A Very Refreshing Ensign Article...Cudos To The Church

[ttribe]

You are calling LDS doctrine a bunch of junk? Apostacy is not only a sin, but the greatest of all sins. It is funny that members will shun a family member for having a cup of coffee, yet try to be understanding when a family member apos0tatizes. Do you think the Ensign would publish an article about a woman whose husband started drinking beer every night while looking at porn, but she needs to learn to love him and accept him because he is just practicing free agency?

I believe it is your interpretation of said doctrine, coupled with your apparent dogmatic arrogance, that is the cause of his "bunch of junk" comment.

Edited June 23, 2012 by ttribe

[John Ping Pong]

Apostacy is not only a sin, but the greatest of all sins.

Good news for Pol Pot.

It is funny that members will shun a family member for having a cup of coffee, yet try to be understanding when a family member apos0tatizes. Do you think the Ensign would publish an article about a woman whose husband started drinking beer every night while looking at porn, but she needs to learn to love him and accept him because he is just practicing free agency?

You seem to be arguing against yourself here. The publishers of The Ensign seem to think apostasy less serious than drinking beer and looking at porn.

[DBMormon]

DEFENDER----

You are calling LDS doctrine a bunch of junk? Apostacy is not only a sin, but the greatest of all sins. It is funny that members will shun a family member for having a cup of coffee, yet try to be understanding when a family member apos0tatizes. Do you think the Ensign would publish an article about a woman whose husband started drinking beer every night while looking at porn, but she needs to learn to love him and accept him because he is just practicing free agency?

The greatest sin is to deny the HG. In order to do that one has to know of a surety the truth and then still side with Satan in open rebellion. Loss of belief or faith is not the same thing. You show me an leader in the last 50 years in a general conference talk or in a manual or church magazine saying that someone who no longer knows if the church is true is committing the greatest of all sins and I will apoligize to you. Otherwise you are teaching false doctrine and way off track. What your saying is not true.

For the greatest sin of denying the Holy Ghost there is not forgiveness in this world or the world to come. From loss of belief, one can repent and be forgiven.... your wrong on this.

No leader has said what you have said and yet you have a right to declare what they won't?

Edited June 22, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

DEFENDER -----

Encyclopedia on Mormonism - edited and approved by Elder Neal A Maxwell and Elder Dallin H Oaks.

LDS scriptures establish a loving and hopeful attitude toward apostates. Latter-day Saints are strongly counseled to love those who have left the faith, and to encourage, plead, and work with those who have strayed, inviting "the lost sheep" back to the fold (Luke 15:3-7). Of the wayward, the resurrected Savior taught, "Ye shall not cast him out of your…places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them" (3 Ne. 18:32). The desire to return is motivated by the reality of repentance enabled by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. "He who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them" (D&C 58:42-43). [See alsoAnti-Mormon Publications; Schismatic Groups.]

How are you doing with these principles?

Apostates sometimes become enemies of the Church. Leaving the Church, which claims to be God's official church, containing the fulness of the gospel, often results in feelings of guilt. While many return, others develop a need to defend their actions, "disprove" the Church, or become hostile enemies. The fruits of apostasy are generally bitter. The Book of Mormon warns of unfavorable conditions that result from transgression contrary to "light and knowledge"

while bad consequences for loss of belief doesn't sound like the worst sin ever!!!

Edited June 22, 2012 by DBMormon

[rodheadlee]

The greatest sin is to deny the HG. In order to do that one has to know of a surety the truth and then still side with Satan in open rebellion. Loss of belief or faith is not the same thing. You show me an leader in the last 50 years in a general conference talk or in a manual or church magazine saying that someone who no longer knows if the church is true is committing the greatest of all sins and I will apoligize to you. Otherwise you are teaching false doctrine and way off track. What your saying is not true.

For the greatest sin of denying the Holy Ghost there is not forgiveness in this world or the world to come. From loss of belief, one can repent and be forgiven.... your wrong on this.

No leader has said what you have said and yet you have a right to declare what they won't?

So if I have a driving down the road, eyes wide open vision of my wife's funeral and by the miralcle of many prayers her cancer is caught early and none is present in her body to date, Then, later I deny that I had the vision and decided that she was just lucky, I wouldn't be denying the Holy Ghost? Or if the Holy Ghost tells me "Go and be sealed to thine wife, before it's too late" and then later I just decided I was daydreaming and I don't need to be sealed, that wouldn't be denying the Holy Ghost?

I still haven't figured out the too late part.

[DBMormon]

DEFENDER ----

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

No man can sin against light until he has it; nor against the Holy Ghost, until after he has received it by the gift of God through the appointed channel or way. To sin against the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, the Witness of the Father and the Son, wilfully denying him and defying him, after having received him, constitutes [the unpardonable sin]. 16

No man can possibly commit the unpardonable sin in ignorance. A man must be brought to a knowledge of Christ; he must receive a testimony of Christ in his heart, and possess light and power, knowledge and understanding, before he is capable of committing that sin. But when a man turns away from the truth, violates the knowledge that he has received, tramples it under his feet, puts Christ again to open shame, denies His atonement, denies the power of the resurrection, denies the miracles that He has wrought for the salvation of the human family, and says in his heart, “It is not true”, and abides in that denial of the truth, after having received the testimony of the Spirit, he commits the unpardonable sin. 17

it can not be in ignorance. Now perhaps some individuals here are rebelling openly knowing the church is true and what they are doing is wrong, but likely are doing so in ignorance (no offense to unbelievers), no longer knowing whether the church is true or not or thinking it is false.

Edited June 22, 2012 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

So if I have a driving down the road, eyes wide open vision of my wife's funeral and by the miralcle of many prayers her cancer is caught early and none is present in her body to date, Then, later I deny that I had the vision and decided that she was just lucky, I wouldn't be denying the Holy Ghost? Or if the Holy Ghost tells me "Go and be sealed to thine wife, before it's too late" and then later I just decided I was daydreaming and I don't need to be sealed, that wouldn't be denying the Holy Ghost?

so any imperfection in our not doing what God has prompted us to do is the great unpardonable sin? No. It is up to each to judge for themselves but I say no.

[DBMormon]

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Unpardonable_Sin

The gravest of all sins is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. One may speak even against Jesus Christ in ignorance and, upon repentance, be forgiven, but knowingly to sin against the Holy Ghost by denying its influence after having received it is unpardonable

The Prophet Joseph Smith explained, "No man can commit the unpardonable sin after the dissolution of the body, nor in this life, until he receives the Holy Ghost" (TPJS, p. 357). To commit the unpardonable sin, a person "must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him…. he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened to him, and to deny the Plan of Salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it"

[cwald]

That was one of the most awful and exclusive posts I've read yet, Defender.

I appreciate your response dbmormon. I wish more faithful would call bunk when it is so obvious. Perhaps you and I agree more about the churches universalism than we know....perhaps you are correct about the church in that regard...but you must see why I see the church as anything but, because of member statements like defender's.

[Calm]

That was one of the most awful and exclusive posts I've read yet, Defender.

I appreciate your response dbmormon. I wish more faithful would call bunk when it is so obvious.

At least three stepped in to challenge him in this thread alone, considering the total number of posters that have posted since his response, that is a very significant number.

[cwald]

Touche'

[cwald]

At least three stepped in to challenge him in this thread alone, considering the total number of posters that have posted since his response, that is a very significant number.

Yeah. Perhaps some members in this forum should reopen that discussion about the possibilities of who those wolves in sheep clothing might be?

[DBMormon]

I appreciate your response dbmormon. I wish more faithful would call bunk when it is so obvious. Perhaps you and I agree more about the churches universalism than we know....perhaps you are correct about the church in that regard...but you must see why I see the church as anything but, because of member statements like defender's.

There are those on extremes in every faith. At the very least you can't let a bad apple reflect the church in general, that would be like letting child abusing parent represent all parents... that is not at all appropriate to take any one person's conduct to represent the group. I think most here are genuine... there are about 6 posters who like confrontation and believe at the extreme end of the spectrum. Universalism.... no. Like I said I am right with Elder Jensen, as I want better information and more empathy towards those who struggle by everyday mormons. I wouldn't change the doctrine, the restoration story other then to better reflect it's history, or the organization. I love it the way it is.

[Calm]

Yeah. Perhaps some members in this forum should reopen that discussion about the possibilities of who those wolves in sheep clothing might be?

Please no.

[DBMormon]

I am not for labels, they rarely ever stick unless your Ed Decker or Bendict Arnold

[selek1]

I am not for labels, they rarely ever stick unless your Ed Decker or Bendict Arnold

I think we owe General Arnold a second look across history. There are some very interesting parallels between Arnold and Moroni that are worth exploring.

Arnold's tactical brilliance and energy almost single-handedly kept America in the War during the first two years of the Revolutionary War. He nearly bankrupted himself twice by paying for arms, ammunition, food, and equipment to feed and supply his men while the bureaucrats ****ered over who would get the kickbacks that week.

Despite being America's most effective combat General, he was twice passed over for promotion in favor of (borderline incompetent) political appointees who'd greased their way through bribes and politicking.

While General Arnold was leading men in battle, these men were greasing their way through the vasty halls of cronyism.

Arnold's downfall came in two parts: first and foremost, he remarried- his new wife was the favored daughter of a prominent Tory family from New York. While it might not be fair to call her a dilettante and a spend-thrift, it is fair to point our that keeping her in the style to which she was accustomed added to a woeful state of affairs caused by Arnold's loyalty to a sometimes faithless and ungrateful nation.

As his debts came due and his situation grew even bleaker, a friend of Arnold's wife offered a significant bribe.

Shamefully, Arnold took it- and betrayed the cause in which he had nobly led, bled, and suffered.

That decision haunted him the rest of his life. Not the consequences of the decision- but the decision itself.

General Arnold's last words were, "Let me die in my old American uniform, and God forgive me for having put on any other."

There is shame in Arnold's actions. But there is also shame in that our leaders left one of America's noblest sons in a position where he felt he had only one way out.

No- we owe Arnold another look across history- both for the sake of his honor, and ours.

[DBMormon]

Selek

Now where's the piece defending Ed Decker's honor?

[selek1]

Now where's the piece defending Ed Decker's honor?

I write fiction as a hobby- not an avocation.

Or as Scotty would say, "Capn, ye canna change the laws of physics!"

[selek1]

It has been argued (rightly) in this thread that one cannot be saved (or damned) in ignorance, nor disobey a law or betray a light and witness that one has not received.

I utterly, and completely agree with that sentiment.

One cannot be a Son of Perdition (be careful about throwing that term around, btw- it makes the mods twitchy) unless one knowingly and wilfully rejects the Holy Ghost and wars against the Church.

The problem is, this is not an either/or situation.

We learn eternal principles line upon line, precept upon precept.

At any point along that path: at any line, at any precept, we can betray what light we have received.

Would I suggest that Ed Decker is an anti-Christ: you betcha. He waged a deliberate and heated war against the Church and was less than scrupulously honest in the merhods by which he waged that war. He claimed to be a Christian- but was not above lying, defamation, and distortion in order to achieve his ends.

Would I consider him a Son of Perdition? That's trickier. By his own admission, he had a testimony which he later discarded (he reasoned his way out of it).

While he may not have knowingly rejected the Holy Ghost, he did betray what light he had already received.

That was a choice he made willfully and deliberately.

What then is the objective difference between a Son of Perdition (who knows that he is waging a war against Christ and the Saints) and the fellow traveller/useful idiot who simply carries his water?

Both are waging war against God's Church. Both would destroy it if they could. Both would drag innocent souls into damnation if they may.

[DBMormon]

agreed the outcome is the same their accountability differs

[cwald]

There are those on extremes in every faith. At the very least you can't let a bad apple reflect the church in general....

That is why I am here. I need to know and understand if that kind of post/thought is typical and what the church membership actually teach and believe, or if it just a bad apple...a "wolf in sheep clothing" apostate, which is what I got accused of being the day I signed up here.

I need to know what the church is about...if I am welcome to be part of it with my faith and belief...regardless of what some members have told me in the past, and on this site.

[Calm]

I am not sure how this board could help you figure out what is typical in the Church as posters here tend to be atypical church members (if they are members) from their own descriptions.

Are you looking for cultural or doctrinal information?

[cwald]

I am not sure how this board could help you figure out what is typical in the Church as posters here tend to be atypical church members (if they are members) from their own descriptions.

Are you looking for cultural or doctrinal information?

I don't understand the difference as far as the members i know are concerned. What is the difference?

Example... Is not drinking tea and coffee a cultural or doctrinal issue? It certainly is not part of the Scriptures or the WOW revelation.

It seems to be just a phophet interpretation of d&c 89. It seems to be both a cultural and doctrinal commandment.

Temples?

White shirts?

Polygamy?

Monogamy?

Three hour block?

14 F's of the Prophet?

Tithing?

I'm not asking to debate these things...just trying to understand if what i perceive the membership believes, is actually what the church teaches, and the members actually believe.

Edited June 23, 2012 by cwald

[Calm]

Doctrine would be what can be found in the Gospel Principles manual at lds.org. Official practice and policy is what can be found in the Church Handbook (part 2, which is online at lds.org, is the one most members have to do with, part 1 being for bishops and stake presidents and those who work directly with them).

Cultural varies from ward to ward, stake to stake, region to region, country to country, etc. often varies due to how rigid or relaxed of interpretation of the handbooks are or how much tradition has developed overtime in the ward.

[DBMormon]

That is why I am here. I need to know and understand if that kind of post/thought is typical and what the church membership actually teach and believe, or if it just a bad apple...a "wolf in sheep clothing" apostate, which is what I got accused of being the day I signed up here.

I need to know what the church is about...if I am welcome to be part of it with my faith and belief...regardless of what some members have told me in the past, and on this site.

What are your experiences at church?

Can't spell everything out... We believe there are still many great things yet to be revealed. article of faith.

CWALD - I like you but I need to be blunt. While I struggle at times with the way we tell the history and the like, I beleive the basics of the church. as the saying goes... CWALD - you have to stand for something or you will fall for anything. Go read the gospel principles book af Calmoriah stated It is a good source of the basics truths or doctrine of the church. See if you can accept that. Then read the baptismal questions. See if you can believe that... then nurture the seed even if you can no more then desire to believe and let that have place within you. Nurture it.... see what happens...

What are your three biggest issues... be specific?