say the things you do, you are not doing it out of hate or aggression.  i can't agree with most of what you've enumerated - but can respect what you've expressed, and the undeniably good intentions that power that expression.

[The Folk Prophet]

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Speaking my $0.02, I don't find much value in just presenting views to present views

How do you explain the preaching of the Gospel itself then. Isn't that exactly what preaching the gospel is. Isn't that exactly what the missionaries go out to do...present the gospel view so people are aware?

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

and find that when it's a situation where ears are closed it'll often result in driving people away from Christ.  

I think you're making a presumption that has no more validity than my presumption that of the 10 people reading the discussion, 8 of them had their faith shored up and strengthened by the stalwart defense mounted in favor of the gospel. The nasty two remaining may well have been driven further away by it. That's the nature of it, in my view. But it's only my view. Theoretically no more valid than yours, right?

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The purpose of sharing is to share the Gospel that they might receive it. 

You might need to explain further. But as I understand what you're saying here, I disagree. That is only half the purpose. The other is, very plainly stated in the scriptures, that the world may be held accountable.

15 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

The Truth is the Truth, and me stating it/not stating it doesn't change those Truths.

This is a strange thing to say imo. Wherein does the discussion have anything to do with an attempt to change truth by anyone? The objective is to teach, preach, share, enlighten, etc. Stating the truth isn't to change it. Stating it is to share it.

Edited November 7, 2017 by The Folk Prophet