The conditional testimony

[Moonbeast32]

In my search for a nice LDS online community, I came across one that was full of what church leaders in the 70's might have called "liberal mormons." I have compassion for the liberal*, but some of the things I saw being posted there rather soundly turned me off to joining them.

One such occasion was a post by a non-member. They said that they had been investigating the church and loved everything about it save one detail. They said they were willing to live the word of wisdom, the law of Chasity, to give up swearing, to serve in a calling. But, said they, they just couldn't possibly practice polygamy. The OP then expressed concern over being asked to practice it some time after being baptized.

Naturally, the replies were full of assurances that such a thing wouldn't happen. Assurances such as "we don't do that anymore," and "that's all old history," and "you won't have to worry about that."

Now mods, I see you about to press the "lock this thread" button. Don't worry. I'm not about to open the can of worms which is the "will polygamy come back?" discussion.

My point though is this: What will become of that non-member should they decide to be baptized? How far can a testimony with conditions get you? 

It's clear to me that polygamy in 1830 was no more popular then than it is now. And yet, members of the church were being given directives straight from the 1st presidency to begin the practice. I think many of us are aware of the story of Heber C Kimball. If you aren't, than the short version is this: Heber was an exceedingly humble and faithful man with a singular gift to prophecy. He dearly loved his wife. So when the day came that Joseph told Heber to marry another man's wife without even telling his own, he was sorely, sorely rent. His wife could tell something was really bothering him, but he wouldn't say what it was. Eventually, she took to prayer for insight. As it turns out, her faith was so great that the Lord revealed to her what Heber was commanded to do. She went to him and told him that it was ok, and that he should go ahead and do what the prophet of Jehovah had required of him. Many of the early saints were tested like this.

I believe that in order to receive the blessings of Abraham, we must first be tested as Abraham; it was said of him that if the Lord knew of any better way to strike at his heart, he would have done so. Jesus Himself said that except a man be willing to lay down his life, he is unfit for the Kingdom of Heaven. I conclude that a testimony with conditions is no testimony at all.

And yet, who among us is really willing to go so far? Who among us is so confident (or naive) to say that there is nothing the Lord would require of them that would reach their breaking point?

Here's where things get confusing for me. I have learned very recently that there very well could be some things outside of my willpower. Am I any less of a member because of that? Of course not, right? But wouldn't that still be considered a conditional testimony?

I have felt some peace at the following conclusion: The Lord will not ask us to do anything which we are not able to do. If we put our trust in Him, then He will make sure we are ready to make the hardest choices when they eventually come. I don't have any concrete scriptural evidence of this, but it feels right to me.

Still, I worry for that one non-member, and all other people both non-member and member. I'm not sure if that principle works if you deliberately state that you have a limit. I think we must be ever prepared to do anything, and have trust in God when it comes to the things we think we cannot do. But those are just my own conclusions. Thoughts?

 

*When I use the word "liberal" in this context, I'm referring to a liberalized interpretation or understanding of the gospel doctrines. I am not at all referring to "liberal" as a political stance or platform.

[priesthoodpower]

Over the years I have witnessed members leave the church, members come back and non-members join. They are ALL better off for having come unto Christ. After witnessing my exwife and kids leave I am learning to put all my trust and faith in Christ and try not to stress over the things I cant control.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

7 hours ago, Moonbeast32 said:

My point though is this: What will become of that non-member should they decide to be baptized? How far can a testimony with conditions get you? 

You may have heard the phrase no such thing as dry Mormons, just add water.   This non-member, indeed all of us, need time to grow in the gospel, to strengthen our testimonies, to become more like Christ.   Would you have this non-member stay away because of a concern over polygamy which maybe something he/she is never called to live?   There are plenty of faithful members of the church who struggle with the idea, myself included.  As you said, the pioneers who were asked to live it were not intially enthusiastic either.  

I don't think allowing one time to grow in the gospel makes anyone "liberal".  

Edited January 6, 2020 by LiterateParakeet

[Jane_Doe]

A few thoughts here—

1)      What you call a “conditional” testimony, I would call a seedling one.  It’s still growing, and we should not blame a newly planted mustard plant for being a seedling.  Growth take time.

2)      We’re all seedlings to some extent.  Some folks are just that newly-sprouted type, and some us small humans might call a “tree”.  But God knows better.  Even the strongest us mortals know will still face whirlwinds and has a lot of strengthening to do before being exaltation.  

3)      Yes, those whirlwinds can suck, and branches can snap off send the strongest mortal trees.  But this isn’t about your or my mortal strength to survive the whirlwind, let alone some snapped branches.  It’s about GOD and HIS power preserving the heart of the tree, strengthening it over time, and carving it in His image.

[askandanswer]

I think its helpful to take things one step at a time, knowing that with each step we take, we grow in strength and ability to take even longer, harder steps in the future. By the time we get to the future, what seemed like a hard step when viewed from the beginning, may well end up being just another small step. 

[Anddenex]

12 hours ago, Moonbeast32 said:

My point though is this: What will become of that non-member should they decide to be baptized? How far can a testimony with conditions get you?

How far does a sandy foundation strengthen a person when the floods come?

Conditions will allow a person to live the gospel until the condition becomes enticed. At this point, the person will have to reject their condition or live with their condition. The Church will move forward, the question is will we move with it. The Church will follow the Lord's command, the question is will we also follow the same command?

[MarginOfError]

I think you'll find that most members have lines in the sand that would qualify as a conditional testimony, as described.

Would you retain your testimony if:

• The Church reestablished polygamy?
• The Church reinstated the ban those of African descent from holding the priesthood?
• The Church endorsed a socialist political platform?
• The Church began solemnizing gay marriages?
• The Church ended tithing?
• The Church added hot chocolate to the list of substances banned by the Word of Wisdom
• The Church authorized women to be ordained to priesthood office?
• The Church required women to cover their heads and faces to attend Sacrament meeting?
• The Church begins donating larges sums of money to Muslim communities?

Just because you are comfortable with one of those points doesn't mean that you will be comfortable with all of them. I can tell you right now that there are a few items on that list that I would struggle immensely to understand and accept.  There's at least one that would drive me into outright revolt.

Perhaps we'd be better served to meet people where they are at both emotionally and spiritually.

Edited January 6, 2020 by MarginOfError

[anatess2]

12 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

There's at least one that would drive me into outright revolt.

Yeah.  Me too.

Then I'm reminded by last Sunday's Gospel Class that all 3 Witnesses to the Book of Mormon - all visited by angels and having a firm testimony of the Book of Mormon to their dying breath - have all been excommunicated by the Church. 

[Just_A_Guy]

People don’t say “no” to God.  Instead, they convince themselves that it’s not really God who’s asking.  

 

*Well, I suppose sons of perdition do; but otherwise . . .

[Guest Scott]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

 

Would you retain your testimony if:

Interesting questions.  Just a few comments on a few of them.

Quote

The Church reestablished polygamy?

Our Church History does say that this will happen.  President Woodruff also said the same.  I don't know what to think of this since there doesn't seem a need for polygamy.

Quote

The Church ended tithing?

The Church will do this too.  In fact our past Church leaders have said that the reason tithing was reinstated was because members weren't ready to live the law of consecration.  Tithing is the lower law and will be replaced when we are ready.

When I get home in a few days  I'd be happy to provide several sources for the above two.

Quote

The Church begins donating larges sums of money to Muslim communities?

The Church already does this.

See here:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/news/president-nelson-announces-donation-to-rebuild-mosques-damaged-in-deadly-new-zealand-attacks?lang=eng

http://irusa.org/mormons-muslims-team-up-on-overseas-aid-projects/

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org.ng/article/lds-charities-helps-muslim-school-children

Edited January 6, 2020 by Scott
Add links

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

Quote

The Church ended tithing?

The Church will do this too.  In fact our past Church leaders have said that the reason tithing was reinstated was because members weren't ready to live the law of consecration.  Tithing is the lower law and will be replaced when we are ready.

I believe that both of your points are mistaken.

1. The law of consecration applies to us today, right now, just as much as it ever has or ever will. You appear to be referring to some sort of "united order" as the primitive Saints lived, and as various Latter-day Saints attempted to live. Many of them called their efforts "the law of consecration", but of course those efforts were not the law. They were merely attempts, mostly unsuccessful, at implementing it. Similarly, many of the early Latter-day Saints equated the law of chastity with plural marriage. Would you therefore say that we can't live the law of chastity today? Clearly, this is simply false.

2. Tithing as a commandment to the Saints on earth will never end. It is taught not as a "lower law", but as an eternal law. Doctrine and Covenants 119:4 clearly states:

And after that, those who have thus been atithed shall pay one-tenth of all their interest annually; and this shall be a standing law unto them forever, for my holy priesthood, saith the Lord.

In 1871, President Brigham Young taught:

The law of tithing is an eternal law. The Lord Almighty never had His kingdom on the earth without the law of tithing being in the midst of His people, and He never will. It is an eternal law that God has instituted for the benefit of the human family, for their salvation and exaltation.

(Emphasis mine in both cases.)

The above teachings should* put to rest the idea that tithing is only a lesser intermediary step.

*But won't. I wasn't born yesterday. Clear answers that should settle the matter very rarely do.

[Guest Scott]

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

I believe that both of your points are mistaken.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-119-the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng

 

[Vort]

Just now, Scott said:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-119-the-law-of-tithing?lang=eng

Referencing a lesson manual isn't very helpful. What point, exactly, are you trying to establish that will negate the point I made with scriptural and prophetic references.?

[Guest Scott]

6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Referencing a lesson manual isn't very helpful. What point, exactly, are you trying to establish that will negate the point I made with scriptural and prophetic references.?

Vort, I'm not in the country right now, so pulling up links/quotes is slow, but here is the part I am referring to (this is a direct cut and paste from the above link on our Church website):

A brave attempt to practise it (the Law of Consecration) was made by the Latter-day Saints, soon after this Church was organized. But they lacked experience, and did not completely rise to the occasion. Selfishness within, and persecution without, prevented a perfect achievement. So the Lord withdrew the Law of Consecration [see D&C 105], and gave to his people a lesser law, one easier to live, but pointing forward, like the other, to something grand and glorious in the future. That lesser law, the Law of Tithing, is as a schoolmaster, a disciplinary agent, to bring the Saints eventually up to the practise of the higher law, and meanwhile to keep their hearts open for its reception when it returns. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Scott

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

Vort, I'm not in the country right now, so pulling up links/quotes is slow, but here is the part I am referring to (this is a direct cut and paste from the above link on our Church website):

A brave attempt to practise it (the Law of Consecration) was made by the Latter-day Saints, soon after this Church was organized. But they lacked experience, and did not completely rise to the occasion. Selfishness within, and persecution without, prevented a perfect achievement. So the Lord withdrew the Law of Consecration [see D&C 105], and gave to his people a lesser law, one easier to live, but pointing forward, like the other, to something grand and glorious in the future. That lesser law, the Law of Tithing, is as a schoolmaster, a disciplinary agent, to bring the Saints eventually up to the practise of the higher law, and meanwhile to keep their hearts open for its reception when it returns. 

Scott, this is a BYU D&C textbook. I used it (or an earlier version of it) while at BYU. It is not a rigorous history, and cannot be used as any sort of primary source.

Surely you know enough of LDS doctrine and of the temple to know full well that the law of consecration has never been withdrawn, regardless of what a BYU D&C textbook manual says. The so-called United Order is not and never was the law of consecration, any more than plural marriage was the law of chastity.

I'm rather stunned that you're even attempting to argue the other side. Or is there some other point you're trying to make?

[zil]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

Referencing a lesson manual isn't very helpful. What point, exactly, are you trying to establish that will negate the point I made with scriptural and prophetic references.?

The part of that links to verses 2 & 3 quotes Elder Orson F. Whitney ... Conference Report, Apr. 1931, pp. 65–66, who appears to disagree with you.  Personally, I'll take the scripture over Elder Whitney.  (Hugh Nibley also thought that tithing would continue to be required under the Law of Consecration, and that living both was really the only way to properly live the law of tithing - he said something to the effect that giving a 10th of your excess really wasn't much of a sacrifice.  Pretty sure this was all in Approaching Zion, which the Maxwell Institute no longer offer online.)

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by zil

[Guest Scott]

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

It is not a rigorous history, and cannot be used as any sort of primary source.

How about more recent conference talks from members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/tithing-a-test-of-faith-with-eternal-blessings?lang=eng

Tithing has a special purpose as a preparatory law. Early in this dispensation, the Lord commanded certain members of the Church to live the higher law of consecration—a law received by covenant. When this covenant was not kept, great tribulations came upon the Saints. The law of consecration was then withdrawn. In its place the Lord revealed the law of tithing for the whole Church. The law of tithing prepares us to live the higher law of consecration—to dedicate and give all our time, talents, and resources to the work of the Lord.Until the day when we are required to live this higher law, we are commanded to live the law of the tithe, which is to freely give one-tenth of our income annually

It is my understanding that we covenant to live the law of concecration, but we are not living it yet.  We are currently living the law of tithing.

At least that's what I was always taught in Seminary, Institute, and Sunday School.  It's in the Church History too, but I won't have access to that until I get home.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Scott

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Scott said:

How about more recent conference talks from members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2002/10/tithing-a-test-of-faith-with-eternal-blessings?lang=eng

Early in this dispensation, the Lord commanded certain members of the Church to live the higher law of consecration—a law received by covenant. When this covenant was not kept, great tribulations came upon the Saints. The law of consecration was then withdrawn. In its place the Lord revealed the law of tithing for the whole Church. The law of tithing prepares us to live the higher law of consecration—to dedicate and give all our time, talents, and resources to the work of the Lord.

It is my understanding that we covenant to live the law of concecration, but we are not living it yet.  We are currently living the law of tithing.

At least that's what I was always taught in Seminary, Institute, and Sunday School.  It's in the Church History too, but I won't have access to that until I get home.

Far be it from me to argue with an apostle. If you feel you have to choose between him or me, the choice is obvious.

But I think Elder Hales' words fit just fine into what I said, as long as you recognize his usage of "the higher law of consecration" (certainly not a scriptural usage of any kind) as meaning "the United Order". In this reading, what Elder Hales said is that the United Order (what he called "the higher law of consecration") was commanded, then withdrawn as a commandment. This is plain historical fact, one that I certainly don't dispute. But the actual fundamental law of consecration is absolutely central to the gospel. It was not, indeed cannot be, withdrawn, ever.

And while Elder Hales also mentioned tithing as a "preparatory law", that neither means nor even implies that that's all it is. I see no reason that the law of tithing could not fully exist even in a United Order-style economy. I see that @zil says that Nibley taught this in Approaching Zion, which to my shame I must admit I've never read. But I expect Nibley's take on the matter is similar to my own.

The law of tithing is an eternal law. This cannot be disputed by any Latter-day Saint who believes the scriptures. And the use of the term "law of consecration" as a synonym for "United Order" seems to be plain historical fact. Surely no apostle or temple president would seriously argue that we are not under temple covenant to live the law of consecration, right now, today, exactly as we are, without any hint of any united order in place.

[Guest Scott]

26 minutes ago, Vort said:

But I think Elder Hales' words fit just fine into what I said, as long as you recognize his usage of "the higher law of consecration" (certainly not a scriptural usage of any kind) as meaning "the United Order"

It is my understanding that the United Order is a part of (but not all of)  the Law of Concecration.  The United Order encompasses all worldly possessions (and working skills) but the Law of Concecration also encompasses all of our time and talents too.

I don't know if you read the whole talk or just the cut and paste I made, but I added more quote just after you responded:

Until the day when we are required to live this higher law, we are commanded to live the law of the tithe, which is to freely give one-tenth of our income annually

Concerning the United Order, it is my understanding that the Church will be asked to live it again.  If Elder Hayes is using the higher law of concecration in place of the United Order, it is still said that we will live this higher law again, correct?

My understanding is that if we covenant to live the Law of Concecration than we have already covenanted to live the United Order as well, when the time comes.

Even though the law of tithing is a lesser or prepratory law, I wouldn't say that it isn't eternal.  Under the Law of Concecration, you're still give that 10% tithing, but you're also adding another 90% too.

At least that's my take on things.  I have to go to bed though; it's 2:18 AM here.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Scott

[Vort]

15 hours ago, Scott said:

It is my understanding that the United Order is a part of (but not all of)  the Law of Concecration.  The United Order encompasses all worldly possessions (and working skills) but the Law of Concecration also encompasses all of our time and talents too.

I don't know if you read the whole talk or just the cut and paste I made, but I added more quote just after you responded:

Until the day when we are required to live this higher law, we are commanded to live the law of the tithe, which is to freely give one-tenth of our income annually

Concerning the United Order, it is my understanding that the Church will be asked to live it again.  If Elder Hayes is using the higher law of concecration in place of the United Order, it is still said that we will live this higher law again, correct?

Absolutely. But until we live an economic system where we freely give all we have, we still live the law of consecration. If you have been through the temple, then your possessions are not yours at all. Your time is not yours. Even your very talents are not yours. They are consecrated to the building up of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In my understanding, this is perfectly clear. It means that if your bishop asks you to deed over your house to the Church, you do so. If the Church asks you to leave your family and serve a mission abroad, you do so. If you are required to stand up in a den of hateful enemies and preach the good news of Christ to hostiles who want to burn you at the stake, you do so. Why? Because you have covenanted to live the law of consecration. You are consecrated. All of your efforts, without exception, are meant to further the work for which you have pledged yourself and all of your abilities and means.

None of that depends on living the (or a) United Order. All of it is exactly as open to you to do today as it is to any exalted being. Of course, you haven't the ability or the opportunity to live the law of consecration to the extent they do—but you can still live it, and you're still under covenant to do so.

I have made a practice of carefully distinguishing between the fundamental law of consecration and the implementation known in the early Church as "the United Order". Early Saints were not so careful to make that distinction. Apparently, neither was Elder Hales. But that doesn't mean the distinction does not exist; it most surely does.

15 hours ago, Scott said:

My understanding is that if we covenant to live the Law of Concecration than we have already covenanted to live the United Order as well, when the time comes.

I believe this is inescapable. I also think it will be a great joy to us when we can finally shed the trappings of how we must live now and live a more celestial order.

15 hours ago, Scott said:

Even though the law of tithing is a lesser or prepratory law, I wouldn't say that it isn't eternal.  Under the Law of Concecration, you're still give that 10% tithing, but you're also adding another 90% too.

I think it's much more direct than this. Assuming we use money in transactions, under a United Order, we would give a regular (probably annual) accounting of our business dealings, wherein we "show the books" and determine what our increase has been. During this time period, or perhaps at the accounting, we count out a tenth of that increase and give it to the bishop to use in his storehouse. The remainder is under the bishop's control, of course, but most likely the bishop returns most of it to us, to use in our stewardship following the principle of the stewards and the talents. if we have been profitable in our stewardship, perhaps some of our increase will go to help our brothers and sisters elsewhere. if we need more means to fulfill our duties, perhaps the bishop will reassign funds from others to us. That's all at the bishop's discretion. But the principle of tithing lives on forever, and whatever our increase, in whatever form it takes, a tenth always, always, always goes to the bishop for use in his storehouse.

That's my understanding of things, at least.

15 hours ago, Scott said:

At least that's my take on things.  I have to go to bed though; it's 2:18 AM here.

Good night, my friend. Thanks for the conversation.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Vort

[zil]

24 minutes ago, Vort said:

I think it's much more direct than this. Assuming we use money in transactions, under a United Order, we would give a regular (probably annual) accounting of our business dealings, wherein we "show the books" and determine what our increase has been. During this time period, or perhaps at the accounting, we count out a tenth of that increase and give it to the bishop to use in his warehouse. The remainder is under the bishop's control, of course, but most likely the bishop returns most of it to us, to use in our stewardship following the principle of the stewards and the talents. if we have been profitable in our stewardship, perhaps some of our increase will go to help our brothers and sisters elsewhere. if we need more means to fulfill our duties, perhaps the bishop will reassign funds from others to us. That's all at the bishop's discretion. But the principle of tithing lives on forever, and whatever our increase, in whatever form it takes, a tenth always, always, always goes to the bishop for use in his storehouse.

Yes.  This is my perception as well.  (And it matches what Nibley explained.  Not that Nibley is a reason to believe it - the scriptures are the reason - but he does a good job of explaining why he thinks this is the way, and I've never been able to find a way to refute his conclusions.)

[MarginOfError]

12 hours ago, Scott said:

Interesting questions.  Just a few comments on a few of them.

I had actually chosen all of the items I listed because all of them (with the exception of the hot chocolate and women veiling their faces) are things that I've personally encountered as stumbling blocks for people. These are issues that people actually struggle with and worry about. And almost all of them are faithful, contributing members of the Church.  

...which is kind of my point.

[Anddenex]

17 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Would you retain your testimony if:

• The Church reestablished polygamy?
• The Church reinstated the ban those of African descent from holding the priesthood?
• The Church endorsed a socialist political platform?
• The Church began solemnizing gay marriages?
• The Church ended tithing?
• The Church added hot chocolate to the list of substances banned by the Word of Wisdom
• The Church authorized women to be ordained to priesthood office?
• The Church required women to cover their heads and faces to attend Sacrament meeting?
• The Church begins donating larges sums of money to Muslim communities?

Yes.
Yes. (even if the Lord banned whites from the priesthood this is still the Lord's Church)
Yes. (Irrelevant because the Church isn't a socialist organization)
Not Applicable. (The Church isn't going to change the laws of God, irrelevant condition)
Yes. (Doesn't change anything except if the law of tithing is ended I am probably living a higher law. If not, then I have more money to spend at the end of each month)
Yes. (The Church could add Moutain Dew, Kool-aid, etc... doesn't change anything)
Yes. (Although nothing in scripture purports this to be something that will happen, there is nothing in scripture that specifies this as sin and abomination before the Lord (i.e. gay marriage or actions) )
Yes.
Yes. (Already probably does (think about immigrants). The Church in our area supported the building of a temple of another religion. I understand the sum of support was around 4 million. The Church practices what it preaches.)

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Yes.
Yes. (even if the Lord banned whites from the priesthood this is still the Lord's Church)
Yes. (Irrelevant because the Church isn't a socialist organization)
Not Applicable. (The Church isn't going to change the laws of God, irrelevant condition)
Yes. (Doesn't change anything except if the law of tithing is ended I am probably living a higher law. If not, then I have more money to spend at the end of each month)
Yes. (The Church could add Moutain Dew, Kool-aid, etc... doesn't change anything)
Yes. (Although nothing in scripture purports this to be something that will happen, there is nothing in scripture that specifies this as sin and abomination before the Lord (i.e. gay marriage or actions) )
Yes.
Yes. (Already probably does (think about immigrants). The Church in our area supported the building of a temple of another religion. I understand the sum of support was around 4 million. The Church practices what it preaches.)

While I agree with your assessment (and in fact would add at least a couple more, such as ending tithing and ordaining women, to the N/A list), I think MOE's point stands. People are at different levels of ability to commit and absorb unfamiliar truths and practices, and in the end, all of us come up short, so it behooves us to act charitably and with patience toward those who stumble. That doesn't mean we accept or embrace lies or encourage apostasy, but that is not normally what is asked of us.

[Guest Mores]

19 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

• The Church endorsed a socialist political platform?

I believe @Anddenex adequately addressed all the other points.  But I'd like to add something to this point.

The Church recently announced the policy on guns in church.  I had a tough time with this because I have certain political positions -- as well as a desire to preserve life (my own or those of my loved ones specifically).

It would be very easy for anyone who holds political positions in opposition to certain Church directives to believe it wasn't really from God or to leave the Church entirely over such things.  This would mean that one holds their politics as their idol of worship rather than worshiping the God of Heaven and Earth.

I chose the path of first, being put off by it.  Then second, thinking the prophet was enforcing his personal political agenda on the laity.  I even convinced myself that the Church's actions have not yet satisfied the legal requirements of the state to prohibit carrying in a church.

But I finally had to repent and ask the Lord what he thought of it.  And I received the answer that it was really from Him, not a mortal man.  I don't know why.  And it still doesn't make sense to me.  But I know that is what He wants. So, I do it.

The next step would be to give up guns entirely.  I would go through the same process.

Then if the prophet laid out a policy to support politically socialist programs and governmental systems, I'd have to go through the same process.  And if I did not receive a confirmation that it was from the Lord, I would stay away.  I will eventually be held personally accountable for my receptiveness to the Spirit on these matters.

The prophet acts as a focal point.  Eventually, we're held responsible for our own actions.  The most important question is NOT: "does it sit well with me?"  The final & only question we need to answer is "Does it sit well with the Lord?"  Not based on mortal wisdom, but based on the receptiveness to the Spirit.  And we will all be held accountable for such decisions.

Henry the V's answer to his soldiers is applicable here.