There is no such thing as a liberal Mormon

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, Sky said:

You say that you don't think it's bad to be a liberal, Mystery Meat, but then go on to explain why liberalism in the Church is not a good thing...

Some things in the Church have changed for the better.  I don't think any of us wants to go back to the days of black men not being able to get the priesthood...

There are some times when liberalism can be a good thing, and times when fundamentalitic interpretations are outdated and harmful.

Was ancient Israel liberal?  Was Jesus liberal?  Was he liberal when he told the woman from Canaan, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs." in Matt 15?  

I think what Meat is saying is not to use a political lens to view the Kingdom of God.  To leave off the labels of liberal, conservative, etc.  None of these have meaning to God or his Kingdom.  God is not inclusive and never has been.  God through his son, Jesus, offers to accept all that are willing to come unto him.  To come unto Christ is not to walk with head held high and filled with pride, without broken heart or bended knee.  The first words of the gospel message the apostles shared was to repent.  It was not to say to the people, "You have no need to change or to be forgiven - you are good and all we want you to do is know you are loved and to love others.  This is type of gospel is not of God.  

God has always had a covenant with his people.  God is striving to open the doors of divinity to each of his children.  Some will respond to the call and many others will find that the gospel is too demanding, too restrictive, too controlling.  The gospel does not allow us to satiate the desires of the flesh.  To the contrary, it demands that we harness the passions and to express them in the ways the Lord has set.  

The world of today is steeped in sin, pleasure, and hedonism.  Any attempt to encourage people to not indulge in the pleasures of the flesh - regardless of how strange, how perverted, how unnatural - are decried as being intolerant, unhealthy, and evil.  This is a time when the world blows the unanchored about with every wind of doctrine.   

How often do I hear the word "love" - that cotton candy type of love that has no boundaries, is full of rainbows, unicorns, and rose-colored glasses so thick as to ensure blindness.  It is not the love of a parent that wants to the best for their children, but the type of love that leaves one spoiled, incapacitated, and devoid of any strength.  One is drunk on the stagnant waters of the wholly undisciplined. The result is a humanity enshackled and imprisoned by the master of lies and deceit.  

[Sky]

38 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Was ancient Israel liberal?  Was Jesus liberal?  Was he liberal when he told the woman from Canaan, "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and cast it to dogs." in Matt 15?  

I think what Meat is saying is not to use a political lens to view the Kingdom of God.  To leave off the labels of liberal, conservative, etc.  None of these have meaning to God or his Kingdom.  God is not inclusive and never has been.  God through his son, Jesus, offers to accept all that are willing to come unto him.  To come unto Christ is not to walk with head held high and filled with pride, without broken heart or bended knee.  The first words of the gospel message the apostles shared was to repent.  It was not to say to the people, "You have no need to change or to be forgiven - you are good and all we want you to do is know you are loved and to love others.  This is type of gospel is not of God.  

God has always had a covenant with his people.  God is striving to open the doors of divinity to each of his children.  Some will respond to the call and many others will find that the gospel is too demanding, too restrictive, too controlling.  The gospel does not allow us to satiate the desires of the flesh.  To the contrary, it demands that we harness the passions and to express them in the ways the Lord has set.  

The world of today is steeped in sin, pleasure, and hedonism.  Any attempt to encourage people to not indulge in the pleasures of the flesh - regardless of how strange, how perverted, how unnatural - are decried as being intolerant, unhealthy, and evil.  This is a time when the world blows the unanchored about with every wind of doctrine.   

How often do I hear the word "love" - that cotton candy type of love that has no boundaries, is full of rainbows, unicorns, and rose-colored glasses so thick as to ensure blindness.  It is not the love of a parent that wants to the best for their children, but the type of love that leaves one spoiled, incapacitated, and devoid of any strength.  One is drunk on the stagnant waters of the wholly undisciplined. The result is a humanity enshackled and imprisoned by the master of lies and deceit.  

I never said that we have no need for faith and repentance.  

Hopefully you can sort of see the point I was trying to make.  You can dismiss it if you want to, but my point still stands...  

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Sky

[Sky]

58 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Even to the casting us off if necessary.

I think He wants to bring us in - not cast us off.  

 

[JLHPROF]

Just now, Sky said:

I think He wants to bring us in - not cast us off.  

 

I know he does.
We may leave him no choice.

[Sky]

^ Sad that some people choose to turn down His invitation, though.  I still hold out hope that they will come around someday.  

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Sky said:

I never said that we have no need for faith and repentance.  

Hopefully you can sort of see the point I was trying to make.  You can dismiss it if you want to, but my point still stands...  

 

Sky, I think we agree on many things.  There are grey areas and I am comfortable with grey areas.  The older I have become the more grey I see.  Nor do I dismiss your comments/ideas out of hand, but I also will not call black white or evil good regardless of how much we all want to be politically correct in our day.  

I am not sure what point you are wanting to stand on.  My point was that we should not attempt to paint God in political terms like liberal or conservative.  You want to name things liberal and conservative and say that each is good at certain times for certain things.  There really is not a lot of middle room in this point; we either use these terms to explain the Church....and thus have a lot of contention or we don't use them in an effort to submit to God's will for each of us and for his Kingdom.  

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, Mystery Meat said:

I don't want you out. I don't even mind disagreement. But I do think, however, that needing a place to try and usurp revelation as the appointed means to effectuate change in the Kingdom is harmful to the Church, its membership and most importantly the individual. My hope is not that people feel compelled to leave, but that such people can learn to trust the Lord in his power, wisdom and ability to direct the Church and those He has called, including their humility and willingness to accept correction and change when the Lord so desires.

So you are advising those who spot harmful action or policy to keep quiet?  Or do you see a mechanism in the council process by which they can effect correction?  In other words, who is going to tell the king he has no clothes?

Among the Brethren, for example, there has been some tough infighting from time to time.  Since they seek unanimity, it might be difficult for them always to reach a firm agreement, often left with no more than a modus vivendi.  At least for a time.  Transitional periods have been particularly rough.  What do you advise Elder Orson Pratt when he told Pres Brigham Young that his claims about Black priesthood were wrong, or that Young's views on Adam-God were wrong?  Should Pratt have said nothing?  Or should he have been duty-bound to tell the truth?  How many lives might have been saved at Mountain Meadows if a stalwart and honest man had simply said "no" to the local yokels?  What if he had said, "If you are going to murder men, women, and children in cold blood, you might as well start with me, because I will have no part of it."  How often are we willing to do what is right and let the consequence follow?

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Everyone needs to define which definition of the word liberal they are using or this is going to degenerate quickly.

You are a voice crying in the wilderness.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Quote

 8 hours ago, Gray said:

It seems to me faintly ironic to make a call for a return to fundamentalism but at the same time deny that liberals exist. If fundamentalists exist, so do liberals.

True.  But which one is the unchanging eternal God?

Joseph Smith got his start on all this by responding to James 1:5,

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

Is God a liberal?  Is a righteous man liberal?  Isaiah 32:5,8 seems to say just that.  There one finds "liberal" (Hebrew nadib) to mean "generous, noble, magnanimous," and it is used there in synonymous parallel with "bountiful."  Those terms are set over against those who are evil, and who practice evil ways.

Indeed, the term is even used in the descriptive name of Yonadab/Yehonadab "The Lord is Liberal, Noble" (2 Samuel 13:3, 2 Kings 10:15, Jeremiah 35:6-7).

Finally, Jesus himself is depicted as a glutton and winebibber, hanging out with sinners and tax-collectors, and he got criticized for it (Matthew 9:10-11, 11:19).  He even talked to a Samaritan woman, and told a parable featuring a righteous Samaritan, something Jews just did not do.  As for the religious establishment and rulers, he had harsh words for them, and even cleansed the temple with a whip.  Talk about lack of decorum.  Moreover, his followers were troublemakers who had eventually to be executed.

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Everyone needs to define which definition of the word liberal they are using or this is going to degenerate quickly.

Liberal- willing to entertain new ideas.

Conservative- Sticking to old ideas. 

[Sky]

Robert F. Smith said really well the point I was trying to make.  Thank you, Robert. 

"Liberal" doesn't always have to be a bad word.  But sometimes it feels like it in Mormon culture.  

I also acknowledge that, oftentimes, we might just be better off by sticking with traditional approaches and ways of thinking.  Certain scriptural passages and leaders of the Church seem to affirm that, too. 

When all is said and done, we are all just fallible humans in an imperfect world trying to do our best with the knowledge that we have.  So let's try to be nice to each other.  

 

[california boy]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Joseph Smith got his start on all this by responding to James 1:5,

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him."

Is God a liberal?  Is a righteous man liberal?  Isaiah 32:5,8 seems to say just that.  There one finds "liberal" (Hebrew nadib) to mean "generous, noble, magnanimous," and it is used there in synonymous parallel with "bountiful."  Those terms are set over against those who are evil, and who practice evil ways.

Indeed, the term is even used in the descriptive name of Yonadab/Yehonadab "The Lord is Liberal, Noble" (2 Samuel 13:3, 2 Kings 10:15, Jeremiah 35:6-7).

Finally, Jesus himself is depicted as a glutton and winebibber, hanging out with sinners and tax-collectors, and he got criticized for it (Matthew 9:10-11, 11:19).  He even talked to a Samaritan woman, and told a parable featuring a righteous Samaritan, something Jews just did not do.  As for the religious establishment and rulers, he had harsh words for them, and even cleansed the temple with a whip.  Talk about lack of decorum.  Moreover, his followers were troublemakers who had eventually to be executed.

 

Christ was the MOST liberal Jew of His day.  Heck, he threw out the entire law of Moses and replaced it with His own.  Why do you think the conservative Jewish leaders crucified Him.  It certainly wasn't for His conservative, follow along with what the leaders were saying approach to church membership.  They were afraid BECAUSE He was leading huge groups of followers away from traditional Jewish beliefs.  There is no other person in the history of any religion that so radically changed the beliefs and practices of the religion that they claimed membership in.  

Would Christ be thrown out of the church for efforts to change areas He knew were being taught and practiced that were wrong?  Did not the Jewish leaders of His time think they were following the will of God as it had been revealed to them?  Did they not think they were doing the will of God by crucifying Christ?  OOPS.  Guess all of the church leaders made just a little mistake in hanging on to the traditions and beliefs that had been the law of God for centuries.  Without a new liberal approach to the Jewish religion, there would be no Christian church.  

Like many of you, I look forward to the day when Christ Himself returns to earth and changes the beliefs and practices of the church to conform to His will and His vision of how His work should be carried out.  Can anyone guarantee that current church leaders have interpreted the scriptures and beliefs of Christ any better than the ones 2.000 years ago did.  I have  no idea how Christ will change things, and what new principles He will teach.  I don't think anyone else does either.  

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Like many of you, I look forward to the day when Christ Himself returns to earth and changes the beliefs and practices of the church to conform to His will and His vision of how His work should be carried out.  Can anyone guarantee that current church leaders have interpreted the scriptures and beliefs of Christ any better than the ones 2.000 years ago did.  I have  no idea how Christ will change things, and what new principles He will teach.  I don't think anyone else does either.  

This.  Amen to this, CB.

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, california boy said:

Christ was the MOST liberal Jew of His day.  Heck, he threw out the entire law of Moses and replaced it with His own.  Why do you think the conservative Jewish leaders crucified Him.  It certainly wasn't for His conservative, follow along with what the leaders were saying approach to church membership.

And yet he changed not a single principle of God or law found in the law of Moses.  Bit of a overstatement to say he "threw out the law and replaced it".  Both laws had the same principles behind them.

Quote

There is no other person in the history of any religion that so radically changed the beliefs and practices of the religion that they claimed membership in. 

Well there was this one guy kind of radically changed the beliefs and practices of the religion he claimed membership in...

Quote

Like many of you, I look forward to the day when Christ Himself returns to earth and changes the beliefs and practices of the church to conform to His will and His vision of how His work should be carried out.  Can anyone guarantee that current church leaders have interpreted the scriptures and beliefs of Christ any better than the ones 2.000 years ago did.  I have  no idea how Christ will change things, and what new principles He will teach.  I don't think anyone else does either.

Ecclesiastes 3: 14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

[Sky]

Christ didn't throw out the Law of Moses so much as He fulfilled the law.  

The law had served its purpose and now it was time to move on, in a sense.  The promised messiah had come.  A higher law was given.  

This is what the Jewish people of His day did not fully grasp, and some people today still do not seem to fully grasp or accept this.

This is one of the main purposes of The Book of Mormon in the first place - to convince all people, Jew and Gentile, that Jesus is the Christ. 

A very traditional, original Mormon thought that I haven't let go of.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

And yet he changed not a single principle of God or law found in the law of Moses.  Bit of a overstatement to say he "threw out the law and replaced it".  Both laws had the same principles behind them.

Well there was this one guy kind of radically changed the beliefs and practices of the religion he claimed membership in...

Ecclesiastes 3: 14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

Didn't change a single principle or law in the law of Moses?  Ummm... Okay. 

[JLHPROF]

26 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Didn't change a single principle or law in the law of Moses?  Ummm... Okay.

That's right.
Take your pick of any Mosaic law.  Look past the form to find the gospel principle the law applies to (the Mosaic law was designed to teach gospel principles to those who needed a list of rules in order to follow a principle). 
Is that principle still a part of Christianity?  Always.

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by JLHPROF

[waveslider]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Christ was the MOST liberal Jew of His day.  Heck, he threw out the entire law of Moses and replaced it with His own.  Why do you think the conservative Jewish leaders crucified Him.  It certainly wasn't for His conservative, follow along with what the leaders were saying approach to church membership.  They were afraid BECAUSE He was leading huge groups of followers away from traditional Jewish beliefs.  There is no other person in the history of any religion that so radically changed the beliefs and practices of the religion that they claimed membership in.  

Would Christ be thrown out of the church for efforts to change areas He knew were being taught and practiced that were wrong?  Did not the Jewish leaders of His time think they were following the will of God as it had been revealed to them?  Did they not think they were doing the will of God by crucifying Christ?  OOPS.  Guess all of the church leaders made just a little mistake in hanging on to the traditions and beliefs that had been the law of God for centuries.  Without a new liberal approach to the Jewish religion, there would be no Christian church.  

Like many of you, I look forward to the day when Christ Himself returns to earth and changes the beliefs and practices of the church to conform to His will and His vision of how His work should be carried out.  Can anyone guarantee that current church leaders have interpreted the scriptures and beliefs of Christ any better than the ones 2.000 years ago did.  I have  no idea how Christ will change things, and what new principles He will teach.  I don't think anyone else does either.  

Christ didn't throw any laws out and replace any laws with His own:

"I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me."
John 5:30

Why the Jewish church leaders wanted to crucify Christ is answered by yourself, only you got the last part wrong. Traditions never were the Law of God, but were just that.... traditions of men:

3 hours ago, california boy said:

 Guess all of the church leaders made just a little mistake in hanging on to the traditions and beliefs that had been the law of God for centuries.

By the way some on this discussion board think, perhaps if they had their way Christ would be thrown out of His church.

Yes, the Jewish leaders of Christ's time did think they were following the will of God, because they relied upon traditions instead of the Holy Spirit of Truth. It doesn't mean that they were actually following the will of God, or else Christ wouldn't have changed a thing.

Yes, we all can guarantee that our modern church leaders are interpreting the scriptures and beliefs of Christ better than the church leaders 2,000 years ago. We all can receive our own personal revelation confirming or denying any claims made by anyone. I am amazed at how many people on this board seem to fall into this category:

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof:...."
2 Timothy 3:5

There is huge power in the Holy Ghost, but it appears many here seem to rationalize it away, and some even outright deny the necessity of it in lieu of peer reviewed science.

All that said, I think the terms, "liberal," and, "conservative," are defined in different ways, and a lot of the squabbling of it seems to be a result of differing opinions on their definitions. If we aren't liberal in missionary work, but instead are conservative and just keep it to ourselves, it is bad to be conservative. If we are liberal in deciding which commandments are worth following and which are not, as opposed to being conservative and trying to obey all the commandments, then liberal is bad.

The true barometer as to what kind of Mormon we should be, shouldn't rest on some kind of label that is open to different interpretations, like, "Liberal, and, "Progressive," we should instead rest it upon:
 

".....that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them....."
Moroni 4:3

 

 

Edited August 20, 2016 by waveslider
unnecessary word

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

That's right.
Take your pick of any Mosaic law.  Look past the form to find the gospel principle the law applies to (the Mosaic law was designed to teach gospel principles to those who needed a list of rules in order to follow a principle). 
Is that principle still a part of Christianity?  Always.

 

I can see that in a very loose generic way for some things but not for others   

Tell me... What are the gospel principles behind Lev 19:19?

[JLHPROF]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I can see that in a very loose generic way for some things but not for others

Tell me... What are the gospel principles behind Lev 19:19?

You couldn't have quoted it for me. 

19 ¶Ye shall keep my statutes. Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind: thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed: neither shall a garment mingled of linen and woollen come upon thee.

Well, not being a scholar of Judaism and ancient Hebrew culture I may not understand the full meaning of this verse in their culture.
Clearly the lesson here has to do with not mixing items outside of their own kind.  Can that have a lesson related to any other gospel principle that is still part of Christianity?
Some possible Christian/NT parallels principles could include:

- 2 Corinthians 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
- Moses 2:24 And I, God, said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind, and it was so;
- Luke 5:36-38 Parable of the Wine Bottles/Garment
- Matthew 6:24 ¶No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Don't have time to dig through the NT etc right now and I'm sure some scriptural scholar could come up with better ones than these.
But the principle of not mixing that was taught by that old mosaic law may well have a counterpart in Christianity.  We need to determine what it would be.

Heck, maybe the only principle that was being taught in that verse was "Ye shall keep my statutes."
Still applies today.
 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

Christ was the MOST liberal Jew of His day.  Heck, he threw out the entire law of Moses and replaced it with His own.  Why do you think the conservative Jewish leaders crucified Him.  It certainly wasn't for His conservative, follow along with what the leaders were saying approach to church membership.  They were afraid BECAUSE He was leading huge groups of followers away from traditional Jewish beliefs.  There is no other person in the history of any religion that so radically changed the beliefs and practices of the religion that they claimed membership in.  

Would Christ be thrown out of the church for efforts to change areas He knew were being taught and practiced that were wrong?  Did not the Jewish leaders of His time think they were following the will of God as it had been revealed to them?  Did they not think they were doing the will of God by crucifying Christ?  OOPS.  Guess all of the church leaders made just a little mistake in hanging on to the traditions and beliefs that had been the law of God for centuries.  Without a new liberal approach to the Jewish religion, there would be no Christian church.  

Like many of you, I look forward to the day when Christ Himself returns to earth and changes the beliefs and practices of the church to conform to His will and His vision of how His work should be carried out.  Can anyone guarantee that current church leaders have interpreted the scriptures and beliefs of Christ any better than the ones 2.000 years ago did.  I have  no idea how Christ will change things, and what new principles He will teach.  I don't think anyone else does either.  

While Christ appeared as a radical in many ways he was a staunch traditionalist. We have no record of him violating the Law of Moses (the Torah, not the traditions built around it) but was harsh on unauthorized expansion to the law. In this way he was more Sadducee than Pharisee but unlike the Sadducees he did not limit his understanding so strictly to the Torah. I would also say he was killed for raising Lazarus. While he did have followers their numbers were not huge.

I like to think that if Christ came to Church He could declare who he was and be followed. I find it hard to believe that I could have lived most of my life trying to live his will and then fail to recognize him. Jesus appeared as a radical but what he taught was really a call on ancient things. When asked about Abraham he did not muck about arguing eschatology of Abraham's words and how they can be applied now. He claimed to be older.

I can guarantee that the current LDS faith is closer then the apostate Jews of the 1st Century AD. There is too much vitality, too much of the power of God, too many miracles, and too much of the electrifying Holy Ghost for me to believe otherwise.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

While Christ appeared as a radical in many ways he was a staunch traditionalist. We have no record of him violating the Law of Moses (the Torah, not the traditions built around it) but was harsh on unauthorized expansion to the law. In this way he was more Sadducee than Pharisee but unlike the Sadducees he did not limit his understanding so strictly to the Torah. I would also say he was killed for raising Lazarus. While he did have followers their numbers were not huge.

I like to think that if Christ came to Church He could declare who he was and be followed. I find it hard to believe that I could have lived most of my life trying to live his will and then fail to recognize him. Jesus appeared as a radical but what he taught was really a call on ancient things. When asked about Abraham he did not muck about arguing eschatology of Abraham's words and how they can be applied now. He claimed to be older.

I can guarantee that the current LDS faith is closer then the apostate Jews of the 1st Century AD. There is too much vitality, too much of the power of God, too many miracles, and too much of the electrifying Holy Ghost for me to believe otherwise.

I am going to use your post to address some of the issues brought up by you as well as others from a different point of view.  Tell me what you would think of a person coming to sacrament meeting, standing in front of everyone and telling them that He was the Messiah that was promised to return.  Then he goes on and preaches directly against church leaders when they teach that things like women being required to cover their shoulders is nonsense.  That whether someone has one earring or ten does not matter to God.  Having a beard and going to a church school is perfectly acceptable to Him. And while you are at it, grow your hair any length you want.  What if he said that all worthy children are eligible for baptism despite any sins their parents might be committing.  I could go on, but I think you see the point of my post.  There is so much in the church today that is directly comparable to the laws of church leaders in the day of Christ.   The church is very much in the business of expansion on the laws of God. Just as Christ was more than willing to break the law of the sabbath by breaking off an ear of corn on the sabbath, he may very well do something like get an earring just to show church leaders that those teachings have nothing to do with the laws of God.  

I think some are viewing the changes Christ made to the Jewish church from a Christianity perspective and not a Jewish Leader's perspective.  To say Christ fulfilled the law is not at all how church leaders viewed any of Christ's teachings in his day.  They certainly had a great deal of problems with many of the new ideas that Christ was teaching, many of which totally contradicted the very teachings of the church at that time.  The church leaders were gunning for Christ long before Lazarus was raised from the dead.  Christ was not crucified for raising Lazarus from the dead.  It may have been what brought things to a head, but church leaders had a problem with the radical teachings of Christ long before that event.  

On what basis do you make the claim that you and others can guarantee that the current LDS faith is closer then the apostate Jews of the 1st Century AD.   First, how can you guarantee that statement, and second, how can you possibly  know the current LDS faith is closer than the apostate Jews of the 1st Century AD???  How do you know if church leaders didn't also make the claim that they were guided in their decisions by the Holy Spirit?

You seem to think that there were no miracles going on in the Jewish church during the time of Christ.  Yet the gospels show that not be be the case.  People knew of Christ being born, Anna was regarded to be a prophet (yeah a woman prophet.  Can you imagine such a thing) and foretold to those that listened that Christ was born.  Simeon was another that testified of miracles during this time period.  All of which happened through the Spirit of the Holy Ghost.

Well enough of that.  I am not trying to judge current church leaders.  I really don't know what the church leaders were like or how holy they thought their leadership was.  But I do know, those church leaders thought Christ was teaching against the church doctrine.  Christ and the teaching He was injecting to the church members was a problem that had to be stopped at all costs.  We all know how that was accomplished.

 

[BCSpace]

Quote

To be clear, I do not think it is bad to be a liberal. Or a conservative. Nor do I think someone who is a libertarian, communist, socialist, environmentalist, monarchist, anarchist, Labour, Liberal Democrat, or member of just about any political party in any country, be made to feel like they have no place in the Kingdom of God on Earth (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). All too often, we as a culture, have made those among our members who are in a political minority feel like they are sinful or outcasts for merely having a different take on the political and outside social world. That is not right. I also feel as though in recent months and years those in such political minorities within our membership have started to push back in an effort to make the Church (and its culture) resemble their political and social philosophies. I think this is equally wrong.

I have to categorically disagree with the OP's take here.  The political arena is a perfectly legitimate area, and probably one of the most important, for determining if one believes in or is committed to the application of LDS doctrine.  If it were otherwise, then the Church has no purpose whatsoever and becomes a "Sunday-only" Church.

[waveslider]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I am going to use your post to address some of the issues brought up by you as well as others from a different point of view.  Tell me what you would think of a person coming to sacrament meeting, standing in front of everyone and telling them that He was the Messiah that was promised to return.  Then he goes on and preaches directly against church leaders when they teach that things like women being required to cover their shoulders is nonsense.  That whether someone has one earring or ten does not matter to God.  Having a beard and going to a church school is perfectly acceptable to Him. And while you are at it, grow your hair any length you want.  What if he said that all worthy children are eligible for baptism despite any sins their parents might be committing.  I could go on, but I think you see the point of my post.  There is so much in the church today that is directly comparable to the laws of church leaders in the day of Christ.   The church is very much in the business of expansion on the laws of God. Just as Christ was more than willing to break the law of the sabbath by breaking off an ear of corn on the sabbath, he may very well do something like get an earring just to show church leaders that those teachings have nothing to do with the laws of God.  

I think some are viewing the changes Christ made to the Jewish church from a Christianity perspective and not a Jewish Leader's perspective.  To say Christ fulfilled the law is not at all how church leaders viewed any of Christ's teachings in his day.  They certainly had a great deal of problems with many of the new ideas that Christ was teaching, many of which totally contradicted the very teachings of the church at that time.  The church leaders were gunning for Christ long before Lazarus was raised from the dead.  Christ was not crucified for raising Lazarus from the dead.  It may have been what brought things to a head, but church leaders had a problem with the radical teachings of Christ long before that event.  

On what basis do you make the claim that you and others can guarantee that the current LDS faith is closer then the apostate Jews of the 1st Century AD.   First, how can you guarantee that statement, and second, how can you possibly  know the current LDS faith is closer than the apostate Jews of the 1st Century AD???  How do you know if church leaders didn't also make the claim that they were guided in their decisions by the Holy Spirit?

You seem to think that there were no miracles going on in the Jewish church during the time of Christ.  Yet the gospels show that not be be the case.  People knew of Christ being born, Anna was regarded to be a prophet (yeah a woman prophet.  Can you imagine such a thing) and foretold to those that listened that Christ was born.  Simeon was another that testified of miracles during this time period.  All of which happened through the Spirit of the Holy Ghost.

Well enough of that.  I am not trying to judge current church leaders.  I really don't know what the church leaders were like or how holy they thought their leadership was.  But I do know, those church leaders thought Christ was teaching against the church doctrine.  Christ and the teaching He was injecting to the church members was a problem that had to be stopped at all costs.  We all know how that was accomplished.

 

The thing is, is that Christ holds the body to be a temple, to house the Holy Spirit, so what makes you think that he would tell us all that mutilation of our bodies in the form of piercings is acceptable to do to His temple. He most certainly wouldn't stop people from coming to Him if they had already done so to their bodies, but I hardly see how he would condone such practices when we know that our bodies are to be held sacred:

"19  What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20  For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."
1 Corinthians 6:19-20

It is not a commandment for women to cover their shoulders, or for men to shave off their beards and cut their hair short. I just went through the temple last week with my beard and no one said a word to me about it. On the other hand we are supposed to keep ourselves modest and not looking so rough around the edges that people will mistake us for alcoholic bums and sluts. After all aren't we all supposed to have taken upon ourselves His name, as representatives of Him. Perhaps we should have a little more dignity than to just flow with the whims of the world, instead of being in the world but not a part of it.

If we want to go to a private school that expects it's students to also not look like sluts and bums, but rather reflect the image that the school wants to be known for, then we must comply, but it isn't commandment to do so. We can just as easily go to a different school, look like wind chimes, baring too much skin to keep people from having a hard time in not having lustful thoughts, looking like homeless bums, and still be in good standing as members of the church itself. He certainly wouldn't condemn anyone for looking like that, and would still want them to come to Him, but He usually changes people for the better, by showing them the better way, not condoning behavior unbecoming a representative of Himself. I can see Him reprimanding people within the church, leaders included, who let the traditions of Mormonism affect the way they view people who don't follow those traditions, but I certainly don't think he would condemn all church leaders as hypocrites.

You are wrong when you assert that the church is in the business of expansion on the laws of God. You obviously have Mormon traditions mixed up with it's doctrines. You also obviously underestimate the power of the Holy Ghost, in letting not only the leaders of the church know revelations, but the members as well. I know that your scenario wouldn't happen because I am led by the Holy Ghost on a daily basis, and it speaks contrary to what you have alluded here as being the scenario of what would happen if Jesus attended a church meeting and announced His presence. He does lead this church, contrary to what you obviously believe. You should try to learn how to recognize the Holy Ghost for yourself, instead of just recognizing your own inner voice of flawed logic and reasoning.

Christ didn't break the law of the Sabbath, he broke the uninspired tradition of what the Jewish leaders of the day said was law. There is a huge difference, being that the Holy Ghost does still reside with leaders of His church today, unlike most of the Jewish leaders of His mortal ministry days. I'm sure that those leaders may have claimed that they were led by the Spirit, but obviously they weren't when they failed to recognize their Messiah, God, and instead murdered Him. I think you are asking the wrong questions of how can we be sure that the LDS church isn't further away in apostasy from the Jewish leaders. For one. Do you see any LDS leaders wanting to murder any Mormon splinter groups, or even anti Mormon people? Or even expressing feelings anywhere close to that? Instead you should be asking yourself, how can you, yourself, claim that the church is close to apostasy? Are you Christ? Do you know His sentiments? How can you know His sentiments without His Holy Ghost telling you what those sentiments are?

By the way it wasn't the miracle of Lazarus that set anything off. It was the only act of violence that Christ did in His mortal ministry.... Turning over the money changers tables and rebuking them at the temple, that broke the lasts straw on the camels back.
 

Edited August 21, 2016 by waveslider
Minor mispellings and wrong wording

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's right.
Take your pick of any Mosaic law.  Look past the form to find the gospel principle the law applies to (the Mosaic law was designed to teach gospel principles to those who needed a list of rules in order to follow a principle). 
Is that principle still a part of Christianity?  Always.

 

Excuse me while I go have a Bacon Cheese Burger with a side of Shrimp.