Senator

While idealistically this may be true, I suspect individual MMV. I don't know how ,in church settings, one could express disagreements(disbelief) with certain church policies and or doctrines, which obviously includes statements from church leadership. My experience is that those that are in such a place, quickly learn to hold those thoughts close to the chest, lest he be seen as "going out of his way to broadcast his "doubts" or degree of "disbelief"". (speaking for friend :))

I’m curious to what this “place” looks like that is said is available for those with “shaky and weak testimonies “. That includes people with doubts and varying degrees of disbelief. Anybody care to describe what they think that space would look like in this big tent?

You seem to dwell a lot on the "day of judgement" scene. Wonder why that is?

There’s a prophet behind that group too…

Again, are we asked to trust and believe, or sustain?

Yes, when you believe God is commanding you, pretty much anything is possible

I don’t think many LDS would view it that way. At least not the more old-school variety. They would tend to think those in Christianity would be coming out of the apostasy, and into the restored gospel. But hey, the church is a changin so who knows where one might stand these days?

Is this another example of “expressly speaking” by God with ulterior motives? Makes one wonder…

What amuses me about that quote is the embedded irony in it? What if, by saying this the prophet led decades of saints into the belief of an infallible prophet. Then when discovering the prophets can indeed be wrong, their world view is crushed and they leave the church. In other words they felt they had but led astray.

I believe the wording of the TR question is intentional and carefully crafted. Do you “sustain” them to be prophets, seers and revelators? Not, do you have a testimony of them as …… Big difference.

Then perhaps I could mostly sustain them😉

Not without limits. He can even be removed by the twelve if his wrongs are serious enough. You are capable of things I'm not... I do not think I would be able to love my wife, if I thought she was an idiot.

At an intellectual level, at least. It would seem to be a logical implication, yes. If she sustains the current leadership as "prophets, seers and revelators", she is indicating that she is affirming the divine origin of the practice. That it was a command of God, which is the current doctrine and teaching of the church.

It is being said that we are not asked to have a testimony of the past practice of polygamy. But we are asked to, at least at some level, affirm or sustain the practice. To do otherwise would put one at odds with doctrines and teachings of the church.

Yes, but one would have to keep such things to themselves, or else face possible disciplinary actions.

Because Houston, we would really, really, really have a problem!

I don't think it is disrespectful to declare that one does not have a testimony of the divinity of the practice of polygamy by the early saints and simultaneously grant that the practitioners did actually believe it was Gods will. They are not dismissing that, by not sharing that belief. [edited to add:] I understand the feeling of dissonance that this may create. This is what I have been trying to express

I take it you felt like taking stroll down memory lane:) Yes, I have had to acquire, or rather demand the right to think outside my religious box and recognize the trappings of religion. Things are better now.

I appreciate that you can see and admit that.

While I agree that that is technically true, "where the rubber meets the road culturally" is something different. I was very much raised with the mindset that "when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done" and "the prophet can never lead us astray". And this is of course before the modern apologetics to explain it all away.

My GG grandfather spent 6 summer months in the Yuma territorial prison on the charges of practicing polygamy. I am genuinely curious how he would respond to that sentiment.

It better be, or this is really messed up! This makes me shake my head. I don't get it.

I'm sensing some possible dissonance here. Particularly with questions 3 and 7. How does one have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel when one believes significant revelations were not of God? (question 3) By believing certain significant "teachings, practices or doctrines" were not God given, how does that not put someone in a contrary position to the church? (question 7) asking for a friend...😉

I get where you're coming from. When the description of "prophet, seer and revelator" is used, my mind is immediately drawn to Joseph Smith. For me, it actually makes answering the temple recommend question a bit less straight forward. I understand the concept, and I can certainly sustain them in the capacity to be such, and for the need of a "head" of the church, but I am uncertain as to what the nature of their divine connection is.