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

[DBMormon]

DEFENDER ----- where are you. I had asked some questions that seem to chase you away?????

CWALD - you dissapeared too.

[cwald]

DEFENDER ----- where are you. I had asked some questions that seem to chase you away?????

CWALD - you dissapeared too.

Just went to bed.

Three things huh? I'll try to summarize it without debating to much and going into a lot of details.

1. I do not accept the premise that the LDS church is the "one and only true church on the face of the earth." That just does not make sense to me and the spirit tells me it is not true. I do believe however that the LDS church is one pathway, a good pathway, one of many, that people can use to find the gods and peace, in this life and perhaps the next.

I will pretty well use the entire gospels as my reference for my belief, as well as Elder Poelmans 1982 GC talk about the differences between the church and gospel. That is what the spirit told me when I heard the talk.

2. I have a problem with the perceived focus on legalism and Pharisaical commandments. Reference - Pres. Urchtdorf's GC talk about the "shoulds and the should nots getting in the way of appreciating the gospel" and the fact that the church itself is quite proud of the fact that it is a "restoration" of old testament teachings, pretty well sums up my feelings on this.

I don't think god will be checking paper work at the gate, and I don't think he cares about white shirts, tea, garments, earrings, etc "all the unwritten order of things" etc etc....and i merely wish the members would listen to the prophets and focus a little more on compassion and love, and a little less on the shoulds and the should nots, especially at church, and when judging themselves and other members.

3. The entire premise of the 14 Fundamentals of the Prophet, and the perceived notion of worshipping the church and prophets. I guess I just see the church as a tool...not the end goal. My experience has been that it is much more important for so many of the membership and leaders to be loyal to the church, than to just follow the spirit. This is sad to me, because there are many many christ like Mormons, and I don't understand why loyalty to the church equates to being christ like to some people. I have no reference other than Oaks 2010 Oct GC talk...Two Lines of Communicaiton, and Pres. Bensons 1984 14 F's talk, that got reread into the record by Costa in 2010 Oct GC. I base this issue basically on my personal experience within the church...how people talk and teach, and what how they answer the "doubters" questions.

Thanks you for asking DBMormon, I'm not attacking your beliefs...I don't really care that we see it differently...I'm just trying to understand where the church membership is at and if there is a place for me in the LDS tribe...or if the church is mostly full of Selek types who have no tolerance or patience for those who have a different perception about the gospel. Hopefully this will not turn into a bash cwald's character because of his beliefs type of thread. Selek...no need to respond. I think I know how you feel about the issues.

Edited June 23, 2012 by cwald

[John Ping Pong]

Just went to bed.

Three things huh? I'll try to summarize it without debating to much and going into a lot of details.

I agree that all three things you list are problematic, and should not be considered essential to Mormonism, but may actually be deleterious to its foundational claims.

Do you take any solace from the fact a member of the First Presidency agrees with you on number two?

[DH]

I would. And not just of the majority, but everyone in that situation without exception. Unbelief IS sin according to D&C 58:15. Now lest one complain that that's too easy, let me go a step further and say other sins lead to unbelief and there is no other path to unbelief but other sins both of omission and commission.

Now this doesn't take away anything from the great and doctrinal (because of official publication) article; it merely is what it is.

Also check out the context of apostasy that goes with the above reference:

So what you're telling us, BCSpace, is that not believing the Church to be true is a sin because the Church says it's a sin (in the D&C). With all due respect, you're going to have to do better than that!

Edited June 23, 2012 by DH

[cwald]

I agree that all three things you list are problematic, and should not be considered essential to Mormonism, but may actually be deleterious to its foundational claims.

Do you take any solace from the fact a member of the First Presidency agrees with you on number two?

Yes.

I also sustained Elder Poelman as a prophet and seer.

[DBMormon]

I also sustained Elder Poelman as a prophet and seer

Poelman was a seventy so technichally not a prophet and seer for the church.

[cwald]

Poelman was a seventy so technichally not a prophet and seer for the church.

Oh, okay.

Edited June 23, 2012 by cwald

[DBMormon]

_{CWALD----- thank you for the three issues. You and I are good, don't worry about offending me, speak your mind with me, we're good. I will address your three issues from my perspective later tonight, if you don't mind?}

[cwald]

_{CWALD----- thank you for the three issues. You and I are good, don't worry about offending me, speak your mind with me, we're good. I will address your three issues from my perspective later tonight, if you don't mind?}

Thanks. No problem.

[John Ping Pong]

Poelman was a seventy so technichally not a prophet and seer for the church.

Sometimes I fear even the actual prophets and seers are so only technically.

[selek1]

1. I do not accept the premise that the LDS church is the "one and only true church on the face of the earth." That just does not make sense to me and the spirit tells me it is not true.

2. I have a problem with the perceived focus on legalism and Pharisaical commandments.

3. The entire premise of the 14 Fundamentals of the Prophet, and the perceived notion of worshipping the church and prophets.

I'm putting this as gently as I can- because I think it's something worth your hearing.

I took the liberty of shifting the emphasis in your statements slightly, to emphasize something I've noticed in your posts.

Each of your 3 quarrels with the Church involve your perception of what we teach- which may necessarily be different than what we actually do teach.

In your first point, you reject the idea that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims to be out of hand- because it "makes no sense" to you. You are- to put it simply- totally unreceptive to the idea. That being the case, how can the Spirit testify something to you that you are unwilling to hear?

It is not enough to simply ask the Spirit. One must be prepared and willing to accept whatever answer is given.

Your own statement suggests that you are not willing to accept an answer which affirms the Church.

----------------------------------

Your second point regards legalism and Pharasaical commandments. Setting aside the inflammatory tone of the qualifier- I'd be very interested in how you define both of these terms- because my own experience has been radically different than what you have implied.

Rather than emphasizing empty ritual or rules-for-rules'-sake, the Saints I've dealt with have been (almost universally) warm, gracious, welcoming, and accepting people- more interested in accompanying you on the road to Heaven than in numbering the items in your pack. That there are exceptions to the rule is a given- the Saints, after all, are only human.

So the question remains- where and how do you define "legalism" and "Pharaiacal commandments"?

-----------------------------------------------

Your third point presupposes that we are called to worship the Church and the Prophets in the Fourteen Fundamentals talk- but you've yet to show us where the talk demands, suggests, or requires any such deference?

You treat the charge as though it were transparently true and obvious- but I and others do not see it. Worse, you've left it to others to argue and refused to explain where and how you came to that conclusion. The Fourteen Fundamentals talk teaches us that it is wise to obey the Prophets (even if we're not entirely sure why)- but nothing more. Where, then is the call to worship or venerate the Prophets?

------------------------------------------------

Despite our somewhat rocky interactions thus far, I hope you'll take the time to answer my questions.

I am genuinely curious and interested in understanding where you stand and why.

[cwald]

Fine. I'll bite...but don't turn this into another flogging like the last time...And then I'm the guy who gets chastised by moderator.

...

I took the liberty of shifting the emphasis in your statements slightly, to emphasize something I've noticed in your posts.

Each of your 3 quarrels with the Church involve your perception of what we teach- which may necessarily be different than what we actually do teach.

In your first point, you reject the idea that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is what it claims to be out of hand- because it "makes no sense" to you. You are- to put it simply- totally unreceptive to the idea. That being the case, how can the Spirit testify something to you that you are unwilling to hear?

It is not enough to simply ask the Spirit. One must be prepared and willing to accept whatever answer is given.

Your own statement suggests that you are not willing to accept an answer which affirms the Church.

----------------------------------

Yes. I purposely used the term perspective. I've admitted that. I'm trying to find out if my "experience" and understanding with the church members is actually what the church believes and teaches. That is why I'm here today. The "wolves" over at stayLDS say that my perception is wrong...and I hope I am...but the churches fruits in my experience have not been good.

Are you willing to accept a different answer to the question rather than a yes? Are you willing to allow me to follow the spirit as I understand it? Or, like I heard at church...keep praying until you get the same answer we get...and if you get a different answer...you are getting your source from the devil (Oaks - Two Lines of Communication GC 2010)

I don't like to be told to pray and ask a question if the church is true, if there is only one right possible answer. What is the point? I asked. My answer obviously was different than yours. That is fine by me. Is it okay with the LDS members who sit with me in SM?

I think my original quote about my faith in the LDS church is quite magnanimous actually, and universal, I hope it would be enough to be welcome in your midst (church membership) without being labeled a wolf.

Edited June 24, 2012 by cwald

[cwald]

Your second point regards legalism and Pharasaical commandments. Setting aside the inflammatory tone of the qualifier- I'd be very interested in how you define both of these terms- because my own experience has been radically different than what you have implied.

Rather than emphasizing empty ritual or rules-for-rules'-sake, the Saints I've dealt with have been (almost universally) warm, gracious, welcoming, and accepting people- more interested in accompanying you on the road to Heaven than in numbering the items in your pack. That there are exceptions to the rule is a given- the Saints, after all, are only human.

So the question remains- where and how do you define "legalism" and "Pharaiacal commandments"?

-----------------------------------------------

I don't know what else to say. White shirts, tea, coffee, earrings, garments, right hand to take the sacrament, ties, beards, laundry lists of shoulds and should not (Urchtdorf)....all the covenants and rules required for temple and baptism....and hundreds of pages of CHI...you have to have TR to do this and that calling and this ordinance....and only married mormons with the right endowment paperwork make it to the CK. Yeah, that is what I perceive and call Pharisaical commandments and legalism.

If you don't see what I'm talking about...I don't know what else to say about it. It's my perception of the church.

Sure, it's easy to say the church doesn't do this, and that they are more interested in compassion and love and walking with you to heaven...but then they turn around and require that one believes this and does this and don't do that, and goes through a list of requirements just to get a TR for certain callings and attend the temple ...which is required to get the CK.

I have no problem if the church teaches this and believes it. I just want to know if they do or not, or if it is the people - man made doctrines, rather than the god's doctrine. And if I have to believe it and accept...or get called an apostate.

And I just don't think god cares that much about it. That is just my opinion.

Edited June 24, 2012 by cwald

[cwald]

Your third point presupposes that we are called to worship the Church and the Prophets in the Fourteen Fundamentals talk- but you've yet to show us where the talk demands, suggests, or requires any such deference?

You treat the charge as though it were transparently true and obvious- but I and others do not see it. Worse, you've left it to others to argue and refused to explain where and how you came to that conclusion. The Fourteen Fundamentals talk teaches us that it is wise to obey the Prophets (even if we're not entirely sure why)- but nothing more. Where, then is the call to worship or venerate the Prophets?

Nope. I don't expect you to agree with me. And if you can't understand what I am saying from the example of the 14 Fs of the prophet, and from the teaching that occur at church, than there really is no reason to continue debating it. The spirit is obviously tellling us different things and taking us down a slightly different path...one that hopefully will work for both of us.

[DBMormon]

1. I do not accept the premise that the LDS church is the "one and only true church on the face of the earth." That just does not make sense to me and the spirit tells me it is not true. I do believe however that the LDS church is one pathway, a good pathway, one of many, that people can use to find the gods and peace, in this life and perhaps the next.

I will pretty well use the entire gospels as my reference for my belief, as well as Elder Poelmans 1982 GC talk about the differences between the church and gospel. That is what the spirit told me when I heard the talk.

The Spirit tells me it is. So now we have 1 person who does and 1 person who doesn't. Realizing that most of the world hasn't seriously considered mormonism claims it would probably be safe to say that 10 million people have a spiritual testimony that the church is true and 10 million have a testimony it isn't. (I know there are 14 million members but some of them don't care and some are in the 10 million who "know" it's not true. So how do we decide?

Here is what I know

1.) Jesus of Nazareth laid hands on 12 men setting them apart to a special calling as apostles or special witnesses of his.

2.) He commanded people to be baptised.

3.) His apostles organized a church and set forth a path to salvation claiming their insight came from this same Jesus who is now resurrected.

Assuming your thought that there can't be one true church or this one isn't it I am guessing your reasoning for that is that it makes up such a small part of the population it just doesn't make sense that God is making the effort to save the whole world by converting .02% of it to his church? Is that part of the thought process? If so,Considering that let's put that in perspective. At 33 AD when Christ was in the final days of his life there was only a limited amount of folks who "believed" in him. Even after his death and as the apostles taught there were relatively few believers. It has never been about numbers. It has been about providing a way for every single one of God's children. Being a Mormon doesn't save anyone. Willingly receiving covenants and turning ourselves over to Christ whether in this life or the next is mandatory. Each of us must draw a line in the sand and commit ourselves to Christ. Those ordinances can not be performed by just anyone.... that would be chaos. God has his church. His church has authority. They record those ordinances, those covenants. It isn't about numbers of people who join in this life, but rather it is about every person in mortality or the other side having an opportunity to have their commitment to the savior recorded in the book of life.

Mormonism while only making up .02% of individuals on this earth at this moment, is the only christian Church with a plan in place to provide an opportunity to every single soul who has ever lived. You want a big tent CWALD, that's the biggest tent in Christanity. Every knee will bow, every tongue confess, that Jesus is the Christ. When I hear of knees bowing and tongues confessing, I can't help but see that many of us will have to turn from our misplaced frustration, our misguided understanding, and each of us will need to come to terms with the real reality of the Savior and his church, and in that day many of us will have to face that there were things we didn't understand that were still true. I wish I could explain but something has completely opened up for me here along these lines... try and see the big picture and not the little worries and little things that are out of place. When humans are involved it will be messy.

2. I have a problem with the perceived focus on legalism and Pharisaical commandments. Reference - Pres. Urchtdorf's GC talk about the "shoulds and the should nots getting in the way of appreciating the gospel" and the fact that the church itself is quite proud of the fact that it is a "restoration" of old testament teachings, pretty well sums up my feelings on this.

I don't think god will be checking paper work at the gate, and I don't think he cares about white shirts, tea, garments, earrings, etc "all the unwritten order of things" etc etc....and i merely wish the members would listen to the prophets and focus a little more on compassion and love, and a little less on the shoulds and the should nots, especially at church, and when judging themselves and other members

This too me is simple. I am a grace guy. I love to be good but not for the sake of doing so as some merit in getting me back to Heavenly Father. I do good things because I love him and his grace is suffcient. others may dissagree with my view but take it another step. If God didn't give us rules, should's, ought's, and have to's; there would be no way to measure our growth. Without rules or commandments God's children

are not trying to abandon sin and become comfortable with God. Rather, they are trying to abandon God and become comfortable with sin. It is the push for us to be our best to have a standard to rise to that

we push ourselves yoking with Christ and doing all things through Christ who strengthenth you.

did you ever lift weights with friends? remember when someone would spot you and they would say when you had nothing left to give... one more just one more. And then you would find the resolve to do just one more. Then they would say it again... one more you got one more in ya. Eventually you would dissapoint them and fail to do that one more... but it was in their asking you to do it that you were able to give your absolute best and find ultimate growth. Many in the church just see the works/righteousness salvation. But they are missing the real reason. Some's lack of understanding doesn't have to mean your frustration with the church... we are all on a curve of learning... as long as they are pressing forward with steadfastness, they will get it sooner or later. and We will help them.

3. The entire premise of the 14 Fundamentals of the Prophet, and the perceived notion of worshipping the church and prophets. I guess I just see the church as a tool...not the end goal. My experience has been that it is much more important for so many of the membership and leaders to be loyal to the church, than to just follow the spirit. This is sad to me, because there are many many christ like Mormons, and I don't understand why loyalty to the church equates to being christ like to some people. I have no reference other than Oaks 2010 Oct GC talk...Two Lines of Communicaiton, and Pres. Bensons 1984 14 F's talk, that got reread into the record by Costa in 2010 Oct GC. I base this issue basically on my personal experience within the church...how people talk and teach, and what how they answer the "doubters" questions.

And your right on one point. The church has very rarely said anything that implies "follow the prophet at all costs you will always better for doing so, as he can't be wrong" but your missing something too. If Joseph was a prophet and the plates were real then we know one thing for certain. The Lord's church was to be restored never to be taken from the earth again. you see you missed that... if this church started on truth, it has to end on it. If it didn't start on truth then this church is the biggest fraud and we should run, not hang out here and try to adapt it to what we think is better. A Bad tree can't bear good fruit... If it is not true, trying to remodel it doesn't make it more true. Martin Luther felt he just needed to tweak the Catholic church. If every one of 95 theses had been accepted it would not have fixed the problem. So yes sometimes leaders may word something in a way that could have been worded better. But If you were Elder Oaks and I were Elder Holland, could we be better? I might not have made their little mistakes but I would have made a whole 'nother batch on my own worse then them. We have to leave them room to be human.

I have learned I can't expect perfection and I have also learned the Elder McConkie of 1977 is not the elder McConkie of 1985. We are all pressing forward and becoming. Teachings could sometimes have been worded better, members will sometimes take the wrong meaning from them, it may lead to false ideas at times by a member here or two members there or maybe a whole ward or stake over there. But the church as a whole can not be led astray. It has been restored never to be taken from the earth. And that is why we are asked to watch the prophet.... it is that physical standard that God gave us to know if we are on safe ground or not. I get it now, and I really hope others are grasping this. there will always be different ideas and personalities but the church is his standard.... God even said there would be these differences when he said

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

We the members would all disagree but he gave us prophets and aposltes so that they could help us come to a unity of the faith....

CWALD - it's time to see it. Please try to understand... This is where it is at. Perfect?... nope, but God said there are still many things yet to be revealed....

Edited June 24, 2012 by DBMormon

[Aliwe]

Mormonism while only making up .02% of individuals on this earth at this moment, is the only christian Church with a plan in place to provide an opportunity to every single soul who has ever lived.

Quibble #1: 0.02% is 0.0002, and 0.0002 times 7000 million is 1.4 million. So Mormons are actually 0.2% of the population, which is ten times more than you claimed.

Quibble #2: Even non-Mormons will admit that in 1 Peter 3:19 and 1 Peter 4:6 Jesus preached to the "spirits in prison" to allow them the opportunity to accept or reject him as Lord. It's not a big stretch to believe that God has made similar arrangements for the souls who have lived and died since the resurrection who also did not hear the gospel. The only difference is that no other church has a "plan in place", but leave it in our merciful God's capable hands.

[DBMormon]

Aliwe - your playing with my head. first you correct my 2% into .o2 then when I say .02% you say .2 %.... so let's just say math is not a strongpoint and agree there are 14 million members of the church on the records... there

[Aliwe]

Aliwe - your playing with my head. first you correct my 2% into .o2 then when I say .02% you say .2 %.... so let's just say math is not a strongpoint and agree there are 14 million members of the church on the records... there

Okay, DB, sorry if there was some confusion.

Now, I'm left with all this blank space, and I hate to make a wasted "me too" type post, so time for a few LDS related one-liners.

A Mormon walked into a bar and said, "Give me a grape Nephi."

New Year's Resolution: Donate my coffee pot to Deseret Industries.

World's shortest book: A Directory of LDS Divorce Lawyers

Happy Hour in Utah is a stake potluck.

[selek1]

Are you willing to accept a different answer to the question rather than a yes? Are you willing to allow me to follow the spirit as I understand it?

Absolutely- on both questions.

My quarrel with you has never been that you see things differently- only that you have stated things as unequivocable fact that I consider to be baseless, and even slanderous attacks.

I honestly don't care what you believe- but I do care when you misrepresent your opnion abou the Church as either fact or "what the Church actually teaches". Do you see the difference?

In my own case, I can understand- and even respect- your skepticism. I was born and raised Southern Baptist, led a farly spiritual life, and for a time, seriously considered the ministry (I've been told more than once I'm well-suited to preach hellstone and damnation ).

I was more than skeptical of the truth claims of Mormonism- I was hostile to them.

As such, I consider my conversion to the Church to have been something of a hostile takeover. As much as I didn't want to believe- I was given little choice. I could either lie to myself (and to God) or accept things contrary to my worldview, upbringing, and education.

I am also the first to admit that the Church is not for everyone (at least not in this life). It is a serious endeavor, not to be undertaken lightly- it demands much of its adherents and is as much a calling and a responsibility as any other.

If God leads you elsewhere, then it is neither my place nor inclination to argue with him. But it must be God who does the leading- not prejudice, presumption, habit, or inertia.

For your agency to be practiced fully and properly, you two conditions must be met: first, you must have the right to choose wrongly as well as rightly.

I would only pray that you make a decision that is genuinely informed, rather than "half-formed" based on misunderstandings, half-truths, or (God-forbid) conventional wisdom.

That- more than anything else- is why I post here. To combat disinformation and untruths (and to get into the occasional slugging match with DBMormon).

Or, like I heard at church...keep praying until you get the same answer we get...

This was set with more than a little hostility and derision, but let me ask you a question: if you had what you consider to be the penultimate truth- the answer to all the questions- wouldn't you want others to share it with you?

If you knew- absolutely knew- that the keylime cheesecake was the penultimate dessert expression- wouldn't you want others to share in the recipe with you?

However annoying those folks might be (believe me, I've been there and understand)- there is no malice in their aim or intent.

and if you get a different answer...you are getting your source from the devil (Oaks - Two Lines of Communication GC 2010)

The money line from Oaks' talk (to which I assume you're referring) is this:

Unfortunately, it is common for persons who are violating God’s commandments or disobedient to the counsel of their priesthood leaders to declare that God has revealed to them that they are excused from obeying some commandment or from following some counsel. Such persons may be receiving revelation or inspiration, but it is not from the source they suppose. The devil is the father of lies, and he is ever anxious to frustrate the work of God by his clever imitations.

If so, then you are taking Elder Oaks out of context.

Note the empasis as I highlight it: Those who stand in violation of the Law may clain that God's revelation justifies them in that violation. Such persons may actually be receiving revelation.

It is an eternal truth that God's blessings are predicated upon our obedience to his laws. Even Christ himself cannot save us in our sins.

So why should we expect the blessings of our covenants if we do not keep the promises of that covenant?

Why would the Lord reward us with workman's wages if we do not labor in his vineyard?

Conversely, we know that the wages of sin are death. Who benefits by telling us that we are justified in disobeying the Lord?

Oaks' counsel is not a general axiom that any answer which "does not agree with us" is automagically "of the devil".

It is far more specific than that. Oaks is saying (rightly) that those who use revelation to excuse themselves from the Lord's commandment and their covenants had better be damned sure of the source. The Adversary has a vested interest in fostering oath breakers and justifying sin.

I don't like to be told to pray and ask a question if the church is true, if there is only one right possible answer. What is the point? I asked. My answer obviously was different than yours. That is fine by me. Is it okay with the LDS members who sit with me in SM?

That depends largely upon the folks you choose to sit with. We are not all of a piece.

Some will accept you, no questions asked. Others will continue to try and convert you. Others still will ask nosy questions and generally try to drive you up a wall.

It was the same way in the Baptist congregations of my youth.

I hope it would be enough to be welcome in your midst (church membership) without being labeled a wolf.

The label of "wolf" is occasionally misused- but less often than one might think.

If you are preaching disaffection, seeking to undermine the faith of others, deliberately sowing the seeds of doubt and discord among the Saints, then you're a wolf. If you are preying upon others- no matter your cause you are a predator.

If you're simply tactless, offensive, brusque, callous, insensitive, and (sometimes) shallow- then you can be described as another type of animal: likely an Equus africanus asinus.

Who knows- you might even get the stall next to me and DB.

Edited June 24, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

I don't know what else to say. White shirts, tea, coffee, earrings, garments, right hand to take the sacrament, ties, beards, laundry lists of shoulds and should not (Urchtdorf)....all the covenants and rules required for temple and baptism....and hundreds of pages of CHI...you have to have TR to do this and that calling and this ordinance....and only married mormons with the right endowment paperwork make it to the CK. Yeah, that is what I perceive and call Pharisaical commandments and legalism.

First and foremost, you're conflating a lot of things into one lump sum that should not.

White shirts, ties, beards, sacrament with the right hand, and a lot of other things you mention are not doctrine, and in many instances, are not even guidelines. As other here will cheerfully attest (often at length) there's a lot of folklore and habit that gel into a concrete mass called "just the way things are done".

It's a lamentable process, but it is all too human.

The hundreds of pages of the CHI (also known as the Church Handbook of Instructions) is all but irrelevant to the average member. Those guidelines are for the Bishop and his Councilors, the Stake President and his coucilors, and certain Area and General Authorities to be used in running the Church administration.

I know many faithful (and by Mormon standards, extraordinarily successful) members who've gone all their lives without ever laying

eyes on a CHI- let alone ever cracking the cover. And let me assure you- it's pretty dry stuff. Kinda like reading the old Navy training manuals Uncle Sam inflicted on me in my youth.

Some of the things you mentioned: tea, coffee, garments, endowments, and the Celestial Kingdom, on the other hand- ARE doctrine, and critical doctrine at that. They are the building blocks of exaltation- they are also covenants that we make willingly- or not.

AsI stated in the post above, God's blessings are predicated upon obedience to his commandments.

We cannot be saved in our sins, nor can we be justly rewarded unless we keep the promises (covenants) we have made.

The first of these is baptism. Later (for men) come Aaronic and Mechizedek Priesthood covenants.

For most Mormons, the covenants made at endowment and Celestial marriage are the penultimate covenants that we make.

While you lament the laundry list (emphasize a lot of the folklore rather than the doctrine), it seems to me that you object primarily to rules made for the sake of having rules.

In this I concur- and if I took the time and energy, I could probably find a couple of General Conference talks lamenting the same thing.

Where the Church (as opposed to the members and their folklore) makes specific rules, they fall into two categories: those those that are intended to preserve the dignity and special nature of the sacred, and those that are bequeathed to us by commandment of God. Both are for the edification of the Saints.

You will not (should not) find rules or taskmasters within the Church that are written to drive the Saints before them. What rules are there are instead written to guide the Saints and turn their minds and hearts to the higher purposes and principles of the Gospel.

If you don't see what I'm talking about...I don't know what else to say about it. It's my perception of the church.

I understand that- but my question for you is this: Is your perception accurate? Or is it based on assumption and presumption?

...but then they turn around and require that one believes this and does this and don't do that, and goes through a list of requirements just to get a TR for certain callings and attend the temple ...which is required to get the CK.

I admit, I chuckled when I read "just to get a TR (temple recommend)".

I could almost hear the rejoinder, "I mean, what's the big deal?"

Getting a Temple Recommend is not like getting a library card or (in some states) voter registration and a tattoo. Nor should it be.

Given the derision and contempt in which most of modern "tabloid" civilization derides even the concept of the "sacred", it's difficult to describe the majesty and awe involved in preparing to enter the House of the Lord.

As with anything else worth doing (and to get the most out of the experience), one must be prepared physically, mentally, and spiritually.

In ancient Israel, elaborate purification rituals were required to prepare oneself to enter the Temple. The requirements are somewhat different today, but the need to purify oneself before the Lord has not.

Given our reverence for God- and the sacred nature of both his House and the Covenants made therein- we take this matter very seriously. As the pinnacle of LDS worship, it doesn't get much more "big deal" than the Temple.

[DBMormon]

CWALD or anyone for that matter - in case you didn't go back a page I tried to address your three biggest issues like I said I would. curious your thoughts

Edited June 24, 2012 by DBMormon

[cwald]

CWALD or anyone for that matter - in case you didn't go back a page I tried to address your three biggest issues like I said I would. curious your thoughts

I appreciate your, and Selek response. I think your posts were fair. I will think about it. I'm not saying I agree with your perspective...but at least you responded with civil tone and I think made an attempt to understand why someone might struggle with the issues I mentioned...rather than just crying "wolf in sheep clothing."

I'm glad there are folks on the MD&D who are trying to understand the issue important to me.....

...which is ironic since when I started here you were the guy getting rung up for "apostasy" and in perhaps being in jeapordy of being banned from here.

That would sure be a mistake...good luck DB in your quest to educate folks about the reality of faith crisis and helping those who want help, navigate a pathway within the mormon church.

Edited June 24, 2012 by cwald

[Calm]

I have no problem if the church teaches this and believes it. I just want to know if they do or not, or if it is the people - man made doctrines, rather than the god's doctrine. And if I have to believe it and accept...or get called an apostate.

Here is the CHI part 2 for your reading enjoyment. Besides the doctrine which there is quite a bit of, I get the impression the instructions given are to avoid confusion in the house of the Lord and in one's own home, confusion leading to missed opportunities as well as contention. If you have not looked at it lately, you might find it interesting how limited it actually is in many areas and how it makes sense to have the instruction it does have in other areas to save members time and trouble and money (for example it may seem silly to forbid having hay being brought into the building for parties, but since hay means mice almost all the time this is a kindness to those who have to deal with rodent problems in the chapels).

http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/08702_eng.pdf?lang=eng

[DBMormon]

...which is ironic since when I started here you were the guy getting rung up for "apostasy" and in perhaps being in jeapordy of being banned from here.

I have never felt at risk to be banned. In fact LOG who I think is awesome and was uber-faithful was banned... not sure why. I never felt I was anywhere on the mods radars. Only got one warning the whole time, and It was for breaking a rule that I absolutely broke.

I don't think they are as tough on others as you think. Follow the rules and they could care less what side of the fence. Their are bitter apostates and anti-mormons here and they seem to be alive and well and been here a long time

[Monster]

So when you are standing before the Eternal Judge, you are going to tell Him the reason you forsook your responsibilities and covenants was because of someone else, and you think He is going to be alright with that?

I dislike your god. He is mean and petty. He demands obedience with no tangible confirmation of his existence.