“In coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost."

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not terribly worried about how much we might be "falling behind," as you put it.  Exalting His children is what God does, after all.  It's all He does (see Moses 1:39).  He's very good at it.  And it isn't as though He's going to overlook anyone (see Matthew 10:29, Moses 1:37). While God isn't going to exalt anyone against his or her will, the good news is, He's also very persuasive.  And He has eternity to do it, which is pretty much all the time He'll need.

This is my belief as well. 

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Oh, baloney!   I didn't write any of that to set myself up as any kind of a paragon of virtue, as a tower of strength, or as anything else of the kind.  While I've told much of my story here, there's a lot of it I've held back.  Truth be told, in many ways, I have been my own worst enemy, have shot myself in the foot at critical junctures, and so on and so forth.  I will freely admit my flaws; my only reason for not doing so more extensively here is for the sake of brevity, of succinctness.  In many more ways than one, my past has bitten me in the rump (probably justifiably so): My only question is, since it has bitten me and has bitten me hard (and justifiably so, I'll admit), why it seems that it should be allowed to keep chewing.

It's almost as if Bar Associations say, "Yes, we believe in redemption, but only for reformed criminal defendants, not for prospective members of the Bar who've been denied admission on character and fitness grounds."  And, "Yes, we want members of the Bar to be able to reach and to help those with criminal pasts, but if you have one yourself, don't bother applying."  (I have a minor criminal record: I freaking swear, no one has gotten more mileage out of a piddly little misdemeanor than those who have sought to use mine against me. )  And, "Yes, we want members of the Bar to be able to reach and to help those who have complex behavioral health histories, but if you have one yourself, don't bother applying."   And, "Yes, we want members of the Bar to be able to reach and to help those who have suffered financial reversals, but if you've suffered one yourself, don't bother applying."  And so on. Applicants seemed damned if they do, and damned if they don't: "If there's anything in your history we should know about, you should disclose it: If you don't, we're going to ding you for lack of candor."  On the other hand, "But if you do disclose it, we're going to ding you for the misdeeds you disclose."  So, "It's not a question of whether you're going to die from poisoning, it's simply a question of which poison you're going to die from.  But, since you're going to die no matter what, by all means, pick your poison."

And, the idiot psychologist who evaluated me in 2014 took exactly that same approach, this, despite nearly ten years of earnest, sincere, sustained efforts at rehabilitation which his careless evaluation blithely swept away.  I don't have to disclose the evaluation this year: The Bar's rules for behavioral health history mandate disclosure of treatment within the previous five years (though, at least arguably, evaluation isn't treatment, at all) and of hospitalization within the previous ten years, so I guess I'm clear, but what's the point?  The Bar's simply going to find something to use against me, no matter what.  William Faulkner was right: "The past isn't dead.  The past isn't even past."

But I keep breathing, probably for no other reason than I'm too damn stupid to know when I've been licked.   (Hell, I can't even find work as a paralegal, for goodness sake!)  To borrow and slightly alter the inimitable Major Frank Burns of M*A*S*H infamy, "I believe in the sanctity of human life, no matter how ugly or disgusting it gets." (He was talking about marriage.)  Sure, a lot of this is my fault.  The only thing I can say is, it's a good thing God forgives, because Bar Associations sure as hell don't.   There'll always be phones to answer.  (I freaking swear, I could have a Ph-freaking-D from MI-freaking-T summa cum freaking laude in freaking physics, for crying out loud, and a hiring manager would say, "Ph.D., summa cum laude from MIT, hmmm?  Very impressive!  Unfortunately, our physicist position has been filled, but I do see here that you also have phone experience, and we have another department that does that ..."

[/END RANT]

[/END THREADJACK]

Sorry!

I meant that in a more literal sense, not as a moral thing. If I was stuck as a phone jockey in a call center with little hope of getting out  I think my options would go down to either eating a bullet or cashing out my retirement savings and selling my house and living out of a van until my money runs out and the van breaks down and I end up eating a steady diet of government cheese and living in a van down by the river.

[Kenngo1969]

42 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I meant that in a more literal sense, not as a moral thing. If I was stuck as a phone jockey in a call center with little hope of getting out  I think my options would go down to either eating a bullet or cashing out my retirement savings and selling my house and living out of a van until my money runs out and the van breaks down and I end up eating a steady diet of government cheese and living in a van down by the river.

I don't know if I was supposed to, but is it OK if I admit that I laughed at your post?    I laugh in the face of utter hopelessness!  Bring it on, baby!  Bring it on!  Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!!

[Cue thunder!]

P.S.: I wasn't aiming for two perfect rows of hah-hahs.  That's just the way it worked out.  Perhaps it's an omen.  Maybe it means that today's gonna be a good day!  

P.P.S.:  I already live in a Julie-Rowe-inspired tent city, so, actually, a van by the river would be an improvement.  

Edited April 15, 2019 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

19 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know if I was supposed to, but is it OK if I admit that I laughed at your post?    I laugh in the face of utter hopelessness!  Bring it on, baby!  Bring it on!  Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!!

[Cue thunder!]

P.S.: I wasn't aiming for two perfect rows of hah-hahs.  That's just the way it worked out.  Perhaps it's an omen.  Maybe it means that today's gonna be a good day!  

P.P.S.:  I already live in a Julie-Rowe-inspired tent city, so, actually, a van by the river would be an improvement.  

It was meant to amuse. I am hoping someone got the SNL joke I put in there too.

[CMZ]

On 4/14/2019 at 11:55 PM, SouthernMo said:

Not necessarily. One finds his/her path to god independently of the LDS church sometimes. Not in opposition to it.

What about when they find out about the true church? (Yes, I already know that not everyone believes in it.)

[SouthernMo]

6 minutes ago, CMZ said:

What about when they find out about the true church? (Yes, I already know that not everyone believes in it.)

I’m not sure I understand your question/point. But, I’ll try.

When someone finds something good, hold onto it. If a church helps one get close to god, its hard to say that’s a bad thing!

But, I’m personally not willing to place my trust in man. Most LDS would say that this is God’s/Christ’s church, but it’s led by men (it’s a confusing notion to me).

[Wade Englund]

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m not sure I understand your question/point. But, I’ll try.

When someone finds something good, hold onto it. If a church helps one get close to god, its hard to say that’s a bad thing!

But, I’m personally not willing to place my trust in man. Most LDS would say that this is God’s/Christ’s church, but it’s led by men (it’s a confusing notion to me).

Perhaps the confusion may be dispelled by understanding that the Church is actually lead by him after whom the Church is named.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[SouthernMo]

3 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

Perhaps the confusion may be dispelled by understanding that the Church is actually lead by him after whom the Church is named.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I’m really not impressed by that argument. Somehow Mormons have it in mind as if the name proves they are led by Jesus Christ. Your point is weakened by the fact that many, many Christian churches are named after the savior. But, many Mormons are very insular, and think the name is very unique.

https://thechurchofjesuschrist.org/

https://church-of-christ.org/

https://www.northlake.org/

http://embryhills.com/

I could go on and on and on (please google - it’s very easy). This claim that the LDS church makes that a name of Christ shows it is led by Christ needs to stop. It proves nothing and lessens the credibility of those who claim it.

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m really not impressed by that argument. Somehow Mormons have it in mind as if the name proves they are led by Jesus Christ. Your point is weakened by the fact that many, many Christian churches are named after the savior. But, many Mormons are very insular, and think the name is very unique.

https://thechurchofjesuschrist.org/

https://church-of-christ.org/

https://www.northlake.org/

http://embryhills.com/

I could go on and on and on (please google - it’s very easy). This claim that the LDS church makes that a name of Christ shows it is led by Christ needs to stop. It proves nothing and lessens the credibility of those who claim it.

Yes, if we are going to make the claim, we ought to be able to explain what it means.  Doesn’t really feel like we can do that right now. 

[Wade Englund]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m really not impressed by that argument. Somehow Mormons have it in mind as if the name proves they are led by Jesus Christ. Your point is weakened by the fact that many, many Christian churches are named after the savior. But, many Mormons are very insular, and think the name is very unique.

https://thechurchofjesuschrist.org/

https://church-of-christ.org/

https://www.northlake.org/

http://embryhills.com/

I could go on and on and on (please google - it’s very easy). This claim that the LDS church makes that a name of Christ shows it is led by Christ needs to stop. It proves nothing and lessens the credibility of those who claim it.

I wasn't making an argument, let alone the argument you mistakenly supposed. I was explaining how things could reasonably be viewed so as to unravel your confusion.--take it or leave it  

I  have long been aware of a number of other Christian denominations that bear the name Christ, and this even before Google was even invented.

 I don't know who you suppose is making the claim mentioned above, but it wasn't me.  

I feel no need to prove anything, in large part because it isn't my place to prove. That is the job of the Spirit.

So, if anything needs to stop, and if anything lessens credibility, it is you jumping to several false conclusion. Otherwise, we would be unlikely to have a productive and meaningful conversation. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Wade Englund

[SouthernMo]

5 hours ago, Wade Englund said:

I wasn't making an argument, let alone the argument you mistakenly supposed. I was explaining how things could reasonably be viewed so as to unravel your confusion.--take it or leave it  

I  have long been aware of a number of other Christian denominations that bear the name Christ, and this even before Google was even invented.

 I don't know who you suppose is making the claim mentioned above, but it wasn't me.  

I feel no need to prove anything, in large part because it isn't my place to prove. That is the job of the Spirit.

So, if anything needs to stop, and if anything lessens credibility, it is you jumping to several false conclusion. Otherwise, we would be unlikely to have a productive and meaningful conversation. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

I see.  Thanks for clarifying.

You are making the point that because the LDS church has Jesus Christ name in it, it is not led by men, but led by Jesus Christ.

You call this a reasonable view. Is it not also just as reasonable to view other churches containing Jesus Christ’s name as being led by him?

[CV75]

14 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I’m not sure I understand your question/point. But, I’ll try.

When someone finds something good, hold onto it. If a church helps one get close to god, its hard to say that’s a bad thing!

But, I’m personally not willing to place my trust in man. Most LDS would say that this is God’s/Christ’s church, but it’s led by men (it’s a confusing notion to me).

How do you conceptualize Christ leading His Church, or, if he doesn't have one, how does He lead His followers in modern times?

[SouthernMo]

51 minutes ago, CV75 said:

How do you conceptualize Christ leading His Church, or, if he doesn't have one, how does He lead His followers in modern times?

Christ leads those who follow him.  The question for me is not how Christ should lead. Rather, how I should follow?  In summation, I'll follow Christ by studying and connecting with Him through meditation.

The book of Matthew warns in chapter 24:

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Do some Mormons think our church (the LDS Inc, and it's baptized members of record) is immune to this warning from Jesus?  Mormons are taught to accept that one man can speak for God (Mormons LOVE Amos 3:7), and that all should compare personal revelations to what this man/these men teaches (what we call "The Prophet"), and disregard our own experiences if there is any conflict with established guidance from leadership.  FairMormon has a thorough explanation of this air-tight LDS teaching of revelatory oversight and control.

I tend to think of Christ's church similar to how Joseph Smith recorded his revelation in D&C 10:

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

So, I guess I'm just going to keep repenting and following Christ.  I think that will put me in His church.  I realize this idea is in direct conflict with most LDS teaching (unless one considers D&C 10 as the core LDS teaching).

Edited April 22, 2019 by SouthernMo

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Christ leads those who follow him.  The question for me is not how Christ should lead. Rather, how I should follow?  In summation, I'll follow Christ by studying and connecting with Him through meditation.

The book of Matthew warns in chapter 24:

23 Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.

24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Do some Mormons think our church (the LDS Inc, and it's baptized members of record) is immune to this warning from Jesus?  Mormons are taught to accept that one man can speak for God (Mormons LOVE Amos 3:7), and that all should compare personal revelations to what this man/these men teaches (what we call "The Prophet"), and disregard our own experiences if there is any conflict with established guidance from leadership.  FairMormon has a thorough explanation of this air-tight LDS teaching of revelatory oversight and control.

I tend to think of Christ's church similar to how Joseph Smith recorded his revelation in D&C 10:

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.

69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

So, I guess I'm just going to keep repenting and following Christ.  I think that will put me in His church.  I realize this idea is in direct conflict with most LDS teaching (unless one considers D&C 10 as the core LDS teaching).

Thank you; it seems you believe that He does lead a church, revealing His doctrine through a prophet as He did in D&C 10. He first brings up “church” up in verse 53, in terms of establishing it. The subsequent verses describe the members of that church and describes the church as the means to establish His gospel (verse 63), referring to the pattern set forth in His visit as recorded in the Book of Mormon. Note the many similarities between what He teaches in D&C 10 and what He teaches in 3 Nephi 11 (both clearly presented as "core teachings") and how that points to the organization of His church:

In Chapter 12, He immediately calls twelve disciples and gives them “power” to minister and administer and commanding the members to heed their words. He calls this arrangement “my church” in 18:5 (and those who are baptized by the authorized twelve disciples are called “the church of Christ” in 26:21). He speaks of the latter-day version of this church coming forth in Chapter 21, and identifies it as part and parcel of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in Chapter 22 (verses 2 and 3; see Chapter 29 for more detail). He spends some time instructing the twelve disciples how they are to lead under His leadership in Chapter 27.

So this is Christ’s church, led by Him through men he has given power to do so, and followed by members He has given power to heed their words. This is how He establishes His church, His gospel, and Zion (21:1) as one work.

[SouthernMo]

43 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thank you; it seems you believe that He does lead a church, revealing His doctrine through a prophet as He did in D&C 10. He first brings up “church” up in verse 53, in terms of establishing it. The subsequent verses describe the members of that church and describes the church as the means to establish His gospel (verse 63), referring to the pattern set forth in His visit as recorded in the Book of Mormon. Note the many similarities between what He teaches in D&C 10 and what He teaches in 3 Nephi 11 (both clearly presented as "core teachings") and how that points to the organization of His church:

 

In Chapter 12, He immediately calls twelve disciples and gives them “power” to minister and administer and commanding the members to heed their words. He calls this arrangement “my church” in 18:5 (and those who are baptized by the authorized twelve disciples are called “the church of Christ” in 26:21). He speaks of the latter-day version of this church coming forth in Chapter 21, and identifies it as part and parcel of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon in Chapter 22 (verses 2 and 3; see Chapter 29 for more detail). He spends some time instructing the twelve disciples how they are to lead under His leadership in Chapter 27.

 

So this is Christ’s church, led by Him through men he has given power to do so, and followed by members He has given power to heed their words. This is how He establishes His church, His gospel, and Zion (21:1) as one work.

 

Thanks for sharing the additional insight.  I don't interpret the earlier context in section 10 the way you do indicating that Jesus is only talking about the organization Joseph Smith founded.

As for 3 Nephi, Jesus clearly gives twelve men power.  I'm not sure if Christ gives them ultimate authority over people (you seem emphasize words "power" and "commanding members to heed their words" while ignoring what may be more important attributes of the 12 disciples of the Book of Mormon: servants and ministers)?  Let's also consider how Joseph Smith set up the LDS church, with the 12 apostles having far more limited authority than they do today.  When we read "12 disciples", perhaps we unwittingly transpose our ideas of where they fit in a Christ-following society by our bias of how 12 apostles today fit into the Mormon society?  Brigham Young seems to be the center of this change of the role of Apostles.  His leadership created a hierarchy of power in the church that for many replaced or replaces the need for a one on one communion with the Holy Ghost and cast a lens for how members today view the scriptures.  But, I digress somewhat.

Why the inconsistency in what constitutes membership in Christ's church?  D&C 10 doesn't mention baptism as a requirement, but 3 Nephi does.  Let's also not forget the Church of the Firstborn in LDS teaching: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/church-of-the-firstborn?lang=eng Confusing, I think.  The simplest and most sensible answer to me is the one offered D&C 10 and in the writings of James (rather than Paul who never met Christ, yet whose writings about a gentile-based church make up the bulk of the NT, and the foundation of our modern Hellenized Christian traditions).  Follow Christ by acting like him.

Your final statement: "So this is Christ’s church, led by Him through men he has given power to do so, and followed by members He has given power to heed their words.  This is how He establishes His church, His gospel, and Zion (21:1) as one work." is logic that does not resonate with me.  The way I see it, you are using scriptures written (or revealed) by men who claim that their exclusive authority and that of the LDS church come from Christ; we should accept their scriptures because they come from (the only authorized) servants of Christ.  You see how this is circular logic?  Personal searching, prayer, and discovery are the only way to break into or out of that cycle to validate or invalidate it.

So if it all comes down to personal searching, prayer, and discovery, why would I utilize these principles to find one true prophet or church only to relinquish (even in part) that precious, crucial revelatory channel to that person or organization?

Lastly, I think God can reveal his will through prophets.  And by plural prophets, I mean there can be many inside and outside the LDS organization that do this.  There may be conflicts between their revelations, and I will use the Holy Ghost to decide what God wants me to hear.

[RevTestament]

On 4/14/2019 at 7:43 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

It's almost as if Bar Associations say, "Yes, we believe in redemption, but only for reformed criminal defendants, not for prospective members of the Bar who've been denied admission on character and fitness grounds."  And, "Yes, we want members of the Bar to be able to reach and to help those with criminal pasts, but if you have one yourself, don't bother applying."  (I have a minor criminal record: I freaking swear, no one has gotten more mileage out of a piddly little misdemeanor than those who have sought to use mine against me. )  And, "Yes, we want members of the Bar to be able to reach and to help those who have complex behavioral health histories, but if you have one yourself, don't bother applying."   And, "Yes, we want members of the Bar to be able to reach and to help those who have suffered financial reversals, but if you've suffered one yourself, don't bother applying."  And so on. Applicants seemed damned if they do, and damned if they don't: "If there's anything in your history we should know about, you should disclose it: If you don't, we're going to ding you for lack of candor."  On the other hand, "But if you do disclose it, we're going to ding you for the misdeeds you disclose."  So, "It's not a question of whether you're going to die from poisoning, it's simply a question of which poison you're going to die from.  But, since you're going to die no matter what, by all means, pick your poison."

And, the idiot psychologist who evaluated me in 2014 took exactly that same approach, this, despite nearly ten years of earnest, sincere, sustained efforts at rehabilitation which his careless evaluation blithely swept away.  I don't have to disclose the evaluation this year: The Bar's rules for behavioral health history mandate disclosure of treatment within the previous five years (though, at least arguably, evaluation isn't treatment, at all) and of hospitalization within the previous ten years, so I guess I'm clear, but what's the point?  The Bar's simply going to find something to use against me, no matter what.  William Faulkner was right: "The past isn't dead.  The past isn't even past."

But I keep breathing, probably for no other reason than I'm too damn stupid to know when I've been licked.

Well, this is none of my business Ken, but are you interested in a particular area of law? Do you aim towards serving a certain segment such as disability rights? If so, you could volunteer in that area, and show some rehabilitation that way. I wonder if you have tried being admitted into a bar in another state? Perhaps Nevada is not so picky. Once admitted, that may as a practical matter throw a little weight behind an application in UT for instance. The last option is to apply for admittance into the Federal courts - thus bypassing the state bar. If you are interested in civil rights this might prove a better course anyway. You seem to like writing. Perhaps there is room as an appellate lawyer in the Federal courts.... Lots of room for different talents and interests in the legal system... you certainly seem to have the drive for it. 

[USU78]

On 4/15/2019 at 9:11 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

I don't know if I was supposed to, but is it OK if I admit that I laughed at your post?    I laugh in the face of utter hopelessness!  Bring it on, baby!  Bring it on!  Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!!!!

[Cue thunder!]

P.S.: I wasn't aiming for two perfect rows of hah-hahs.  That's just the way it worked out.  Perhaps it's an omen.  Maybe it means that today's gonna be a good day!  

P.P.S.:  I already live in a Julie-Rowe-inspired tent city, so, actually, a van by the river would be an improvement.  

Some thoughts:

1.  If somebody ought to ask a particular question and doesn't, it's on him that you didn't answer the question he should have asked.

2.  State Bars are miserable organizations, designed to serve monied interests and not the practitioner.  The Utah State Bar is particularly bad.  Example 1:  Law Firm XYZ, PC represented the Utah State Bar membership in negotiating for Blue Cross/Blue Shield coverage for Utah lawyers; Law Firm XYZ, PC also represented at the same time Blue Cross/Blue Shield; is this a conflict of interest?  The Bar says, "No."

3.  The ethical and behavioral rules of the Bar strip lawyers of every presumption and right as against a complaining client on the grounds of protecting the integrity of the practice of law [see, e.g., # 2, above].  Example 2:  Client is in terrible financial shape and has no way to pay the past, ongoing, or future fees incurred in an important case; Attorney is way upside down in costs advanced on client's behalf and has a lot more coming; Attorney decides to lend the money personally, taking back a note and trust deed on a piece of realty as collateral; client gets his representation; attorney has saved the day through heroic efforts; client refuses to make any payment but rather reports attorney to the Bar; Bar Counsel finds a technical violation in failing to advise client to seek advice of another lawyer before signing the note and trust deed; the Bar invalidates all of the 6 figure legal fees, including the costs; the attorney, a 50+ year friend of mine, leaves the state and practices elsewhere.

4.  I cannot wait until I can retire so I can get away from this moral and ethical cesspool.  I like lawyers.  Lawyers are, by and large, great folks.  State bars are monsters.

So  ...  don't feel the need to use your JD to practice law.  Plenty of other stuff out there:  contract managers; HR professionals; etc.  And you don't have to deal with the monsters.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Thanks for sharing the additional insight.  I don't interpret the earlier context in section 10 the way you do indicating that Jesus is only talking about the organization Joseph Smith founded.

As for 3 Nephi, Jesus clearly gives twelve men power.  I'm not sure if Christ gives them ultimate authority over people (you seem emphasize words "power" and "commanding members to heed their words" while ignoring what may be more important attributes of the 12 disciples of the Book of Mormon: servants and ministers)?  Let's also consider how Joseph Smith set up the LDS church, with the 12 apostles having far more limited authority than they do today.  When we read "12 disciples", perhaps we unwittingly transpose our ideas of where they fit in a Christ-following society by our bias of how 12 apostles today fit into the Mormon society?  Brigham Young seems to be the center of this change of the role of Apostles.  His leadership created a hierarchy of power in the church that for many replaced or replaces the need for a one on one communion with the Holy Ghost and cast a lens for how members today view the scriptures.  But, I digress somewhat.

Why the inconsistency in what constitutes membership in Christ's church?  D&C 10 doesn't mention baptism as a requirement, but 3 Nephi does.  Let's also not forget the Church of the Firstborn in LDS teaching: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/triple-index/church-of-the-firstborn?lang=eng Confusing, I think.  The simplest and most sensible answer to me is the one offered D&C 10 and in the writings of James (rather than Paul who never met Christ, yet whose writings about a gentile-based church make up the bulk of the NT, and the foundation of our modern Hellenized Christian traditions).  Follow Christ by acting like him.

Your final statement: "So this is Christ’s church, led by Him through men he has given power to do so, and followed by members He has given power to heed their words.  This is how He establishes His church, His gospel, and Zion (21:1) as one work." is logic that does not resonate with me.  The way I see it, you are using scriptures written (or revealed) by men who claim that their exclusive authority and that of the LDS church come from Christ; we should accept their scriptures because they come from (the only authorized) servants of Christ.  You see how this is circular logic?  Personal searching, prayer, and discovery are the only way to break into or out of that cycle to validate or invalidate it.

So if it all comes down to personal searching, prayer, and discovery, why would I utilize these principles to find one true prophet or church only to relinquish (even in part) that precious, crucial revelatory channel to that person or organization?

Lastly, I think God can reveal his will through prophets.  And by plural prophets, I mean there can be many inside and outside the LDS organization that do this.  There may be conflicts between their revelations, and I will use the Holy Ghost to decide what God wants me to hear.

Of course, “church” in the latter-day scriptures can mean many things in addition to the restored organization. I don’t see many, if any, of them in reference being mutually exclusive of the restored organization or her members. The central message of the first and great, and second, commandments in any iteration of the church is to follow Christ.

“Servants” and “ministers” do so legitimately only according to the power they are given, hence the emphasis according the first thing the writer and Jesus both pointed out in 3 Nephi 12:1. It’s neither “ultimate authority” (whatever that means) nor something to be afraid of given the many other instructions of Jesus to His church.

Of course the role of disciple / apostle will change over time just as it did between Jesus’ mortal ministry and His ascension, and then after that.

Personal searching, prayer, and discovery (which are not entirely logical processes) of what the Book of Mormon is allows me to use it as a resource and means to explain the restoration of Christ’s church with human leaders without using circular logic. I simply believe what it says about that subject.  If by personal searching, prayer, and discovery you have come to another conclusion, at least admit that it is just as “circular.” 😊

I think it good to consider all good things by the prophets and to discern by the light of Christ, by the gifts of the Spirit, by the power and/or gift of the Holy Ghost, etc. which is good, better, best, etc., personal logic not necessarily aside but compatible with the means God uses to guide and lead us personally to Him.

[SouthernMo]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Personal searching, prayer, and discovery (which are not entirely logical processes) of what the Book of Mormon is allows me to use it as a resource and means to explain the restoration of Christ’s church with human leaders without using circular logic. I simply believe what it says about that subject.  If by personal searching, prayer, and discovery you have come to another conclusion, at least admit that it is just as “circular.” 😊

You bring up a good point about the circular logic of using the Holy Ghost to confirm truth.

Maybe the difference for me is that the Holy Ghost is MY truth. My own witness. My own experience. Rather than being asked to accept another’s logical conclusion.

[Wade Englund]

11 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I see.  Thanks for clarifying.

You are making the point that because the LDS church has Jesus Christ name in it, it is not led by men, but led by Jesus Christ.

Not quite. I am simply saying that the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints  is Jesus Christ.  He is our leader. He has chosen and continues to guide men in serving him and his flock on earth.

I raised this point because you were confused as to how our church could be Gods church and yet be led by men.  Your confusion should be dispelled by correctly understanding that it is God's church because it is led by God.

Does that compute?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited April 22, 2019 by Wade Englund

[SouthernMo]

14 minutes ago, Wade Englund said:

Not quite. I am simply saying that the head of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints  is Jesus Christ.  He is our leader. He has chosen and continues to guide men in serving him and his flock on earth.

I raised this point because you were confused as to how our church could be Gods church and yet be led by men.  Your confusion should be dispelled by correctly understanding that it is God's church because it is led by God.

Does that compute?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

It does not compute.

You say it’s led by God. It is a faith promoting, god glorifying statement. I really wish it were that easy for me to understand!

My experience the LDS church has been that when great things happen in the church, testimonies are strengthened, and the acts are attributed to the centrality of Christ’s leadership.

However, when things go bad in the church. When a leader misbehaves, or hurts someone, or makes a poor choice, my experience has been that members come to Christ’s defense, and blame those bad things on the agency of the fallible man.

In review: When good happens in the LDS church, it is proof that Jesus leads the church. When bad happens in the church, it is proof that Jesus allows man agency.

It’s hard for me to accept that this church is led by God. Unless that god is a horrible person who takes credit for the victories, but blames the failures on his subordinates.

Help me see that it is god, and only god who leads this church.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

You bring up a good point about the circular logic of using the Holy Ghost to confirm truth.

Maybe the difference for me is that the Holy Ghost is MY truth. My own witness. My own experience. Rather than being asked to accept another’s logical conclusion.

That is what we are taught and invited to do, except rather than accepting another's logical conclusion, accepting another's testimony once that personal spiritual witness and experience are obtained. As the scripture goes, "when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men," and then it is up to us to obtain and receive our own witness, "for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto [His servants]... And ...Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words..." if we give them place for experiment (as in Alma 32).

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

It does not compute.

You say it’s led by God. It is a faith promoting, god glorifying statement. I really wish it were that easy for me to understand!

My experience the LDS church has been that when great things happen in the church, testimonies are strengthened, and the acts are attributed to the centrality of Christ’s leadership.

However, when things go bad in the church. When a leader misbehaves, or hurts someone, or makes a poor choice, my experience has been that members come to Christ’s defense, and blame those bad things on the agency of the fallible man.

In review: When good happens in the LDS church, it is proof that Jesus leads the church. When bad happens in the church, it is proof that Jesus allows man agency.

It’s hard for me to accept that this church is led by God. Unless that god is a horrible person who takes credit for the victories, but blames the failures on his subordinates.

Help me see that it is god, and only god who leads this church.

I'm not sure if this will help, but when both good and evil happen anywhere, including in the Church, it is because Jesus allows man our agency, not necessarily proof that He allows it. That is a matter of doctrine and faith. There must be another basis for concluding that He heads The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is also a matter of doctrine and faith, as is the conclusion that He leads the Church through leaders with His legitimate authority, together with leading individual members through His light, the Spirit, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.

[SouthernMo]

8 minutes ago, CV75 said:

That is what we are taught and invited to do, except rather than accepting another's logical conclusion, accepting another's testimony once that personal spiritual witness and experience are obtained. As the scripture goes, "when a man speaketh by the power of the Holy Ghost the power of the Holy Ghost carrieth it unto the hearts of the children of men," and then it is up to us to obtain and receive our own witness, "for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto [His servants]... And ...Christ will show unto you, with power and great glory, that they are his words..." if we give them place for experiment (as in Alma 32).

Ok - you almost had me convinced.  I struggle a little with Alma 32 because of the possible interpretation that if one speak by the Holy Ghost, then others will feel the Holy Ghost. I don’t agree with that.

Ive had personal experience in which I know I don’t always feel the Holy Ghost when I “should.”  If I’m angry, I don’t feel it - even if a speaker or a passage in the scriptures is full of the spirit.

Conversely, if I was speaking to someone and believed I was speaking by the spirit, but my audience didn’t feel the Holy Ghost, what am I to make of that?  Was I the one without the spirit, or was it the audience?

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm not sure if this will help, but when both good and evil happen anywhere, including in the Church, it is because Jesus allows man our agency, not necessarily proof that He allows it. That is a matter of doctrine and faith. There must be another basis for concluding that He heads The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is also a matter of doctrine and faith, as is the conclusion that He leads the Church through leaders with His legitimate authority, together with leading individual members through His light, the Spirit, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, etc.

I think you’re right. There is not sufficient logical evidence or reason for me to conclude whether or not Christ leads this church.  One has to have faith that it is or is not, then adjust one’s paradigm of how Christ “should” lead the church, and accept whatever happens (good or bad) in the church as the will of the Lord.