General questions for the board,

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by shobeewan

I have read quite a bit of information on this board that I find very disturbing coming from members of the church. I haven't been on the board long enough to learn everyone's personality and stance on things but I still find it interesting that people who are members or claim to be members will outright critisize the leadership of the church. People wanting explanations and reasons why the church does or has done certain things in the past, having their lists of things that the church needs to change, and outright anger that the leadership of the church would dare make a statement against endorsing one of the most heinous sins committed by the people on this earth.

I have a few questions
1- Who is the leader of this church? If you answer anyone but Jesus Christ why are you a member of the church? This is not President Hinkley's church, or Joseph's church, or even Brigham's church. The Lord is at the head and he is leading us in the direction we need to go. Who are we to question the Lord?

2- Is President Hinkley a Prophet? Once again if he isn't why are you a member of the church? Now the "blindly following" and "elevating leadership to godhood level" people are already perking up and rebutting this, but you raise your hand to sustain President Hinkley as a Prophet multiple times a year, why would you do this if you don't believe he is? As a prophet he is the mortal/ physical leader of the church here on the earth. Not every word that comes from his mouth is scripture or a direct commandment, but by ignoring his counsel and teachings you are ignoring the Lord. President Hinkley has been given keys by the Lord to set policy, and receive revelation for the entire church. If you doubt this once again why are you a member? Every time we receive a new leader of the church I pray about whether he is a prophet, I receive a positive answer and that is good enough for me.

3- Why do you feel that you have the right to ask or demand explanations or policy from the Lord? If the leader of the church is a prophet who speaks for the Lord with policies and statements regarding the position or beliefs of the church what gives you the right to question the right of the Lord to say those things? If you want to blow them off as the diluded ramblings of an old man who is out of touch that is fine, but you also sustain that rambling old man as a mouthpiece of the Lord.

I have just been troubled after reading some of the things that have been said on this board for the past little while. If you question and don't follow the Prophet's council on little issues, how are you going to follow his council on big issues? You can justify why you won't follow the Prophet on this issue or that, but if you follow the Prophet you will be going in the right direction. The Lord is not going to allow him to lead us astray. I don't think it will be very comfortable sitting in front of the Lord and telling him that the reason I didn't follow his Prophet's council was because "it wasn't an official commandment" or "I am just smarter and knew better than the Prophet what I should do." or my favorite "there wasn't a temple recommend question regarding that point."

I am sure I will be blasted for this as a blind follower. No I don't believe President Hinkley is a perfect man. I do believe he is a Prophet who speaks for the Lord, so when he speaks for the Church we need to give heed and follow his teachings. It all comes down to my first two questions, if the answer to either one is no, you are in the wrong church.

Sorry for the rambling, but had to get it off my chest.

I guess the real question is whether there is value in talking about these issues in the only forum I know of where these sorts of frank discussions can be had with such a large, diverse, intelligent group.

If the answer is yes, then you are going to have some people take positions that you yourself think inappropriate. I think there are a number of positions taken here that would be inappropriate for me and which I disagree with, but I nevertheless value those other perspectives.

I think you see the whole spectrum here from people who more or less rely totally on reason and their own personal feelings to those who defer totally to whatever they percieve doctrine to be (it is not always easy to sort out what it is). Many of us come down somewhere in the middle where reason gets us there on many things, faith gets us the on the rest, or maybe nothing gets us there on some issues.

I will answer my own question by saying that I find tremendous value in these conversations. There is a legitimate line of thinking that there is danger in even choosing to be exposed to them. There is also a line of thought that it is dangerous to never examine closely ones beliefs. Maybe I just wantto have my cake and eat it too. I believe, as you apparently do, that there are some around here who take positions that I would personally find dangerous for myself. At the same time, I like to hear what they have to say. I like the process of asking myself what I think and why. I think that is heathy.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Venkman

Yeah, I think there is a smugness there. The thing that bugs me is that if you don't agree with the liberal attitutdes (some of which I kind of agree with to an extent), you're viewed as ignorant. At least that's impression I've gotten.

My other pet peeve is the bashing of apostles, like Bruce R. McConkie and Ezra Taft Benson or Boyd K. Packer, by some of the active LDS liberals. Some people ridicule and discount everything that came out of BRM's mouth. Don't agree with what he said, fine. But don't trash an ordained apostle of God.

I think this is a well taken point for me personally. I think that many (me) walked away from the DOM biography with a dim view of BRM.

Even if that dim view is deserved in some respects, none of us are perfect and it worth remembering how DOM handled him and how he never threw him under the bus so to speak. I think this is only partly because he was protecting the membership. I think that he also believed that BRM was a man of God, even if not a perfect one. Maybe in my mind I need to be less judgmental.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I guess the real question is whether there is value in talking about these issues in the only forum I know of where these sorts of frank discussions can be had with such a large, diverse, intelligent group.

If the answer is yes, then you are going to have some people take positions that you yourself think inappropriate. I think there are a number of positions taken here that would be inappropriate for me and which I disagree with, but I nevertheless value those other perspectives.

I think you see the whole spectrum here from people who more or less rely totally on reason and their own personal feelings to those who defer totally to whatever they percieve doctrine to be (it is not always easy to sort out what it is). Many of us come down somewhere in the middle where reason gets us there on many things, faith gets us the on the rest, or maybe nothing gets us there on some issues.

I will answer my own question by saying that I find tremendous value in these conversations. There is a legitimate line of thinking that there is danger in even choosing to be exposed to them. There is also a line of thought that it is dangerous to never examine closely ones beliefs. Maybe I just wantto have my cake and eat it too. I believe, as you apparently do, that there are some around here who take positions that I would personally find dangerous for myself. At the same time, I like to hear what they have to say. I like the process of asking myself what I think and why. I think that is heathy.

Amen, brother. Well said. (as usual)

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

I think the sharing of ideas and discussions is a good one as well. I've never been against that and never will be. However, when a member of the church openly criticizes the LITERAL mouthpiece on earth for Jesus Christ, it is simply them fulfilling prophecy as far as I'm concerned. It is incumbent upon them REGARDLESS of political belief to support Jesus Christ. The prophet doesn't make a declaration based on personal belief, and that might be news to some.

In hindsights perhaps my comments were a bit harsh, seeing as I fall on a completely different side of faith and belief as Robin and NS do, but they carry a haughty smugness in their mocking tone of those who do believe and believe strongly and for that I will always stand against and speak out against and make aboslutely zero apologies for it. It's too bad more don't have the guts to do the same.

Come on, Rocky. Lighten up, brother. Robin, NS, and SeattleUte have thoughts and opinions that are just as valid as those of us "still in the fold". They are cultural mormons and have shown decent respect most of the time. As for me, I enjoy a variety of opinions and viewpoints in the discussion. One thing I really enjoy about this board is that we have had some terrific discussions about religion. In my experience, CG is a unique spot in cyberspace. On the vast majority of boards, any discussion of the LDS faith is quickly dominated by the "born-agains" and the bitter ex-mormons with an axe to grind. There are some decent discussions on CB, but the rules are far to rigid, IMO. I think the balance here is perfect.

And as for carrying a "haughty smugness in their mocking tone", that works both ways. There is plenty of haughty smugness in the ultra-conservative crowd.

Peace, brother.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I guess the real question is whether there is value in talking about these issues in the only forum I know of where these sorts of frank discussions can be had with such a large, diverse, intelligent group.

If the answer is yes, then you are going to have some people take positions that you yourself think inappropriate.

Exactly. You described very well what I enjoy about cougarguard. It would be impossible for me to assemble a group such as this from my own surroundings.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

In hindsights perhaps my comments were a bit harsh, seeing as I fall on a completely different side of faith and belief as Robin and NS do, but they carry a haughty smugness in their mocking tone of those who do believe and believe strongly and for that I will always stand against and speak out against and make aboslutely zero apologies for it. It's too bad more don't have the guts to do the same.

Haughty smugness? And to think, I was only shooting for haughty.

I'm honestly trying to understand your indignation. Are you so desperate for affirmation that you consider anybody who doesn't share your beliefs to be mocking you? There are about six and a half billion people in the world who don't share your particular belief system. When do you ever find the time to speak out against all those people? BTW, if I've mocked you it's been wholly unintentional. To the best of my knowledge, JL is the only person on this board that I have deliberately mocked. And not because he's a believer, but because he's a fatuous dolt.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by grapevine

Loyal opposition is an oxymoron The question are your opinions as valid as what the lord has said. In order to be exalted you have to be valient in the testimony of the savior.

Vote as he would vote think as he would think. Are you valient if you question the leaders he has called? Terrestial kingdom for those not valient in the testimony of Jesus.

Many people say there is a big tent however the lord repeteadly says no unclean thing can enter his presence and straight it the gate and narrow is the way. The lord cleans you through repentance which is confess and forsake. Not rationilize and partake.

Besides people who follow the counsel of those the lord called to look after them have a greater portion of the lords spirit than those that always question. BRM answer on how do you tell proper priesthood power from unrighteous dominion. You don't.

In Neal A Maxwell's dispostion of a disciple quoting Marvin J Ashton he said people that reject the words of the lords servants can't get revelation for themselves. Two apostles saying and collaborating on that.

Though an individual may falter Walter Murray Gibson the prophet won't lead you astray and the brethern as a whole. If you keep your eye on the brethern you will be safe. There opinions are the lords and the link I posted of Elder Ballards talk rails on people who lead you astray from them. The opinons of some that are against church counsel defintly are not the mind and will of the lord. Another talk I should post M Russell Ballards false prophets talks about members of the church too. Do you sustain them or don't you?

http://www.desnews.com/cn/cnf/view/0...000347,00.html

You are arguing from definitions. Sure, there is no such thing as a 'loyal opposition,' but what does it mean to be a member of the opposition?

That is the heart of the matter.

[JohnnyLingo]

28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

42 And whoso knocketh, to him will he open; and the wise, and the learned, and they that are rich, who are puffed up because of their learning, and their wisdom, and their riches—yea, they are they whom he despiseth; and save they shall cast these things away, and consider themselves fools before God, and come down in the depths of humility, he will not open unto them.

4 And they shall contend one with another; and their priests shall contend one with another, and they shall teach with their learning, and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance.

15 O the wise, and the learned, and the rich, that are puffed up in the pride of their hearts, and all those who preach false doctrines, and all those who commit whoredoms, and pervert the right way of the Lord, wo, wo, wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!

Yeah, I think there is a smugness there. The thing that bugs me is that if you don't agree with the liberal attitutdes (some of which I kind of agree with to an extent), you're viewed as ignorant. At least that's impression I've gotten.

My other pet peeve is the bashing of apostles, like Bruce R. McConkie and Ezra Taft Benson or Boyd K. Packer, by some of the active LDS liberals. Some people ridicule and discount everything that came out of BRM's mouth. Don't agree with what he said, fine. But don't trash an ordained apostle of God.

I agree completely. We discussed in Sunday School about how David (in the Old Testament) didn't want to kill Saul, even though Saul was seeking his life. The reason? Because Saul was "the Lord's annointed." Similarly, Nephi continually asked Lehi for direction, acknowledging him as his spiritual leader and prophet, even though Lehi was not perfect.

Those who are called and ordained of God deserve respect. This does not mean you have to agree with everything they say and do. But respect the office.

This seems to be a principle lost on many here.

[All-American]

Because, as we all know, being learned is evil.

The saying goes, "Catholics teach that the pope is infallible, but they don't really believe it. Mormons teach that the prophet is fallible, but they don't really believe it."

We seem so concerned with showing that the prophet is a man, that we forget how much more important it is to show that the man is a prophet.

[RockyBalboa]

Originally Posted by homeboy

Come on, Rocky. Lighten up, brother. Robin, NS, and SeattleUte have thoughts and opinions that are just as valid as those of us "still in the fold". They are cultural mormons and have shown decent respect most of the time. As for me, I enjoy a variety of opinions and viewpoints in the discussion. One thing I really enjoy about this board is that we have had some terrific discussions about religion. In my experience, CG is a unique spot in cyberspace. On the vast majority of boards, any discussion of the LDS faith is quickly dominated by the "born-agains" and the bitter ex-mormons with an axe to grind. There are some decent discussions on CB, but the rules are far to rigid, IMO. I think the balance here is perfect.

And as for carrying a "haughty smugness in their mocking tone", that works both ways. There is plenty of haughty smugness in the ultra-conservative crowd.

Peace, brother.

.

There is a big difference in having a discussion about theology, values, principles and then outright mocking things that a person holds sacred.

Most of the time they tend to eloquently speak their difference of opinion, but there have been many times where it's outright mocking of things I hold dear and sacred. When that happens, I'm not concerned about being "everyone's buddy", and I will stand for what is right.