Answers from Reason & From Emotion

[Robert F. Smith]

On 10/17/2016 at 8:06 AM, Gray said:

.....................................................................

What is a namby pamby religion? A religion that does not have strong social controls in place?

Well Robert, you were talking about growth as if it were an indicator of authenticity - or at least that's how it sounded to me. Obviously popularity has nothing to do with rightness. I think at the end of the day we both know that.

No I wasn't.  That was your failure to read what I in fact wrote, driven perhaps by preconceived notions.  Growth can take place within any tradition.  Being namby pamby is  not good for any tradition.

Quote

..........................................................

Let's take the Evangelical movement. They've barely been around more than a century, and they have something like 300 million members. That doesn't sound "moribund" to me. The Mormon movement has grown much slower, and its growth continues to slow. This is despite our enormous missionary outreach and our higher than average birthrate. Without those two factors we'd be wilting on the vine just as fast as the mainline Protestants. 

I would posit that the Evangelical movement has been so successful because it plays on people's insecurities, and gives people a simple black and white view of the world. Religions like that are always popular, but often devoid of authentic spirituality. 

....................................................................................

Evangelicalism has been around far longer than Mormonism, and you need to understand it in transdenominational terms:

Quote

 Evangelical Christianity, or Evangelical Protestantism^[a] is a worldwide, transdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ's atonement.^[1][2] Evangelicals believe in the centrality of the conversion or "born again" experience in receiving salvation, in the authority of the Bible as God's revelation to humanity, and spreading the Christian message.

The movement gained great momentum in the 18th and 19th centuries with the Great Awakenings in the United Kingdom and North America. The origins of Evangelicalism are usually traced back to English Methodism, the Moravian Church (in particular the theology of its bishop Nicolaus Zinzendorf), and German Lutheran Pietism. Today, Evangelicals may be found in many of the Protestant branches, as well as in Protestant denominations not subsumed to a specific branch.^[3] Among leaders and major figures of the Evangelical Protestant movement were John Wesley, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Billy Graham, Harold John Ockenga, John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones.

There are an estimated 285 million Evangelicals, comprising 13.1% of the total Christian population and 4.1% of the total world population.^[4] The Americas, Africa and Asia are home to the majority of Evangelicals. The United States has the largest concentration of Evangelicals.^[5] Evangelicalism, a major part of popular Protestantism, is among the most dynamic religious movements in the contemporary world, alongside resurgent Islam.^[6] While on the rise globally, the developing world is particularly influenced by its spread.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism .  

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

On October 13, 2016 at 1:31 PM, DBMormon said:

                 -  I personally don't see modern day prophets acting and doing things that match how the church itself has defined prophets.  And they certainly in my mind are nothing like Moses, Noah, and Abraham. 

In your mind, do you see the modern prophets inferior to the dead prophets in the two essential roles of apostles and prophets as defined by scripture: 1) witnessing of Jesus Christ, and 2) calling people to repentance? Are modern prophets derelict in these duties?

As Moses, modern prophets part the sea of worldliness so the saints can pass through on dry land to escape the armies of secularism. As Noah, they build the ark that will save us from the rising waters of moral and physical destruction. As Abraham, they perpetuate the covenants that unite us as godly families across time and space. These are important for our times. 

To a man, modern prophets and apostles from Joseph Smith to Dale Renlund have adamantly affirmed the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, his existence as a living being of flesh and bone, and his future return to earth in glory. Would you have them modify that testimony?

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[CV75]

10 hours ago, DBMormon said:

 I understand that all of our senses are needed including reasoning and spiritual sense. We are all different though we all come to answers differently. I'm doing the best with what God is giving me.   Some here have arrived at a different conclusion because they're different in the gauge all those senses differently. I cannot speak to their truth only mine. Some here have arrived at a different conclusion because they're different in the way they have gauged all those senses differently. I cannot speak to their truth only mine

According to your OP, it is a given that everyone is different and we all come to answers differently and we all speak our own truth. Your stated purpose for this thread is to discuss the motivation to make principles and scripture stories work for us and to reconcile what we find difficult to accept. You also had a list of questions which I answered here: Posted Friday at 09:45 AM

You misinterpreted or misunderstood my post about the reasonableness of grace, agreeing with a point I didn’t suggest, then suggesting an alternative which shows that you still didn’t get the point . You seem to be saying you didn’t get my point because of how you process information (I'll add in the way I presented it), which is fine. Where you find reason (in this thread, using theology and historicity) more dependable than the various factors affecting it, your reasoning in understanding what I said must be faulty. Which is no big deal, but in line with your OP, what was your motivation that led to your use of reason in a way that led to a mistaken interpretation?

Granted, some folks see the reasonableness or spiritual things in terms of dichotomy (either reasonable or not) and some see their reasonableness in terms of context and degree (both reasonable and not, depending). This should not be confused with the motivation they use in trying to understand and reconcile themselves with what they don’t.

[Gray]

12 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

That is a common mistake. None of the things that i have put in bold print have happened yet. The generation that sees that the branch is yet tender and putteth forth leaves and knows summer is nigh is the generation that will not pass away before all these things are fulfilled.

 

  27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

  28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.

  29 ¶ Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

  30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

  31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

  32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:

33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.

  34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.

Backing up even further, I believe these verses are the Holocaust of WWII

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:

  17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:

  18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.

  19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!

  20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:

  21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

It's not a mistake. The first century Christian community expected the end to come in their lifetime. Of course just because they understood things a certain way does not mean we can't reinterpret their texts for our own purposes. 

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

No I wasn't.  That was your failure to read what I in fact wrote, driven perhaps by preconceived notions.  Growth can take place within any tradition.  Being namby pamby is  not good for any tradition.

What does "namby pamby" mean to you in the context of religion?

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Evangelicalism has been around far longer than Mormonism, and you need to understand it in transdenominational terms:

 

Thanks, I was mistaking the rise of Christian fundamentalism with the wider evangelical movement. 

[DBMormon]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In your mind, do you see the modern prophets inferior to the dead prophets in the two essential roles of apostles and prophets as defined by scripture: 1) witnessing of Jesus Christ, and 2) calling people to repentance? Are modern prophets derelict in these duties?

As Moses, modern prophets part the sea of worldliness so the saints can pass through on dry land to escape the armies of secularism. As Noah, they build the ark that will save us from the rising waters of moral and physical destruction. As Abraham, they perpetuate the covenants that unite us as godly families across time and space. These are important for our times. 

To a man, modern prophets and apostles from Joseph Smith to Dale Renlund have adamantly affirmed the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, his existence as a living being of flesh and bone, and his future return to earth in glory. Would you have them modify that testimony?

 

I see lots of people doing #1 and #2 and not sure we want that to be the definition of a prophet.  For me a prophet in the true sense of the word has to be something more than that otherwise the methodist preacher is every bit as much of a prophet as the next guy.

I would not have them stop doing #1 or #2 but rather ask that we ask ourselves what moses noah and abraham claimed that you hesitate to claim for these modern prophets.

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

I see lots of people doing #1 and #2 and not sure we want that to be the definition of a prophet.  For me a prophet in the true sense of the word has to be something more than that otherwise the methodist preacher is every bit as much of a prophet as the next guy.

I would not have them stop doing #1 or #2 but rather ask that we ask ourselves what moses noah and abraham claimed that you hesitate to claim for these modern prophets.

Not just Methodist preachers. Warren Jeffs (FLDS) and Fred Phelps (Westboro Baptists) would also qualify as prophets. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

In your mind, do you see the modern prophets inferior to the dead prophets in the two essential roles of apostles and prophets as defined by scripture: 1) witnessing of Jesus Christ, and 2) calling people to repentance? Are modern prophets derelict in these duties?

As Moses, modern prophets part the sea of worldliness so the saints can pass through on dry land to escape the armies of secularism. As Noah, they build the ark that will save us from the rising waters of moral and physical destruction. As Abraham, they perpetuate the covenants that unite us as godly families across time and space. These are important for our times. 

To a man, modern prophets and apostles from Joseph Smith to Dale Renlund have adamantly affirmed the literal resurrection of Jesus Christ, his existence as a living being of flesh and bone, and his future return to earth in glory. Would you have them modify that testimony?

 

This is beautiful. I wish I had written it.

I find it Ironic, when we have one of the contemporary apostles (President Nelson) declaring that the word of the Lord has been received, we find that declaration being rejected by some of the very individuals who are clamoring for today's prophets and apostles to receive and declare new revelation like the prophets of old did.

It's an age-old pattern, I guess.

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is beautiful. I wish I had written it.

I find it Ironic, when we have one of the contemporary apostles (President Nelson) declaring that the word of the Lord has been received, we find that declaration being rejected by some of the very individuals who are clamoring for today's prophets and apostles to receive and declare new revelation like the prophets of old did.

It's an age-old pattern, I guess.

 

The news of this new revelation hardly comes as much but personal confirmations of stated opinions, though.  And maybe that's how revelation was dispensed in the past too, moreso than we often read about in scripture.  But, then it brings into question the reliability of the process.  If the leaders discussed the policy change, prayed and fasted about it, and then felt impressed by the spirit to sustain the motion, it hardly sounds like much more than company leaders making decisions, sadly.  And seeing as the policy itself needed with it, albeit months later, extra explanation to help make it clear, and then add to that the policy has not in any sense ever been used in the real world since it was put in place nearly a year ago, there's plenty of reason to question it as revelation.  Would God be so clumsy as to have the policy written as to need so much explanation, and some would argue change?  Would God be so fickle as to make a policy that turns out to be meaningless (other than of course to slap people who are gay or their supporters in the face)? 

I don't know,  there's plenty in play here. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

41 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

The news of this new revelation hardly comes as much but personal confirmations of stated opinions, though.  And maybe that's how revelation was dispensed in the past too, moreso than we often read about in scripture.  But, then it brings into question the reliability of the process.  If the leaders discussed the policy change, prayed and fasted about it, and then felt impressed by the spirit to sustain the motion, it hardly sounds like much more than company leaders making decisions, sadly.  And seeing as the policy itself needed with it, albeit months later, extra explanation to help make it clear, and then add to that the policy has not in any sense ever been used in the real world since it was put in place nearly a year ago, there's plenty of reason to question it as revelation.  Would God be so clumsy as to have the policy written as to need so much explanation, and some would argue change?  Would God be so fickle as to make a policy that turns out to be meaningless (other than of course to slap people who are gay or their supporters in the face)? 

I don't know,  there's plenty in play here. 

Contrary to your apparent assumption, this is how I understand revelation to transpire most of the time: Study the matter out in your mind, ask God and then receive the revelation, whether it be through the proverbial "burning in the bosom" or in some other way, such as a vision, dream or divine visitation.

We see the pattern over and over again. That's what brought about Joseph Smith's First Vision: He pondered the matter deeply, studied the scriptures, otherwise did what fact finding he could and went to the Lord in prayer.

Alas, the widespread anger and rejection that has met this revelation is also fitting an age-old pattern.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, DBMormon said:

I see lots of people doing #1 and #2 and not sure we want that to be the definition of a prophet.  For me a prophet in the true sense of the word has to be something more than that otherwise the methodist preacher is every bit as much of a prophet as the next guy.

I would not have them stop doing #1 or #2 but rather ask that we ask ourselves what moses noah and abraham claimed that you hesitate to claim for these modern prophets.

Who is the "we" in "not sure we want that to be the definition of a prophet?" It is the scriptural definition. It appears you are asking them to provide supernatural signs that they are prophets. Noah, Moses, and Abraham claimed they conversed with or saw God and angels, received their commissions from deity, and were instructed in how to conduct their ministry through revelation. What did N, M, & A  claim that they have not?

What do you make of this?

Quote

D&C 84: 64 Therefore, as I said unto mine apostles I say unto you again, that every soul who believeth on your words, and is baptized by water for the remission of sins, shall receive the Holy Ghost.

65 And these signs shall follow them that believe...

73 But a commandment I give unto them, that they shall not boast themselves of these things, neither speak them before the world; for these things are given unto you for your profit and for salvation.

I am not aware of any other Christian definition of resurrection that is as specifically concrete, adamant, universal, and unambiguously literal as the testimony of the unified LDS prophets. Are you? In my opinion, their witness should not be so quickly dismissed. It is the foundation of every LDS doctrine and practice. Just a nod toward making it symbolic (mystical?) would shake that foundation to the core. Have you noticed any such wavering among the prophets.....or even among the LDS "intellectuals"?

Earlier you said you cannot intellectually accept the literal resurrection, but hoped it were true. I suppose you mean the resurrection cannot be a reasoned scientific fact. When the prophets give personal witness to it, are they making it up? What would make it intellectually acceptable? Should the prophets preach a more mystical resurrection?

[Bernard Gui]

37 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is beautiful. I wish I had written it.

I find it Ironic, when we have one of the contemporary apostles (President Nelson) declaring that the word of the Lord has been received, we find that declaration being rejected by some of the very individuals who are clamoring for today's prophets and apostles to receive and declare new revelation like the prophets of old did.

It's an age-old pattern, I guess.

 

You are way too kind!

To me, the specific LDS beliefs regarding the literal resurrection and the adamant witness of LDS apostles to it are what distinguish us from the rest of Christianity. I say that in no way to diminish the fervent and sincere devotion to the resurrection of Jesus by the vast majority of Christians.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

You are way too kind!

To me, the specific LDS beliefs regarding the literal resurrection and the adamant witness of LDS apostles to it are what distinguish us from the rest of Christianity. I say that in no way to diminish the fervent and sincere devotion to the resurrection of Jesus by the vast majority of Christians.

Indeed. The literal resurrection of Jesus ("the firstfruits of them that slept") is one of the core doctrines of the gospel, a non-negotiable, it seems to me.

By the way, I notice that you are a kimchee devotee. Did you attend the recent 60-year commemorative reunion of the Church in Korea?

Edited October 19, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Contrary to your apparent assumption, this is how I understand revelation to transpire most of the time: Study the matter out in your mind, ask God and then receive the revelation, whether it be through the proverbial "burning in the bosom" or in some other way, such as a vision, dream or divine visitation.

I agree.  That's how it works for me.  But I'd suggest that means it's not foolproof at all. 

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

We see the pattern over and over again. That's what brought about Joseph Smith's First Vision: He pondered the matter deeply, studied the scriptures, otherwise did what fact finding he could and went to the Lord in prayer.

Alas, the widespread anger and rejection that has met this revelation is also fitting an age-old pattern.

If every policy or proclaimed revelation that upset people were true, well, who knows what we'd have today.  Luckily most of it isn't. 

[Scott Lloyd]

21 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  That's how it works for me.  But I'd suggest that means it's not foolproof at all. 

 

It is for those who know the voice of the Shepherd.

Quote

If every policy or proclaimed revelation that upset people were true, well, who knows what we'd have today.  Luckily most of it isn't. 

I'm hard-pressed to think of a proclaimed revelation that came from an authoritative source that turned out not to be true -- whether it upset people or not.

 

[Bernard Gui]

On 10/18/2016 at 11:27 AM, Jeanne said:

 Scott, if I am misunderstanding..let me know or clarify..but it would not be justice or fair to have Satan bound and have others readily accept the gospel when in mortality that wasn't an option.  Can you explain?

I think of it this way: Each child of God must have an unfettered opportunity to choose eternal life. Binding Satan will ensure that no one has excuse for his/her choice, and without the enticings of Satan they will still be free to choose. One third of us chose wrong when we were in God's presence. Eventually, all will acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, but it will be out of love, not force, and according to the justice and mercy of God.

We are subjected to the buffetings of Satan on earth to learn by our own experience the difference between right and wrong. We will all bring our mortal experiences with us when we make that choice with our eyes wide open. That process will continue in the eternities. As the First Presidency declared, 

Quote

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/02/the-origin-of-man?lang=eng

God will leave no stone unturned to achieve his purpose....to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

[Bernard Gui]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

By the way, I notice that you are a kimchee devotee. Did you attend the recent 60-year commemorative reunion of the Church in Korea?

Being Polish, I have a natural inclination toward fermented cabbage. I was introduced to kimchee by a friend who served his mission in Korea and haven't looked back. There is a gallon jar festering on the back porch as we speak. Sister Gui will not allow it into the house, so I have to sneak out back for my fix.  We are fortunate to live in an area with a huge Korean population. I had many Korean students in my school orchestras. We instituted an on-going competition....whose mom is Queen of Kimchee Makers? I got lots of free samples. My son Abogadoso gave me a hard time, once asking, "How can I face my friends when I have a father who likes kimchee?" Ironically, he and his Korean American wife now make their own kimchee. Her mother, by the way, is the All Time Queen of Kimchee Makers.

 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is for those who know the voice of the Shepherd.

I don't think so.  We're all a bit clouded in our views.  I don't take Paul's perspective lightly.  even apostles see through a glass darkly.  We can all make mistakes, even the leaders. 

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm hard-pressed to think of a proclaimed revelation that came from an authoritative source that turned out not to be true -- whether it upset people or not.

 

What do you mean?  The policy change comes to mind.  As it is, there's not been a case out there that has had to consult the policy.  If there has the policy was summarily dismissed by the local authorities because, as we learned long after the policy change took place, local leaders could reject it if they felt it necessary.  So we have learned though the policy is in place, it's never done one thing at all.  The only thing it has done has given a slap to the face of members and others associated with the church who support LGBTQ people.  Or if you disagree then please enlighten...in the past 11+ months has any child ever been rejected from being baptized because their primary residence was with gay parents and that child wanted to be baptized?  If we have no such case, then what's the purpose of the policy? 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Being Polish, I have a natural inclination toward fermented cabbage. I was introduced to kimchee by a friend who served his mission in Korea and haven't looked back. There is a gallon jar festering on the back porch as we speak. Sister Gui will not allow it into the house, so I have to sneak out back for my fix.  We are fortunate to live in an area with a huge Korean population. I had many Korean students in my school orchestras. We instituted an on-going competition....whose mom is Queen of Kimchee Makers? I got lots of free samples. My son Abogadoso gave me a hard time, once asking, "How can I face my friends when I have a father who likes kimchee?" Ironically, he and his Korean American wife now make their own kimchee. Her mother, by the way, is the All Time Queen of Kimchee Makers.

 

You must have a passion for sauerkraut as well, then -- or is that not quite up to par with kimchee?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I don't think so.  We're all a bit clouded in our views.  I don't take Paul's perspective lightly.  even apostles see through a glass darkly.  We can all make mistakes, even the leaders. 

 

Given a choice between the anointed servants of God and those who anoint themselves to find fault with the anointed servants of God, I'm inclined to go with the God-anointed ones rather than the self-anointed ones.

Quote

What do you mean?  The policy change comes to mind. 

Well, I don't accept at all your conclusion that the policy change is not of God, nor do I see any reason why I should.

Quote

As it is, there's not been a case out there that has had to consult the policy. 

Doesn't mean there won't be in the future. Nor does it mean you would be apt to have heard about it if there had been a case where it was applied.

 

Quote

If there has the policy was summarily dismissed by the local authorities because, as we learned long after the policy change took place, local leaders could reject it if they felt it necessary. 

That's a false assumption. They may not reject it of their own accord. They have to consult higher authority and obtain permission first.

Quote

So we have learned though the policy is in place, it's never done one thing at all. 

I don't think you can make that assumption; see above.

 

Quote

The only thing it has done has given a slap to the face of members and others associated with the church who support LGBTQ people. 

If they have felt slapped, perhaps it is because they themselves have resisted the fact that homosexual behavior is regarded as sinful by the Church of Jesus Christ, and they cannot reasonably expect there will ever be any accommodation in the Church for a lifestyle that includes or abides it.

Quote

Or if you disagree then please enlighten...in the past 11+ months has any child ever been rejected from being baptized because their primary residence was with gay parents and that child wanted to be baptized?  If we have no such case, then what's the purpose of the policy? 

Already addressed this above. Furthermore, having the policy in place has the effect of deterring the emergence of such cases in the first place.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I agree.  That's how it works for me.  But I'd suggest that means it's not foolproof at all. 

If every policy or proclaimed revelation that upset people were true, well, who knows what we'd have today.  Luckily most of it isn't. 

The spirit testifies very clearly that the policy is not of God. It would seem that generational differences combined with influence from special interest groups has clouded the judgement of some of leaders on this issue (the same few who seem to speak on the topic over and over again). But time has a way of making clear that which is cloudy. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by Gray

[DBMormon]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

what was your motivation that led to your use of reason in a way that led to a mistaken interpretation?

why is my interpretation mistaken in my OP? why must I be wrong and you be right?

my motivation is to make space for those who are heterodox to have a place in the church while being authentic and hopefully press the orthodox to be more vulnerable.  When I show that the deeper one dives into biblical criticism, fewer folks can maintain a literal view.  when that portion of folks who see literalism as not a certainty any longer, come face to face with that, they are more empathetic with those already there.

[Jeanne]

48 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Being Polish, I have a natural inclination toward fermented cabbage. I was introduced to kimchee by a friend who served his mission in Korea and haven't looked back. There is a gallon jar festering on the back porch as we speak. Sister Gui will not allow it into the house, so I have to sneak out back for my fix.  We are fortunate to live in an area with a huge Korean population. I had many Korean students in my school orchestras. We instituted an on-going competition....whose mom is Queen of Kimchee Makers? I got lots of free samples. My son Abogadoso gave me a hard time, once asking, "How can I face my friends when I have a father who likes kimchee?" Ironically, he and his Korean American wife now make their own kimchee. Her mother, by the way, is the All Time Queen of Kimchee Makers.

 

Uh...sounds delicious!!  This is from one who drinks dill pickle juice.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

The spirit testifies very clearly that the policy is not of God. It would seem that generational differences combined with influence from special interest groups has clouded the judgement of some of leaders on this issue (the same few who seem to speak on the topic over and over again). But time has a way of making clear that which is cloudy. 

Can you give me any compelling reason why I should accept your word contradicting so diametrically those whom I sustain as prophets, seers and revelators?

[Bernard Gui]

45 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You must have a passion for sauerkraut as well, then -- or is that not quite up to par with kimchee?

Anything to do with cabbage is fine by me. Fermented, stuffed, boiled, stir fried, salads, with kielbasa or corned beef. Oh, I'm getting a hankerin'. The variety of flavors and ingredients is a plus for kimchee.

Edited October 19, 2016 by Bernard Gui