Jump to content

Meerkat

Members
  • Content Count

    807
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Meerkat

  1. 3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

    I am surprised at his passing.  He always seemed to be good health.

    He had a stroke a few years ago that slowed him down.  He talked about it in some of his lectures.  He looked great.  He was very lucid, but spoke slow.  He had health issues that weren’t apparent.  Even knowing that, his death was surprising.

    • Like 1
  2. 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:
    3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    Humans are by nature and nurture simply highly developed mammals -- for whom evil is their natural state.  Because evil is banal and normal, not at all extraordinary.  We like to look at others (including God) and to pass judgment.  We imagine ourselves to be highly cultured and civilized beings incapable of genocide or evil, but we merely lie to ourselves, for such horrific behavior is in our genes and in our socialization.  It takes very little, so little to bring out the worst in us.  And then we blame God.

    I think each, or many of us, go through an Old Testament phase when we have wrapped our world into a meet little package.  We feel qualified to judge others, and justified in our strident opinions.  Then, when one of our children go astray, we go through a New Testament phase of mercy and compassion.  If we are lucky, we go through a Mosiah chapter 4 experience, and try to remember what we learned.

    I still have a challenge with King David losing his salvation over Uriah, particularly in view his humble penance in Psalm 51.

    • Like 1
  3. 11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    How do you see his theory of "disruptive innovation" as applied to the LDS Church?  Or does it apply at all?  Were Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other LDS leaders "disruptive innovators"?  Is Pres Nelson a disruptive innovator?

    How many of us, in our zeal to find the Elect, friendshipped people, then dropped them like a hot potato when they showed no interest in the Church.  Bro. Christensen, in his “Power of Everyday Missionaries,” showed us how to approach strangers directly with our message, rather than leave them wondering “What happened?  I thought you wanted to be friends?”

    Of course, most or all prophets are disruptive innovators.  But some (President Nelson,) are more disruptive than others.  I also wonder if Clayton’s fingerprints aren’t also on the “Come Follow Me” and “Teaching in the Savior’s Way” program.  Bro. Christensen was an innovator’s innovator.  God rest his soul.

    • Like 2
  4. Your thought process seems reasonable to me. There may be as many thought processes to arrive at faith as there are people.  There are some common elements to some of them.

    1.  Some of us experience a low point in our lives that enable us to turn to God with hope that He May be real, available and can expect God to respond to us when in our anguish, we call out to Him.  (I use the pronoun “Him” because that lines up with what I believe.  No offense intended.)

    A.  In Mark 9 beginning at verse 17 a desperate father brought his son, who had been highly disruptive since he was a child.  Today, some might call him mentally ill.  Then, possessed of a devil.  Jesus asked if he believed.  I can imagine the father, wondering if God was real and could do this fantastic thing, healing his son.  I can hear the desperation in his voice as he pleads “Lord, I believe.  Help thou mine unbelief.”   Christ accepted his doubt and confirmed his weak faith by healing his son.  It was a low, desperate point that God answered his humbled prayer.

    2.  For people like Joseph Smith, and maybe you, Joseph responded to James’ invitation to pray by following the instructions in James 1:5, and received his answer.

    A.  The Book of Mormon offers an explanation of the process that encompasses the man with the sick son, and the young Prophet Joseph.  

    You are probably very familiar with Alma 32.  The entire chapter is excellent.  This part resonates with me and was part of my process:

    ”27 But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words.
    28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me.
    29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge.
    30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow.
    31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness.
    32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away.
    33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good.
    34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.
    35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good...”

    At some point, I needed to ask God to let me know He was real and there for me.  I prayed and He answered in a way similar to Alma 32.  The rest is about 45 years of beautiful (to me) history.  For me, it was like the formerly blind man answering the unbelieving Jews in John 9, when they accused Jesus of being a sinner for healing him “25 He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.”

    I wish you the very best.  It sounds like you are on a fruitful and productive track to me.

    • Like 1
  5. 5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

    @Hamba Tuhan, @The Nehor, @sheilauk @Meerkat (just got help on how to highlight, yay)

    I am sorry if I've struck nerves out there. I happen to listen to this newsroom announcement again and caught something that was just what I was saying about the temple and got flack for it. Listen at mark 3:29 and on. 

    Pres Nelson said ostentatious! I only said elaborate and opulence! When I read their definitions, mine wasn't critical at all.

    Thanks Tacenda.  Great interview.  I think this interview has something for everyone.  We have been moving to more smaller Temples.  It makes sense.  If we had gone smaller a few years earlier, we could have had a Temple in Seattle and Tacoma, and maybe one more for less than the cost of the Seattle Temple, and we could attend more frequently.   I like the smaller Temple idea where possible.   Apparently there is much yet to be revealed.  We need to take our vitamins!

  6. Hi Tacenda--

    Your questions are great, as usual.  My responses are in red

     

    7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

    I honestly don't know why members need the elaborate adorned temples.

    The Temples are houses of the Lord that glorify God.  They represent the significance of the work that is done inside their walls, and how the people feel about their Savior. 

    It is as Sheilauk said, referring to the woman who wanted to anoint the Savior with expensive oil: "And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an (expensive) alabaster box of ointment, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment."  The scripture in Luke 7:36-50 is profound when looked at in context. The disciples felt as you do, that the ointment should be sold and the proceeds given to the poor.  So you are in good company.  But Jesus opened our minds to the higher law.  He referred to exactly your point:

    "There was a certain creditor (the Man who had money to lend-- I believe it was the Savior in this instance,)  who had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.  And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both.  Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?  Simon answered and said , I suppose that he to whom he forgave most.  And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged."

    Money is not a fixed amount that can either go to feed the poor or build the Temple.  The money comes from God's rich and abundant hand.  He can and often does give us ideas to obtain the money we require.  When we consider the lilies of the field, He finds a way to take care of them.  Same with us.  Not at the same level, but our needs are met just the same.  Same hours in a day.  Same air to breathe.  Different resources in different parts of the world.  No doubt about it, some areas are poorer than others.  God sends people to those areas for His wise purposes— to teach them what they need to know for what comes next.   God lets them exercise their agency, and engage in commerce. 

    The way the richest 1 percent have obtained their wealth is through commerce.  They invent and sell things, creating wealth for themselves.  They also help create jobs and income for the ninety nine percent.  I believe the mistake you are making is that there is only enough money for feeding the poor OR Temples.  There is enough money for all of it, including taking care of the poor.  The Church welfare system is also a great example of how to take care of the poor.  We teach governments and countries how we do it.

    Each of us who have been forgiven can relate to the woman bathing His feet with her tears.  The Temple is a gift from God.  The sacred ordinances are gifts from God.  He provided the resources in our lives to build them.  I am most grateful for the Temple's and the important work done there.

    Regarding tithing, you couldn't get me to withhold my tithing because of the blessings connected to that commandment. I have proven to my satisfaction that God honors His promises.  People in poverty who live this law are lifted by it, just as others of us you hear testify at Church.  You may want to try and see for yourself.  But do it with faith, nothing wavering.  Then you will understand more clearly what we are talking about.

     

    • Like 4
  7. 58 minutes ago, ALarson said:

    We can also disagree with a teaching and make sure we do not speak ill of the leaders.

    Such as the new policy of no weapons on Church grounds.  We may not understand the reasons yet.  But the Lord sustains the prophet. We covenant to do the same.  It is okay to doubt, question and seek personal understanding.  “I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true;”.  I believe if we are sincere, we can receive personal revelation on the subject.  Until then, as Bro. Gui said, we have a choice to make.   

    • Like 2
  8. 21 minutes ago, ALarson said:

    Well, I disagree with most of what you state above.  But I don't want to derail this thread and much of this has already been discussed here at length anyway....so let's just a agree to disagree :) 

    You may be right.  My point was that I believe Joseph Smith was trying to follow God’s commands.

    • Like 1
  9. 30 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

    Thank you very much, I appreciate it. 

    To your point about reasons for (re-)joining, if the church could let go of its role as an authority representing God, I think I could go back. I'm trying to organise my own thoughts about what a place like that would look like. But I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. I hope that I can help people within and on the fringes by using my voice.

    Hmmm.  “if the church could let go of its role as an authority representing God, I think I could go back.”  In other words, it’s not the authority that matters to you.  Is it the social aspect?  I have found members of the Church to be a delightful bunch.  But for me, the proper authority is pre-eminent.  Otherwise what’s the difference between the Church and the YMCA?

    • Like 2
  10. 7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

    I'm not sure what you mean here (?), but I'm glad she was able to find some peace regarding this difficult topic.  

    Joseph didn’t want to consummate the marriage.  Apparently, the idea was repugnant to him.  Ultimately he came to understand what the Lord required of him and participated in the same manner as prophets of old.  Hence, the restoration of all things including polygamy.

  11. 10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

    That's not real accurate (possibly for some of his plural marriages).  His first plural wife was a teenager (Fanny Alger).  He also married many other teens (and single women).

    And, he also did marry women whose husbands were believing members of the church (such as Zina Huntington Jacobs).

    We do not know if any of Joseph's sealings were for eternity only.

    We also do not know which marriages were consumated for sure.  There are some statements from the wives that they were and other statements from witnesses, but we do not know regarding all of them.

    That’s right.  My daughter felt he wanted to satisfy the requirement in another way.  Joseph went on and experimented with many things.

    • Like 1
  12. 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

    What is the way to expect institutions to be accountable without recognition of institutional guilt?

    It's human beings who make mistakes, not the institution of the Church. 

    This is from the title page of the Book of Mormon: "to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

    Meadowchik, you strike me as a sincere person and I have enjoyed some of your questions.  Very thought provoking.  I believe there have been mistakes made by well intentioned people, starting with Adam and Eve.  Learning from our mistakes is an important part of mortality.  I am always surprised to see anyone assigning blame for their circumstances or their feelings to another person.   "If the Church would only apologize for decisions made over a hundred years ago..."  The Church acted and revoked the practice of polygamy.  What further would you want from an apology?  Remorse?  Regret?  There is nothing preventing you from disagreeing with the practice back then.  It is okay to have doubts and concerns about ideas or practices from long ago.  That is where faith comes in.   We can seek the knowledge to help us understand.  Our 9th Article of Faith states: " We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does no reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  We can have those things revealed to us.  But the proper channel to reveal them to the Church is through the prophet.    
     
    I baptized a black man and his wife and daughter  back in 1977.  My Mother said "I could never join a church that wouldn't let a black man hold the priesthood."  Several months later, our daughter was born and it was time for her to receive a name and a blessing.  We invited my parents to the service.  That particular fast Sunday, the good man and his daughter decided to bear their testimonies for the first time.   He stood and said "I don't know why God won't let me have the priesthood and take my family to the Temple right now.  But I have prayed about it.  I have been assured by the Spirit of God that the day will come when I will have every blessing that any other member has.  I have read and prayed about the Book of Mormon, and I know it is true.  That's why I was baptized, and am glad to be a member of this church."  Within the year, the priesthood was given to every worthy male in the Church.
     
    I asked Mom "What are your thoughts about Bro. Bailey's testimony?"  What do you think she said?  She said "Well, I could never join a church that wouldn't let me have my coffee."
     
    So the problem she had with blacks and the priesthood was apparently a red herring.  I'm sure you and many others have sincere disagreements.  One of my children asked "Why did Joseph Smith copy sections of the King James Bible?"  I said "I've heard that when he saw the same doctrine being preached in the new world as was preached in the old, he copied what he could for convenience sake."  He said “That makes sense to me.  I’ll never ask that question again.”! My son then pivoted to "Well, Joseph Smith committed polyandry.  What about that?  And Polygamy?  The Book of Mormon was plagiarized from another book. What about that? "  "Blacks and the priesthood."  The way the Church feels about LGBTQ," Etc.  There was no end to his pivoting.  I go back to Bro. Bailey's formula, because it's been mine too.  Pray about it.  For me, if the answer is "It's true," then I embrace it.  If false, I would walk away.  I have had the truth of it confirmed to me many times over and over.
     
    Regarding Polygamy, my daughter teaches Seminary.  Last year, the subject of polygamy came up.  She didn't want to teach it because she didn't feel good about it.  She told her class "This is one area I don't feel comfortable or qualified to teach because I don't like the idea of polygamy.  I will fast and pray this weekend for confirmation.  Will you pray for me?"  When she taught seminary on Monday, she told them she had studied and prayed and received a confirmation that it was a true doctrine.  When Joseph Smith first received the revelation, he did not want to participate in it.   There were women in the Church who were married to non believing husbands.  Joseph felt he could satisfy the commandment by marrying those wives for eternity.  That way, the marriages would not need to be consumated in this life.  Through further study, she became convinced that Joseph's motives were good, and he was trying to follow what God had commanded him to do.  She believes now that Joseph was indeed acting in his office as the mouthpiece of God.  That is her.  Brigham Young says everyone is entitled to their own revelation as to what is true.   So I wish you the very best in sorting this all out.
     
    • Like 4
  13. 15 hours ago, Vedrfolnyr said:

    Please tell me.how this is revelation from Nelson's mouth? Most likely this is advice from the quorum at Kirton-Mconkie advising the church.

    I believe such a serious statement that seems to go against a cherished Constitutional right of American citizens would need to be signed off by the prophet.  My covenant to sustain the Brethren trumps my right to bring a gun to Church.

    • Like 1
  14. 7 hours ago, Calm said:

    What I can’t get my head around is the low probability of encountering gun violence against oneself or others is so front and center in people’s thoughts and motivations for choice while the possibility of unexpected suicide appears to be distant. 

    Suicide can be “out of the blue”. So why  not prepare for that where possible?  Saying you will lock it up so family can’t get to it is all well and good, but what if it is you that gets hit off balance somehow?

    https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/suicide-often-not-preceded-by-warnings-201209245331

    I appreciate the health.harvard.edu link and article.  It's something everyone should read and take seriously.  I know a family who lost an adult son to suicide.  He was very pleasant in the morning when they left for the Temple.  But sometime during the day he made a decision.  It was preceded by most of the warnings over the prior month or so.  But the family thought he was getting better.  He knew what to say to divert their attention from his suicidal thoughts.  He had witnessed a suicide.  The article says it is easier for someone to act out on what they have witnessed.  The morning he acted, he appeared to be very much at peace and moving in a positive direction.  20/20 hindsight, he had made a decision that he was comfortable with.  The parents and some siblings have had moments of remorse because they feel they should have known what was going on.  Now, after the fact, they have read all the symptoms and wondered why they didn't do it before.  

    We don't know why the Church has restricted weapons on Church property.  Your theory that the odds of gun violence at Church are so low  there is a higher probability of an accident or sudden (suicidal) event, etc. makes as much sense as anything.  I trust the Brethren.  I sustain them.  I'm not going to second guess them or try to persuade them to go against the inspiration from above.  I say "And should we die before our journey's through, happy day.  All is well.  We then are free from toil and sorrow too. With the just we shall dwell."

    • Like 1
  15. 4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

    On that note, this is why I believe the church as an institution would also benefit from an opnely-acknowledged repentence process. I believe as I member, I will help enable this process by expecting the leaders and the representatives of the institution to engage in it. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

    Are you referring to issues such as the revelation on priesthood, or the sins of individual members who served in leadership positions?  Regarding the first part, I believe the Church is moving in that direction with mea culpa for past policy or mistakes.  I believe individual transgression should be handled privately.  Church discipline can include excommunication that local members are often aware of.   Things that are illegal should be referred to the authorities and tried and their shame shouted from the rooftops.  The problem with calling out Church leaders and others publicly is that some or even many accusations are wrong.  There was a time in the 80’s when therapy elicited vivid but false memories of severe childhood events that destroyed families.  Look up “False Memory Syndrome.”  

    False memory syndrome, also called recovered memory, pseudomemory, and memory distortion, the experience, usually in the context of adult psychotherapy, of seeming to remember events that never actually occurred. These pseudomemories are often quite vivid and emotionally charged, especially those representing acts of abuse or violence committed against the subject during childhood.

    We had a wonderful family in our ward devastated by accusations by adult daughters on opposite sides of the world.  They remembered their father participating in evil rituals in a stake center cultural hall involving human sacrifice.  The memories were false, of course.  But the idea “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” prevailed.  “Two or more witnesses.”  The family was torn apart by divorce and alienation.  I saw the father 30 years later in the Temple.  He said his life had been destroyed.  We also had a truly wonderful stake president with two children who suffered from false memory syndrome during that time.  Very devastating while accusations are flying.  Should there be discipline where serious sin exists?  Of course.  Most should be private, in my opinion.  I sustain the First Presidency in the way they handle controversy.  Where they err, (as human beings can do sometimes,) God will bring it to light at the appropriate time and place, in my opinion.  Otherwise, the focus is to preach Christ and Him crucified and the things that are appendages to that.

    • Like 1
  16. 43 minutes ago, Vedrfolnyr said:

    I have always carried at church and I always will. Look, the church is building it's own firearms training center for the leaders security teams. Please tell my why my beautiful wife and awesome kids don't deserve the same protection? Pres. Nelson, Bednar, Oaks could walk down any street in the world (besides SLC) and no one would have any who they were. So don't tell me that there is a credible threat against them that justifies them having armed security that also doesn't exist against my family and ward members. I feel that it is extremely hypocritical to tell the average member that they are less valuable than the self-important folks who make the rules for us but not them.

    Do you believe President Nelson is the Lord’s mouthpiece on earth?  If so, why would you choose not to follow his counsel?  How do you feel about the Temple Recommend questions?  Would they have any bearing on your decision?

    • Like 1
  17. 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

    Their hearts were changed, they humbled themselves, they trusted God to the end where they were presumably "saved." So basically, they believed in God and they felt good. I agree that that is a significant good.

    Thank you for your thoughts here Meadowchik.  You ask some very good and thought provoking questions, from my point of view  Yes, they felt good because they experienced a mighty change of heart.  What was that change?  I believe it was the change from sin and sorrow, carrying around the big bag of regrets that many of us carry, to the joy of having that burden physically removed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  It was a real experience with several lifelong payoffs for those who endured (and endure.)

    1.  Because they made an effort to live virtuous lives, they became sources of light, improving the lives of other people.

    2.  Because they turned away from sin, they left the people they met in better shape than they would have had they not had the mighty change of heart.

    3.  They left people they would have offended with fewer regrets and greater happiness.  Think of their parents, siblings, children and friends all associating with a better person than the one they knew before that person experienced the mighty change.  (Very similar to point #2.)

    4.  The mighty change saved them for their mortal lives.  The hope of eternal life gave them more peace and purpose than they could have had without experiencing the mighty change of heart.  They do significantly more good in their lives for the world around them than they otherwise would have.

    I would say that believing in God is more than an experience that makes one feel good.  It is more than “a significant good.”  I believe it is The most significant good that one obtains in this life.

    Speaking of our great Mother Eve in Moses 5:11: “And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.”

    Thats what mortality is all about in my opinion: making mistakes, recognizing our desperate need for the Savior, and experiencing the mighty change of heart.  That is the most significant good in life, in my opinion.

    • Like 2
  18. On 8/30/2019 at 2:11 PM, Meadowchik said:

    Good question ;)

    What is good about believing in God, specifically, what is inherently good about it? 

    Would you say this is inherently good:

    ”10 And now I ask of you on what conditions are they saved? Yea, what grounds had they to hope for salvation? What is the cause of their being loosed from the bands of death, yea, and also the chains of hell?
    11 Behold, I can tell you—did not my father Alma believe in the words which were delivered by the mouth of Abinadi? And was he not a holy prophet? Did he not speak the words of God, and my father Alma believe them?
    12 And according to his faith there was a mighty change wrought in his heart. Behold I say unto you that this is all true.
    13 And behold, he preached the word unto your fathers, and a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God. And behold, they were faithful until the end; therefore they were saved.”  Alma 5:10-13

    It sounds good to me, and confirms the experiences I have been having the past forty plus years.  But that could be just me. 😃

    • Like 4
  19. 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

    You are correct, however, in your observation that a would-be mass murderer is unlikely to let such a thing stop him. If there are typically armed security at a temple, I’m unaware of it. 

    Correct, but far less likely to succeed than in a chapel.

    • Like 1
  20. 1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

    So @Meerkat, have you re-evaluated this position?  Do you now understand that killers don't care about temple recommend interviews, or elderly kind people sitting at desks with scanners?

    I understood that from the beginning and support the 2nd Amendment.  

    This is what I said earlier about the new policy, and why I embrace it:

    ”My 2nd Amendment supporting son said he had a confirmation that the new policy was the right thing to do.  I also support the 2nd Amendment and had expressed disappointment in this new policy.

    He referred to Helaman 5:12 "And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall."

    Will there be tragedies in the world, in and out of the Church due to mentally ill, or other people?  Yes, there will be.  Will there be accidents?  Of course.  Will planes crash and people still fly?  Probably.  The question is, are we led by a prophet?  If so, we raise our hand to sustain him in conference which means we sustain him when he and the brethren set policy.  Are our leaders fallible?  Sometimes.  Is this one of those times?  It really doesn't matter.  Maybe they know something we don't know.  Maybe the Lord has His reasons.  It may be a test of faith for some or many of us.  Regardless, I believe the Lord sustains Russell M. Nelson a prophet of the Lord, and we covenant to do the same.  

    Sheri Dew, in her introduction to President Nelson's biography "Insight," referred to a time when Laman and Lemuel murmered against Nephi, threatening to kill him in 2 Nephi 5.  Nephi said "And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me."  That probably includes me, and most of you.

    He went on to say "Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me.  And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words." 

    Due to the home centered Church revelation, and the effects of teaching in the Savior's way, I believe Russell M. Nelson is the Lord's mouthpiece on earth.  Had I not that belief, I can see how it could be challenging to accept the new policy.  But I do believe these things, and that's why I accept the policy.

    • Like 2
  21. 1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

    Can you explain how there isn't any comparison? I don't understand the recommend process as a deterrent. A mass murderer isn't going to respect the fact that he's not allowed in without a recommend. You mentioned identification security -- is there actual security in the temple?

    You could say the same thing about airport security.  Because there is a screening process, and the barriers of a line, recommend checker and multiple walls before getting to any large group of people, undesirable actors get weeded out.  I suppose it’s possible for an armed person with bad intentions to enter.  Just not likely— especially compared to a chapel.

    7 hours ago, Meerkat said:

    Due to the two levels of Temple recommend interviews, and the identification security at the Temple entrance, I don’t see any comparison between Temple attendance versus a Church building open to the public.

  22. 4 hours ago, Calm said:

    I am interested in how people would feel emotionally about it if possible. 

    Until the new rule came out, the question never crossed my mind in forty five years.  Not once.  We felt secure and peaceful in all church buildings and settings.

    Being consistent in a worldwide Church may be another reason.  I don’t like it, but am okay with it.

    • Like 1
  23. 3 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

    If the purpose is to protect against shooters and conceal carry wouldn't quite work with what is worn in temples, why not open carry? Isn't there a similar risk in temples of being shot as at a Sunday church meeting?

    Due to the two levels of Temple recommend interviews, and the identification security at the Temple entrance, I don’t see any comparison between Temple attendance versus a Church building open to the public.  The risk should be next to nothing in the Temple.  However, the new policy still applies if the qualifier is “on church grounds.”

    8 hours ago, Ahab said:

    Mainly it's just a way for the Church to avoid legal responsibility for the acts of it's members since the Church legal reps could then say something like, "No, your honor, that shooter acted against how we told him to act so he wasn't acting on our authority when he brought that weapon into the building."

    I think Ahab May be on to something here.  By and large, American Church members are pro 2nd Amendment.  We are generally a more “pro Prophet” Church though.  The Brethren are also conscientious about doing what they can to protect the good name of the Church, hence the “no gun” rule.  

    I think the risk of attack in a chapel setting is quite low because, even without weapons, members are generally “True Believers” who would run toward the attacker and lay down their lives to protect other congregants.

  24. My 2nd Amendment supporting son said he had a confirmation that the new policy was the right thing to do.  I also support the 2nd Amendment and had expressed disappointment in this new policy.

    He referred to Helaman 5:12 "And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall."

    Will there be tragedies in the world, in and out of the Church due to mentally ill, or other people?  Yes, there will be.  Will there be accidents?  Of course.  Will planes crash and people still fly?  Probably.  The question is, are we led by a prophet?  If so, we raise our hand to sustain him in conference which means we sustain him when he and the brethren set policy.  Are our leaders fallible?  Sometimes.  Is this one of those times?  It really doesn't matter.  Maybe they know something we don't know.  Maybe the Lord has His reasons.  It may be a test of faith for some or many of us.  Regardless, I believe the Lord sustains Russell M. Nelson a prophet of the Lord, and we covenant to do the same.  

    Sheri Dew, in her introduction to President Nelson's biography "Insight," referred to a time when Laman and Lemuel murmered against Nephi, threatening to kill him in 2 Nephi 5.  Nephi said "And it came to pass that the Lord did warn me, that I, Nephi, should depart from them and flee into the wilderness, and all those who would go with me."  That probably includes me, and most of you.

    He went on to say "Wherefore, it came to pass that I, Nephi, did take my family, and also Zoram and his family, and Sam, mine elder brother and his family, and Jacob and Joseph, my younger brethren, and also my sisters, and all those who would go with me.  And all those who would go with me were those who believed in the warnings and the revelations of God; wherefore, they did hearken unto my words." 

    Due to the home centered Church revelation, and the effects of teaching in the Savior's way, I believe Russell M. Nelson is the Lord's mouthpiece on earth.  Had I not that belief, I can see how it could be challenging to accept the new policy.  But I do believe these things, and that's why I accept the policy.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • Create New...