bluebell

You and I, and everybody else who has read your posts, know that you are not open to correction.

Palm Sunday is biblical though.

Are you suggesting that Palm Sunday is creedal? I’m not sure I’m following your reasoning right.

We have quite a few ex Mormons on the board who post with integrity. I don’t always agree with them, but I always respect their voices and appreciate their contributions here. I agree that he’s angry and here to spread that anger around as much as he can, but just because he’s not a true believing latter day saint doesn’t mean he can’t be honest in his approach.

If you really were the active member that you claim to be, then you would know that all of these issues are very nuanced, and many (like the stuff in the refuted 'mormon doctrine' book, are historical at this point). That you pretend they aren't nuanced is another example of the half truths you like to portray as whole fact in your posts. Either you know what you are doing, and should try to be more honest in your approach. Or you don't know what you are doing because you don't know as much about our doctrine as you thought you did, and you should try to be more honest in your approach by admitting that. Like mustardseed said, there's plenty for you to sincerely and honestly criticize and complain about if that's brings you joy.

It's kind of your MO in your posts but as far as this thread is concerned, you implied that the church teaches or believes that the Catholic church is the "whore of all the earth" spoken of in the scriptures when we don't. We have had leaders who associated the two in the distant past, but the church has refuted that. You implied that the church believes that Everyone else is “playing church” according to a recent statement by an lds general authority when the church doesn't believe that, it wasn't said by a GA, was said in a fireside and not authoritatively, and many members of the church thought it was horrible that he said it. You also stated that the counselors in the general YM's presidency are in a position of very high influence with the youth… esp juvenile male priesthood holders when they serve for about 3 years before they are replaced, are quickly forgotten, and most of us (active members and not) could not name more than 2-3 who served in that position over the last 20 years without having to look them up (and Wilcox would be one of the 2-3). Same goes for those who served as the president. They are leaders but I don't know that anyone would classify them as in a position of high influence. They hardly ever even speak in General Conference. You also implied that the church believes/teaches that all other churches are an abomination and we don't do that either. I think those are enough examples in the four posts of yours that I've read in the thread.

Exactly. The embellishments and half truths that are are fond of throwing out there to try to make your points are your bad.

I loved that show as a teen. It was one of the first VHS that I ever owned. I haven't seen it in ages though.

That statement was made in 2022 during a church fireside and he got a lot of flak for the comment (and others he made during that talk) because it is not something the church teaches or most members believe. He also was not a general authority. He was a counselor in the YM's general presidency. A leader for sure, but not a GA.

Hugs to you too morgan.

There have been many times in my life when I have had this exact perspective, and then things happened which changed my view. I don't feel like it's my place to challenge your perspective on things right now, so I won't say anything else, except that it's a very hard place to be in and there can be a lot of hurt. So (((hugs))).

Someone in a general conference quite a few years ago said that we can’t use faith to cause an outcome that is against the will of the person (Christ) we have faith in. Only he said it much more eloquently and I don’t remember the direct quote. That was a good reminder to me at the time because I’m pretty sure I had had lessons growing up in the church or heard talks that implied (at least to my younger mind) that we could use faith to create any righteous outcome if we just believed hard enough. There is definitely the tendency in the church to believe and teach that if something good isn’t happening to you then your faith just isn’t strong enough.

I will! The plague hit my family this weekend so lots of movie watching. Are you There God? It's Me, Margaret was really good. I loved the book as a kid and was really happy with the way they did the movie and the actors they chose. Also finally watched Rental Family with Brenden Fraser and loved it.

I don't think it's wrong.

It doesn't and I don't know why. I thought maybe it was because being Jewish is an ethnic group and being Christian isn't, but being Native American is also an ethnic group and it doesn't sound bad to me either. I think it probably has to do with the history associated with terms, especially the term "jew" and how it was used to completely remove the humanity of the person so that they could be killed without remorse. Those within the group can certainly refer to themselves however they want, but being outside of the group, I wouldn't be comfortable saying something like 'There are a lot of Jews here....'

There is also the possibility that this verse in Isaiah isn't only speaking about what happened in Gethsemane. The stripes he is speaking of happened before the crucifixion, for example. Perhaps the 'bruising' term is referring to wounds that happened throughout the process and not specifically in the garden. It could also be a symbolic reference to Jesus being crushed by the weight of the sins of the world. (I haven't read any other posts so I apologize if this has already been brought up)

I bet "blacks and the priesthood" is where it comes from. I reminds me of when someone says "Jews" rather than Jewish people. I can't exactly explain why but it just sounds off and cringey.

Prayers Rod!

I don’t think the town council deserves any thanks but it was nice for the church to offer it anyway.

I think it's helpful when we can recognize that a 'good answer' to us isn't a good answer to everyone. The reverse is also true. A problem to us is not a problem to everyone. This isn't necessarily because of differences in morality or knowledge or maturity. Often it's just because we are different. Full stop. Both groups are really good at projecting moral failings onto those with different perspectives and reactions to similar information. It's a defense mechanism for sure and another way to feel better when something is uncomfortable. It's also just another version of an echo chamber where the only voices we allow ourselves to hear are the ones that tell us we are right. Echo chambers are bad bad bad. And so comforting.

It doesn't even make sense. Elder Holland stood out for years as a 'fan favorite' but there didn't appear to be any friction over it.

I know you didn’t ask me, but I think in this situation you would have to turn to God to see what He wants you to do. I think it would also depend on what kind of “wrong“ we were talking about. Policy wrong and morally wrong are vastly different things. And I don’t think we should outsource our decision-making to the spirit either. I think we would have to really ponder and come up with a plan for how to proceed, but then I think we have a duty to go to God for confirmation if that’s how He would want us to handle it. Knowing that they said something that is incorrect or want you to do something that isn’t what you should do doesn’t mean that we can then proceed based on our own beliefs or desires.

I'd say no, it's not sinful. They are called as special witnesses of Christ and as watchmen on the tower. Believing every word they utter about God or the gospel is dictated to them by the Spirit would be looking beyond the mark, in my opinion, and would also mean a belief that they were infallible. And they clearly aren't.

Exactly.

The certain conditions required to keep the law of chastity are not applied to everyone though. That's like saying that a race to the top of a tree between an eel and a squirrel is the same for both because they are both required to go the same distance. When conditions favor one person and disfavor another, through no fault of anyone involved then the conditions do not apply equally, the conditions are not the same. That alone doesn't mean that the conditions are unfair. That's a different topic.