carlimac

How is the Church doing handling the latest crisis?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Kinda reminds me.

Indeed.  And of course, defending the constitution and the principles it enshrines is very different than propping up the current government that (purports to be) following those principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Indeed.  And of course, defending the constitution and the principles it enshrines is very different than propping up the current government that (purports to be) following those principles.

True.  But I don't see it a probable outcome to restart the Constitution from scratch.  It seems much more likely to revive the tenets of the founders from within the existing system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, BobMaster said:

Incorrect Revelation is very direct-see D&C. 

It's when Joseph Smith said things himself, people would disagree.  They would tell him-look if it's from God, please get a Revelation and show me it.  The Revelation would be in different verbiage and direct from God.  It's the same pattern in the Scriptures, you see the prophets in the BoM, OT, etc. use the same pattern.

I can witness myself to the difference because I know it personally. I have had the Voice of the Lord speak to me directly-it has only happened a few times (2-3). But when it happened, it was a direct conduit to God, no ifs ands or buts.  Now the danger with hearing the the Lord is also understanding that there are also evil spirits and evil voices---not fun.

Most of the time, it's inspiration (general thoughts and feelings), and a few times it has been what is termed as "the Spirit compelled" me.

Perhaps I should offer an example.  At a rather young age while reading and inquiring about the Book of Mormon I had many answers to prayer but I did not understand the subtle "whispering" of the spirit.  Like Enos, I sought more than subtle spiritual "nudges".   I thought at my young age that spiritual responses to prayer be of strong specific and direct emphasis.   Having fasted and prayed on several occasions - I sought a testimony of knowledge as I had heard so many speak of in testimony meetings.    From this background I became bold in asking for a testimony on a particular evening during my evening prayer.  The result was an experience of remarkable resemblance to young Joseph in the sacred grove.  I encountered a powerful darkness unlike anything I have ever experienced that presented itself as evil, bound me and seemed to take possession of my being even to prevent me from breathing.  Like Joseph I began to plead to G-d for help and a light began to appear and push back the darkness.  As the light came upon me I could both see and experience a definite boundary between the light and darkness.  The light presented itself as both good and intelligent.  As the light overtook me I felt liberated and I could feel a presents of a being but I could not see because of the brightness of the light.  The light showed me the Book of Mormon and I knew in an instant that it is a gift from G-d.  I knew that the Book of Mormon is true scripture and that Joseph was a prophet.

It may seem to be powerful and direct.  But from well over 50 years from that singular event I have come to understand that knowing the Book of Mormon to be true is just a vague reference of truth because I had very little understanding of how important the Book of Mormon is to the Saints of the Latter-days and particular to myself.  Many times - so many I have lost count - I have thought I understood details of revelations - only to find out my understanding is vague and in an infant state - that there is much more to be discovered and understood.  As taught by Isaiah we receive revelation line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  Those that think they receive a complete detailed understanding - the scriptures prophesy that they will no longer receive additional line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept and that understanding will be taken away.  Historically we see this in a most dramatic fashion in that following the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith there was not one witness of the Book of Mormon and the golden plates - not one of the witnesses that are recorded in the Book of Mormon, went with the Saints when they were driven from Nauvoo and took their journey into the west - they either had died or fell into apostasy over some assumed but not properly understood detail. 

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps I should offer an example.  At a rather young age while reading and inquiring about the Book of Mormon I had many answers to prayer but I did not understand the subtle "whispering" of the spirit.  Like Enos, I sought more than subtle spiritual "nudges".   I thought at my young age that spiritual responses to prayer be of strong specific and direct emphasis.   Having fasted and prayed on several occasions - I sought a testimony of knowledge as I had heard so many speak of in testimony meetings.    From this background I became bold in asking for a testimony on a particular evening during my evening prayer.  The result was an experience of remarkable resemblance to young Joseph in the sacred grove.  I encountered a powerful darkness unlike anything I have ever experienced that presented itself as evil, bound me and seemed to take possession of my being even to prevent me from breathing.  Like Joseph I began to plead to G-d for help and a light began to appear and push back the darkness.  As the light came upon me I could both see and experience a definite boundary between the light and darkness.  The light presented itself as both good and intelligent.  As the light overtook me I felt liberated and I could feel a presents of a being but I could not see because of the brightness of the light.  The light showed me the Book of Mormon and I knew in an instant that it is a gift from G-d.  I knew that the Book of Mormon is true scripture and that Joseph was a prophet.

It may seem to be powerful and direct.  But from well over 50 years from that singular event I have come to understand that knowing the Book of Mormon to be true is just a vague reference of truth because I had very little understanding of how important the Book of Mormon is to the Saints of the Latter-days and particular to myself.  Many times - so many I have lost count - I have thought I understood details of revelations - only to find out my understanding is vague and in an infant state - that there is much more to be discovered and understood.  As taught by Isaiah we receive revelation line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept.  Those that think they receive a complete detailed understanding - the scriptures prophesy that they will no longer receive additional line upon line upon line and precept upon precept upon precept and that understanding will be taken away.  Historically we see this in a most dramatic fashion in that following the death of the Prophet Joseph Smith there was not one witness of the Book of Mormon and the golden plates - not one of the witnesses that are recorded in the Book of Mormon, went with the Saints when they were driven from Nauvoo and took their journey into the west - they either had died or fell into apostasy over some assumed but not properly understood detail. 

 

The Traveler

Thank you for sharing.  I haven't had that type of an experience with the Book of Mormon but I have had other very direct experiences.

I agree very much with your second paragraph.  I do not have a complete understanding-it is why I study the scriptures.  If you read carefully the Manifesto (which is purported to be the Revelation), it's actually not a Revelation so much as a question. Which is the wisest course?

In other words, God gave WW and the Saints a choice.  God did not command WW to do away with polygamy, He allowed WW to choose.  The same as he allowed Joseph Smith to make the choice to give the 118 pages to Martin Harris.  God had already told Joseph Smith, just like he had already told WW (see the 1889 Revelation) what to do, the Prophet/President came asking to God again-God states, okay what's the wisest choice?  Essentially that is what God said to Joseph Smith-I've already commanded you, clearly you are asking me again because you believe it is a good course of action to do so, so if you believe it is a wise choice to make-go for it.

Ultimately, the Saints in 1890 (just like Joseph Smith did with Martin Harris) choose to fear man more than God. Just like we are choosing today to fear man and his laws and to put ourselves under bondage because we fear man more than God.

In the end God's designs cannot and will not be frustrated, yet there are lessons to learn from the past, which is the only way we will have a people worthy and ready to receive Christ at His Second Coming is to understand that we cannot fear man more than God. 

What God commands, we do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BobMaster said:

Thank you for sharing.  I haven't had that type of an experience with the Book of Mormon but I have had other very direct experiences.

I agree very much with your second paragraph.  I do not have a complete understanding-it is why I study the scriptures.  If you read carefully the Manifesto (which is purported to be the Revelation), it's actually not a Revelation so much as a question. Which is the wisest course?

In other words, God gave WW and the Saints a choice.  God did not command WW to do away with polygamy, He allowed WW to choose.  The same as he allowed Joseph Smith to make the choice to give the 118 pages to Martin Harris.  God had already told Joseph Smith, just like he had already told WW (see the 1889 Revelation) what to do, the Prophet/President came asking to God again-God states, okay what's the wisest choice?  Essentially that is what God said to Joseph Smith-I've already commanded you, clearly you are asking me again because you believe it is a good course of action to do so, so if you believe it is a wise choice to make-go for it.

Ultimately, the Saints in 1890 (just like Joseph Smith did with Martin Harris) choose to fear man more than God. Just like we are choosing today to fear man and his laws and to put ourselves under bondage because we fear man more than God.

In the end God's designs cannot and will not be frustrated, yet there are lessons to learn from the past, which is the only way we will have a people worthy and ready to receive Christ at His Second Coming is to understand that we cannot fear man more than God. 

What God commands, we do.

 

You bring up a most interesting point concerning Martin Harris.  But there was revelation given close to 2500 years before Martin was born specific to this happening.  We can speculate many things concerning agency and how such applies but again there are specific details that are hard to reconcile within the parameters we think we understand.  It seems to me that many terms in scripture have similar meaning - such as whole, holy, perfect, complete, born again and being one with G-d.  And these thoughts fade into things like repentance, forgiveness and salvation.  It is my personal opinion that if we try to reconcile revelation based on what we understand during mortality (between birth and death) - almost nothing makes any sense at all.

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Traveler said:

It is my personal opinion that if we try to reconcile revelation based on what we understand during mortality (between birth and death) - almost nothing makes any sense at all.

Then whatever doesn't make sense isn't true.  The scriptures form a harmony, it's one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon is true, there are too many deep, deep items that map from the Book of Mormon to the OT and NT.  Things that Joseph Smith had no clue of, because he couldn't have forced it.  To have forced the symbols in the Book of Mormon that map to the OT it would have appeared to contrived-i.e. literally trying to hard.  But there are gems that there is no way he could have mapped back to OT, he just would not have had the depth of knowledge at 20 to even begin to understand the deep mysteries that he was writing.

It's actually one of the reasons why I know many of the current Church teachings are absolute trash-because that's what they do. Several new teachings trash the harmony that is found as links occur in the OT, NT, Book of Mormon and PoGP. They break the scriptures and I do mean that.  Several new teachings make it impossible for the scriptures to be scripture. 

So you can throw out the new "revelations" because they do not add to scriptural harmony they create scriptural chaos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, BobMaster said:

Then whatever doesn't make sense isn't true.  The scriptures form a harmony, it's one of the reasons why the Book of Mormon is true, there are too many deep, deep items that map from the Book of Mormon to the OT and NT.  Things that Joseph Smith had no clue of, because he couldn't have forced it.  To have forced the symbols in the Book of Mormon that map to the OT it would have appeared to contrived-i.e. literally trying to hard.  But there are gems that there is no way he could have mapped back to OT, he just would not have had the depth of knowledge at 20 to even begin to understand the deep mysteries that he was writing.

It's actually one of the reasons why I know many of the current Church teachings are absolute trash-because that's what they do. Several new teachings trash the harmony that is found as links occur in the OT, NT, Book of Mormon and PoGP. They break the scriptures and I do mean that.  Several new teachings make it impossible for the scriptures to be scripture. 

So you can throw out the new "revelations" because they do not add to scriptural harmony they create scriptural chaos.

Some "truths" about scriptures:

1. There are no original "Christian" scripture document - there are no autographs nor autograms.  There are original documents of many of the other major religions.

2. The most quoted book of scripture of the Old Testament time - by Christ and his apostles - is not included in any modern Christian Bible. 

3. There are thousands of ancient documents from which the Bible is derived - But there are no two that are the same.  Each of the texts of the Old Testament come in the form of two categories - a long version and a short version.  Which versions contain the harmony of which you speak?  There are few translations of any single Biblical document.  I have one in my library that is a translation of the Isaiah scroll discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls.  There are no modern bibles that have switched to this singular (deemed most accurate) of the Isaiah text.  The reason that that modern Bibles are call version is because there are not actual translations.  Rather there are "translations" that are made smorgasbord style by picking some text from one document and other text from a different.

4. There are some terms from the ancient scripture text that have no English translations.  In the first English Bible, Tyndal Version; Tyndal invented some words because there was no translation - examples - Passover and Atonement.  The term cherubim is a Greek word that designates a class or type of g-d.  Since there are no English translations from the ancient Hebrew - the classic Greek term is used.  Also Cherubim is plural and the singular term never appears in the Bible.  Would you like to speculate or guess why?

5. The historian Josephus claimed that the reason he wrote his Antiquity of the Jews was because he claimed that older texts were being destroyed and the newer text were being altered.  So his only reason was to preserve the traditions (doctrines) of the Jews.  It is interesting that when the library of Alexandria was destroyed so were religious Biblical text in the Library of Babylon, the Library or Zoroaster, the Buddhists libraries in China with Christian documents (Old and New Testament) were hidden because there was an effort to destroy them.  There are other efforts to destroy Biblical text and this was at the same time that the Nephite texts were hidden up - of which we have only received a very small portion.

A particular scripture from our modern Pearl of Great Price specifically states that we believe that G-d will yet reveal MANY great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of G-d.   The sad truth is that what you claim as "scriptural harmony" is in reality incomplete and missing the many great and important things prophesied to yet come forth within the very scriptures your are referencing .

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 2:26 PM, BobMaster said:

Let me ask you a question.  Do you believe that everything that is taught from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve is the Word of God?

You have honestly and thoroughly answered my question. Let me try to return the favor.

Yes, I believe that the First Presidency's and Quorum of Twelve's teachings are in fact the word of God to us.

I am fully aware that our leaders are mortal men, with the ignorance and carnal passions that come with that state. God is aware of this, too. Yet he keeps just such men in positions of authority. I'm thinking there is a reason for that.

When I served a mission, I was called for a period of 18 months. My older brother served for 24 months, so I felt mildly cheated about my 18-month mission. The time period had changed within a year or two of my leaving. But I didn't whine or complain, or even request an extension. I just served my mission.

Within a couple of years after my return, the First Presidency changed the term of full-time missionary service for elders back to 24 months. AHA! So Spencer Kimball just MADE THAT UP! That was no revelation!

Baloney.

President Kimball saw a need, and he and his counselors found a possible solution to that need. Unlike Oliver Cowdery, who was given the gift of translation but was too naive to understand how to ask in faith and so never fulfilled his potential, Presidents Kimball, Tanner, Romney, and Hinckley knew they needed to make plans and present them to God. Thus they did, and God gave the okay.

Obviously, you know all this. Obviously, you have already thought about all this. You note that Joseph Smith kept asking God to do something that God had already told him not to do (116 pages stuff), so finally God said okay, and disaster followed. Your line of reasoning seems to be that this is a type and shadow of inferior yet still true revelation; we are too faithless to do what God would have us do, so instead God allows us to do what we want.

Do you see any possible bitter irony in this? Because I do.

You appear to have suggested—and I welcome correction if I have misunderstood—that President Kimball's 1978 revelation on extending the Priesthood to all men, including those of black African descent, was exactly one of these ersatz revelations given to the faithless who didn't have the grit or backbone to follow God's real (or at least preferred) commandments. In fact, it appears that you believe that all the prophets since Joseph Smith or maybe Brigham Young have been exactly this sort of mealy-mouthed, milquetoast sort who choose convenience over God's Own Truth.

I am at a bit of a loss even to know how to respond to such apparent Snufferism. The fact is that I have agreed with a lot of what you have written. I get tired of people dancing around historical fact or doctrinal exposition. Yet the idea that the kingdom of God today is led by men who are frankly out of harmony with the Lord's will and are leading us along a subpar path goes against all I have learned, all I understand from scripture, and much of what I have received from the Spirit in testimony. I have no illusions that the apostles are Jesus Christ or that every word spoken or decision taken by the First Presidency represents exactly what God would say or do in that situation. But by definition, the voice of the First Presidency is the very voice of Jesus Christ, because they are his mouthpiece.

And if we decide, as with President Kimball's 18-month mission experiment, that some First Presidency decision or other was less than perfect, so be it. What does it mean to "sustain" our leaders, if not that we unite behind them and help them to be successful in their callings, despite their human weaknesses? Given that, I cannot believe that sustaining my leaders includes publicly pointing out their flaws or encouraging my fellow Saints to disbelieve them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Vort said:

I am at a bit of a loss even to know how to respond to such apparent Snufferism. The fact is that I have agreed with a lot of what you have written.


...cringe... 

 

😜

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Mahonri Moriancumr asked Jesus what to do about the darkness in the barges the Lord responded with:

Ether 2:23 And the Lord said unto the brother of Jared: What will ye that I should do that ye may have light in your vessels?

I think that the Lord gives us problems that he wants us to work out and in many instances there is no right or wrong answer. Mahonri chose to get 16 stones of molten rock and have Christ touch them to light them. With God's power Mahonri could have asked for any variety of methods to light the barges, but God simply wanted Mahonri to think and act.

It is also important to note that God gave Mahonri specific responses to how they would be guided on the sea and how to get fresh air. So sometimes God gives us direct instructions, other times he wants us to think and then ask him for confirmation.

D&C: 58:26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is acompelled in all things, the same is a bslothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.

Our Prophets sometimes have to look at current situations, think for themselves, ask God for confirmation, and then move forward. With this being the case the phrase "Thus saith the Lord..." would be incorrect because the ideas came from the prophets themselves. It would be better to say "The Lord backs me up when I say...".

 

As for the statements concerning the righteousness/valiance of the youth today - I think things are simply moving forward as prophesied. We know that in the last days the church will be small compared to the world - yet powerful. For every individual that falls away from the church there is another individual in the church whose strength is growing. There is opposition in all things. The individual who is the only active member in their family, friend group, town, city, or even country needs to be very strong indeed to move forward with faith when everyone around them is trying to bring them down.  Based on my understanding of the parable of the 10 virgins, only half of the members of the church will be ready at Christ's second coming. So regardless of HOW the General Authorities are choosing to express themselves in their talks in General Conference or elsewhere, we should know that the WHAT and WHY are from God.  Honestly I think if there was too much boldness or pulpit pounding it might be counterproductive. I think there is a time for all things. Christ taught differently depending on his audience. To some it was straightforward and bold, to some it was in parables, to some it was with intense power, and to some with gentle love. In the end the message was the same: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and everyone who believes in him and obeys his gospel will be saved.

Edited by LineUponLine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎12‎/‎2020 at 2:26 PM, BobMaster said:

The difference being the leaders of the Church came down VERY hard in previous generations on the evils of the day. Harold B. Lee, Joseph Fielding Smith, Kimbal, Benson-they all trounced the evils of the day. Yesterday I was listening to a talk in the 70s by Benson and he was raking the coals of the immorality of music.  When was the last time you ever heard a very detailed talk given from the leaders about immoral music-and I don't mean the glossed over blather of "listen to good music", no Benson was slamming clubs, he was slamming suggestive dance moves, he was slamming the lyrics, he was slamming it all.

How many LDS kids listen to rap these days? When was the last time you heard a leader slam rap (and it is almost all absolutely despicable music)?  We all know no leader dares to slam rap today because "that's racist"!!!

If you want hard-hitting no-nonsense talks, look to the talks about 40 years ago.

I agree that rap, hiphop and popular music is filled with evil lyrics but its not trash. The young church leaders, bishops/Stake presidents of today grew up in the 80's and 90's with this music so its not that they are avoiding slamming it because it would be racists, they avoid slamming it because its harmless and didn't turn them into evil people.

I was a Disc Jockey in high school in the 90s when gangster rap became famous, we played all the "clean" (bleeped out) versions at our school and church dances. Its the catchy beats, hooks and melodies that are attractive. The words are "mature" but as an innocent youth the words had no affect on my mindset or lifestyle. When I returned from my mission I grew out of that music, in fact now that im in my 40's and when I hear a song from the 90's come on the radio and pay attention to the words, I laugh to myself and say "Damn! I didn't know those lyrics were so offensive!"

My teenage kids are into all sorts of music genres, all of which are 10 times more offensive then my 90s music and I have no problem with it because their true values and identity are created and nurtured in my home and not on youtube. 

"Evils of the day" can be a relative and even cultural term.

In fact, I would say right now that soda pop is an evil of the day, why? because so many people I know have health problems due to a bad diet and soda pop is a major part of it...yet soda pop is sold on BYU campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

"Evils of the day" can be a relative and even cultural term.

 

Yup. There was a time when Billy Sunday ranted about cars being a tool of the devil. People also said the same thing about computers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/14/2020 at 9:34 PM, BobMaster said:

  You don't need a prophet to tell you what's coming next if you read God's Word.

Two questions:  #1.  Where in G-d's Word does it say prophets are not needed

#2.  In light of D&C section 84.  How can anyone claim they accept G-d's Word if they do not accept His Prophet?

 

The Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 10:35 PM, LineUponLine said:

As for the statements concerning the righteousness/valiance of the youth today - I think things are simply moving forward as prophesied. We know that in the last days the church will be small compared to the world - yet powerful. For every individual that falls away from the church there is another individual in the church whose strength is growing. There is opposition in all things. The individual who is the only active member in their family, friend group, town, city, or even country needs to be very strong indeed to move forward with faith when everyone around them is trying to bring them down.  Based on my understanding of the parable of the 10 virgins, only half of the members of the church will be ready at Christ's second coming. So regardless of HOW the General Authorities are choosing to express themselves in their talks in General Conference or elsewhere, we should know that the WHAT and WHY are from God.  Honestly I think if there was too much boldness or pulpit pounding it might be counterproductive. I think there is a time for all things. Christ taught differently depending on his audience. To some it was straightforward and bold, to some it was in parables, to some it was with intense power, and to some with gentle love. In the end the message was the same: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God and everyone who believes in him and obeys his gospel will be saved.

It is interesting to me how quickly we judge.  Who is to say that our youth are not chosen for this day from the foundations of eternity?  Alma the younger and his friends (sons of Mosiah) were not the examples of righteous youth - but when their hour came; were they not righteous and valiant?  If we think our youth are less than they should be - then we ought to fast and pray for them the more.  Ridicule seldom convinces someone to repent. 

All that said - I do believe the message for the Latter-day Saints is to comfort the afflicted and to afflict the comfortable. But who are the comfortable and who are the afflicted?   And concerning the 10 virgins - I wonder and worry more that I have oil for my lamp and wonder of those that think Jesus never intended that he was referring to them.  At the last supper, Jesus made a statement that one among his apostles would betray him.  Note that Peter, James and John did not say, "It must be Judas, he has been acting strange lately.".  Rather the Apostles of Christ - asked - "L-rd is it I?"

One last point - I learned while serving in the army during the Vietnam conflict - Those that call into question their leadership - are in greater danger of being killed and getting those in their unit killed than those willing and determined to do whatever their leaders asked - to the best of their ability in the moment.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the church has been pretty weak in calling the people on all the bull crap.  And very weak on calling on the members to fight back against all the crap going on.  Seems like the Church would be organizing the Mormon Militia ready to defend the country by now.

Edited by Gomezaddams51

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gomezaddams51 said:

Seems to me the church has been pretty weak in calling the people on all the bull crap.  And very weak on calling on the members to fight back against all the crap going on.  Seems like the Church would be organizing the Mormon Militia ready to defend the country by now.

Wait... what???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now