Reel Infants- Should We Stay or Should We Go?

[mnn727]

I've often thought there should be a "Church of the Terrestrial Kingdom" for those that don't really want to be very active or believe everything, or like their coffee a bit too much, but still want the social contacts and the heritage factors. 

adding: Or just need a rest for a bit.

Edited June 27, 2017 by mnn727

[HappyJackWagon]

27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Let's just say I do not believe Jesus would call Himself the second comforter. If He is referring to Himself as a comforter, He would be the first. I think the term is used more as a revelatory term of art in regards to a key of Noah. Noah means comforter. 

I don't know much about Snuffer either. I did listen to some of the podcast. I have not read any Snuffer books, and don't plan to. His followers seem to view him as the head of another dispensation. He apparently rewrote John to accommodate his Jesus-as-second-comforter theory. According to D&C Joseph Smith was in the sixth seal. The millennium starts with silence in heaven for a half hour which is about 21 years. This means Jesus did not talk to Snuffer in this time period. There may be revelation through the Holy Spirit and other means, but Snuffer didn't hear Jesus talk to him back in 2005-6. Not only that but he is teaching others that Jesus will appear and talk to them.

I'm still not sure why you think the "second comforter" doctrine is so strange. It's not unique to Snuffer. As I cited, it is taught on LDS.org. The 2nd anointing is all about receiving the second comforter, who is Jesus Christ. So the Second Comforter doctrine is quite well established from the beginning of the restoration through current teachings.

(John 14:18, 21, 23).

(D&C 130:3).

I'm genuinely intrigued and confused by your post. I'd love to understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that because Joseph saw Jesus that no one else can? What is the justification for such a claim? Does this prohibition on seeing Jesus also apply to all of the LDS prophets since Joseph?

 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

I've often thought there should be a "Church of the Terrestrial Kingdom" for those that don't really want to be very active or believe everything, or like their coffee a bit too much, but still want the social contacts and the heritage factors.

uh...<no words>

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Its all very interesting.  I do tend to think that the movement to get people to have a personal experience with God is at its root the core movement that Joseph and the earliest followers were getting at.  The problem with this flavor of fundamentalism in my mind is that Joseph Smith was radical with respect to his theology, constantly changing and evolving.  His early 1830s ideas are very different than what culminated in Nauvoo.

Sure.  Let's not forget that in some ways it seems like Emma prevailed on him to give up polygamy at some point....but he apparently went back....and then seemed to have at least taken a break before he died.  I'm just saying, it certainly seems like he never reached the point of satisfaction about what he believed, or what should constitute the religion he set up, or helped to set up. 

It certainly seemed, as some have suggested, that others influenced the direction of Mormonism.  Like Parley P.  this suggests he was as influenced by other's voices as he was by the revelation he put out, in some ways. 

Quote

 

 

As for having a visitation of Jesus, I have no doubt that Denver and others have had these experiences.  I also don't doubt that current LDS members and leaders have had these experiences.  I don't think of these experiences as objectively verifiable, or that these experiences have any actual correlation between the man Jesus and the subjective experiences of the believer.  

I have family members who've seen angels, spirits and deceased family members.  I have no reason to doubt that those experiences were very real for the person experiencing them.  I think all these experiences are subjective, and personally believe they are happening within the mind of the individual experiencing them.  I hesitate to call these hallucinations because some people find these experiences amazingly transformative, and since we currently don't have enough evidence to help us understand what is happening inside their brain I think its best to just trust the individuals that this is what they experienced.  What I believe they are experiencing is essentially a currently non scientifically verifiable subjective and personal experience.  

 

Edited June 27, 2017 by stemelbow

[mnn727]

17 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

uh...<no words>

Why?

Doesn't God love people like that too? Ones that the Celestial kingdom may be too far of a reach? Why does he have a Terrestrial Kingdom then (and a Telestial)?

Edited June 27, 2017 by mnn727

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm still not sure why you think the "second comforter" doctrine is so strange. It's not unique to Snuffer. As I cited, it is taught on LDS.org. The 2nd anointing is all about receiving the second comforter, who is Jesus Christ. So the Second Comforter doctrine is quite well established from the beginning of the restoration through current teachings.

(John 14:18, 21, 23).

(D&C 130:3).

Can you do any better than a scripture guide page for supposed doctrine of the Church? Scripture guides are not revelation last time I checked, and have been changed a couple of times.

Quote

I'm genuinely intrigued and confused by your post. I'd love to understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting that because Joseph saw Jesus that no one else can? What is the justification for such a claim? Does this prohibition on seeing Jesus also apply to all of the LDS prophets since Joseph?

Absolutely not. Lorenzo Snow saw Jesus. What I am saying is that Denver Snuffer is not the head of the last dispensation. His teachings are inconsistent. Joseph Smith received a revelation that the gospel was going forth by the priesthood for THE LAST TIME. This does not leave room for a loss of priesthood through apostasy. Therefore, Denver Snuffer cannot restore it. John the Baptist and Jesus were the head of the fifth seal/dispensation. If so, the millennium is upon us. If Denver Snuffer is the head of the millennial dispensation, he would not be teaching that others could see and hear Jesus since Revelation teaches the seventh seal is begun with a period of silence in heaven once the seal is opened. This period happens to correspond with approx 21 years.

[stemelbow]

15 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Why?

Doesn't God love people like that too?

I suppose so.  Pres Nelson once taught us that divine love ain't unconditional afterall, though (While divine love can be called perfect, infinite, enduring, and universal, it cannot correctly be characterized as unconditional. ).  So I suppose creating a place of segregation for differing levels of humans works on this planet.  Then again, I thought the destination of our afterlife and it's varying levels was a direct result of God's judgment...not man's judgment trying to mimic what some self-exalted men think should be God's judgment.  In other words, as I think I've said here many times before, we should be in this together and treat each other that way, rather than seeing ourselves as appropriately segregated so some can feel a bit more important than others. 

Quote

Ones that the Celestial kingdom may be too far of a reach? Why does he have a Terrestrial Kingdom then (and a Telestial)?

For dingdongs who think they're judgment is more important than his, I guess.  I don't think that's you.  I'm far more likely to end up Terr or Tel than anyone here. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by stemelbow

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Can you do any better than a scripture guide page for supposed doctrine of the Church? Scripture guides are not revelation last time I checked, and have been changed a couple of times.

Absolutely not. Lorenzo Snow saw Jesus. What I am saying is that Denver Snuffer is not the head of the last dispensation. His teachings are inconsistent. Joseph Smith received a revelation that the gospel was going forth by the priesthood for THE LAST TIME. This does not leave room for a loss of priesthood through apostasy. Therefore, Denver Snuffer cannot restore it. John the Baptist and Jesus were the head of the fifth seal/dispensation. If so, the millennium is upon us. If Denver Snuffer is the head of the millennial dispensation, he would not be teaching that others could see and hear Jesus since Revelation teaches the seventh seal is begun with a period of silence in heaven once the seal is opened. This period happens to correspond with approx 21 years.

Though not perfect, I guess I view lds.org as fairly definitive for explaining lds doctrines. I'd recommend going to lds.org and searching second comforter and see what you find. Perhaps some lessons like this. https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-teacher-manual/the-gospel-according-to-st-john/lesson-26-john-14-16?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-john/lesson-74-john-14?lang=eng

You might also search calling and election made sure and see who is being referred to as the second comforter.

Or look in your topical guide for the heading Jesus Christ, Second Comforter

This really isn't in dispute. You may want to read up a little on this.

Edited June 27, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[stemelbow]

ok.  I gave the podcast in the OP a bit of a listen. I skimmed some as it was long, and I've heard most of Bill's story already. 

Matt's rant was just atrociously irrational.  I figured he was trying to say something like, "you're bad if you stay in because the Church is hurting people and staying in supports it."  Which I still think he was trying to say.  But man, what a mess.  He was too angry to really make a good case, if you ask me.  It was like he couldn't step back and be even a little rational or a little sympathetic to another person.  Even I go to Church for a reason and can see exactly what I think is good in the Church.  In my mind, Matt's opinion suffers from a way too black and white style of thinking.  That he seems so hurt and that it lingers is a tragedy, no doubt.  But sadly, he's lashing out at random people. 

And I reject Johnnie cake's reference to Revelation.  I don't see it referencing in the LDS Church. 

Edited June 27, 2017 by stemelbow

[RevTestament]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Though not perfect, I guess I view lds.org as fairly definitive for explaining lds doctrines. I'd recommend going to lds.org and searching second comforter and see what you find. Perhaps some lessons like this. https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-teacher-manual/the-gospel-according-to-st-john/lesson-26-john-14-16?lang=eng

https://www.lds.org/manual/new-testament-seminary-teacher-manual/introduction-to-the-gospel-according-to-st-john/lesson-74-john-14?lang=eng

You might also search calling and election made sure and see who is being referred to as the second comforter.

This really isn't in dispute. You may want to read up a little on this.

This other comforter spoken of by Joseph Smith is not Jesus. Jesus said He would pray to the Father, and the Father would send "another comforter." It is not Jesus.

This might be on the order of the manuals teaching that sacrifice is done away. Well, animal sacrifice was, but even Joseph Smith said sacrifice is not done away.

Edited June 27, 2017 by RevTestament

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

ok.  I gave the podcast in the OP a bit of a listen. I skimmed some as it was long, and I've heard most of Bill's story already. 

Matt's rant was just atrociously irrational.  I figured he was trying to say something like, "you're bad if you stay in because the Church is hurting people and staying in supports it."  Which I still think he was trying to say.  But man, what a mess.  He was too angry to really make a good case, if you ask me.  It was like he couldn't step back and be even a little rational or a little sympathetic to another person.  Even I go to Church for a reason and can see exactly what I think is good in the Church.  In my mind, Matt's opinion suffers from a way too black and white style of thinking.  That he seems so hurt and that it lingers is a tragedy, no doubt.  But sadly, he's lashing out at random people. 

And I reject Johnnie cake's reference to Revelation.  I don't see it referencing in the LDS Church. 

Yes, like he's still stuck in the angry phase. Of course my anger never went that far, if at all. My crisis had me thinking I was in the Twilight Zone, where I was the only one feeling like I did that lived around me. I would drive down the road and each house I would see was a TBM's. It felt so strange, and I suddenly empathised with those that I knew were on the fringe or inactive and how they must have felt. And did I do damage to them by being hands offish.  

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Yes, like he's still stuck in the angry phase. Of course my anger never went that far, if at all. My crisis had me thinking I was in the Twilight Zone, where I was the only one feeling like I did that lived around me. I would drive down the road and each house I would see was a TBM's. It felt so strange, and I suddenly empathised with those that I knew were on the fringe or inactive and how they must have felt. And did I do damage to them by being hands offish.  

yes.  I just read his anger as too misplaced for my tastes.  I don't mind the anger, though.  It happens. 

The digging in heels, creating sides and being overly judgmental is the type of stuff I struggle with in Church.  It seems completely silly to criticize the Church from such a perspective.  Hopefully he gets to a better place. 

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This other comforter spoken of by Joseph Smith is not Jesus. Jesus said He would pray to the Father, and the Father would send "another comforter." It is not Jesus.

This might be on the order of the manuals teaching that sacrifice is done away. Well, animal sacrifice was, but even Joseph Smith said sacrifice is not done away.

I'll say one more thing and move on because this isn't the point of the thread anyway. But I feel like you are intentionally ignoring information because it doesn't fit with your preconceived idea that Jesus isn't the second comforter and that the idea is some kind of weird Snufferite teaching.

I've linked to lessons on lds.org that discuss Jesus as the second comforter. I've linked to lds.org topics page. I've referenced the topical guide. As my final effort to help you see that this is an official teaching of the LDS church, that Jesus Christ is taught to be the second comforter, I'll share this from the Bible dictionary.

Quote

Bible Dictionary

Comforter 

Two Comforters are spoken of. The first is the Holy Ghost (John 14:16–27; Moro. 8:26; D&C 21:9; 42:17; 90:11). The Second Comforter is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. “When any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him” (D&C 88:3–4; 130:3; HC 3:381). See also Holy Ghost.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bd/comforter.html?lang=eng&letter=C

You can choose to ignore it if you like, I just don't understand why you would. This isn't an unusual teaching or some kind of fringe idea.  If this is blowing your mind you may want to stay away from info about the second anointing/endowment.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

Sure.  Let's not forget that in some ways it seems like Emma prevailed on him to give up polygamy at some point....but he apparently went back....and then seemed to have at least taken a break before he died.  I'm just saying, it certainly seems like he never reached the point of satisfaction about what he believed, or what should constitute the religion he set up, or helped to set up. 

It certainly seemed, as some have suggested, that others influenced the direction of Mormonism.  Like Parley P.  this suggests he was as influenced by other's voices as he was by the revelation he put out, in some ways. 

Agreed, others absolutely influenced him.   He was a young 20 year old when this started.  Cowdery, Harris, Rigdon, all had profound influence on him, his environment and culture and family and friends all shaped his experience.  Can you imagine some young RMs in today's church starting their own religion, I could be amazing, silly, innovative, brave and naive all at the same time.  This is Mormonism and it doesn't have any systematized theology, its a hodge podge.  

[smac97]

22 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Quote

1. I welcome anyone and everyone to seek and maintain membership in the Church.  The limited exceptions in terms of participation (attending meetings), are people whose unrepentant and ongoing behavior is A) violent/threatening, B) profane/abusive, and/or C) materially disruptive/demeaning/disrespectful; and the limited exceptions in terms of membership are possibly elements of A, B, and/or C, and also D) people who are in a state of apostasy as defined by the Church and as adjudicated by those in authority.

I liked so much of your post that I gave you a rep point, very thoughtful and I appreciate it.  I would push back a little on items C & D here I think C is questionable because opinions will vary on how to interpret, and I think D is completely unnecessary and is an artifact of old tradition that needs to be done away with.  

I don't understand your characterization of apostasy (or, more particularly, church discipline arising in response to apostasy) as "an artifact of old tradition that needs to be done away with."  

Members of the Church calling each other "Brother" and "Sister" is an "old tradition."

Taking the Sacrament with the right hand is an "old tradition."

"Funeral Potatoes" are an "old tradition."

All these and many more are "traditions."  All of these can be suspended or superseded or ignored or what have you.

But the Church's responsibilities regarding apostasy are an entirely different matter.  People who apostatize and fail to repent cannot remain in the community of faith.  On this we have a clear mandate:

• D&C 50:8-9 - "But the hypocrites shall be detected and shall be cut off, either in life or in death, even as I will; and wo unto them who are cut off from my church, for the same are overcome of the world. Wherefore, let every man beware lest he do that which is not in truth and righteousness before me."
• D&C 64:34-37 - "Behold, the Lord requireth the heart and a willing mind; and the willing and obedient shall eat the good of the land of Zion in these last days. And the rebellious shall be cut off out of the land of Zion, and shall be sent away, and shall not inherit the land. For, verily I say that the rebellious are not of the blood of Ephraim, wherefore they shall be plucked out. Behold, I, the Lord, have made my church in these last days like unto a judge sitting on a hill, or in a high place, to judge the nations."
• D&C 104:6-10 - "For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in these things. And all this that the innocent among you may not be condemned with the unjust; and that the guilty among you may not escape; because I, the Lord, have promised unto you a crown of glory at my right hand. Therefore, inasmuch as you are found transgressors, you cannot escape my wrath in your lives. Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption. And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you."
• D&C 51:1-2 - "Hearken unto me, saith the Lord your God, and I will speak unto my servant Edward Partridge, and give unto him directions; for it must needs be that he receive directions how to organize this people. For it must needs be that they be organized according to my laws; if otherwise, they will be cut off."
• D&C 63:60-64 - "Behold, I am Alpha and Omega, even Jesus Christ. Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips. For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under this condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. Wherefore, let the church repent of their sins, and I, the Lord, will own them; otherwise they shall be cut off. Remember that that which cometh from above is sacred, and must be spoken with care, and by constraint of the Spirit; and in this there is no condemnation, and ye receive the Spirit through prayer; wherefore, without this there remaineth condemnation."
• D&C 133:63 - "And upon them that hearken not to the voice of the Lord shall be fulfilled that which was written by the prophet Moses, that they should be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 85:11 - "And they who are of the High Priesthood, whose names are not found written in the book of the law, or that are found to have apostatized, or to have been cut off from the church, as well as the lesser priesthood, or the members, in that day shall not find an inheritance among the saints of the Most High."
• D&C 1:14 - "And the arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people."
• D&C 134:10 - "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."
• Alma 1:24 - "The hearts of many were hardened, and their names were blotted out."
• 3 Ne. 18:31 - "If he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people."
• D&C 42:24 - "Adulterers who do not repent shall be cast out."
• D&C 42:28 - "He that sinneth and repenteth not shall be cast out."
• D&C 41:5 - "He that receiveth my law and doeth it, the same is my disciple; and he that saith he receiveth it and doeth it not, the same is not my disciple, and shall be cast out from among you."
• Helaman 12:25 - "And I would that all men might be saved. But we read that in the great and last day there are some who shall be cast out, yea, who shall be cast off from the presence of the Lord."
• 3 Nephi 14:15 - "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves."

This is tough medicine.  There is a lot of pain when these things happen.  But the presence of rebellion/apostasy and the absence of repentance makes such things a necessary component of maintaining our community.

I don't want them these people to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

So with respect, I'll have to disagree that addressing apostasy in the Church is something "that needs to be done away with."  We can't do it, any more than we can willfully disregard the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity or the Law of Tithing, or the central salvific role of Jesus Christ.

Quote

Overall, we all need to be more tolerant and respectful of differing perspectives.  

I agree.  But that tolerance cannot extend to disregarding open, flagrant, unrepentant apostasy.  

Addressing apostasy is not a "tradition."  It is a divine mandate.

Quote

Sometimes when someone is going through faith crisis they can be unintentionally disrespectful because of the way they are feeling about the church, they are going through the stages of grief and that anger faze is a doozy!  I think people need to be more loving and patient and mourn with them in their mourning.  

Agreed.

Quote

Conversely, sometimes an orthodox member can be dismissive and hurtful with tribalism and boundary maintenance towards those pushing their comfort levels.  I think those who are unorthodox need to try to be more patient towards those who make these comments, realizing that they do so out of fear sometimes or feelings of loyalty towards the institution and towards those ideas they feel are sacred and need defending. 

Agreed.

Quote

If both sides can be more tolerant and empathetic, I have confidence that we can not only coexist, but that we can learn valuable lessons from our interactions.  We need to forgive, we will make mistakes, but we can build a better future, perhaps even a Zion like future, if we love people first and put our pride in the backseat.  This is the gospel that I have a testimony of.  

Thank you for your thoughts.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 27, 2017 by smac97

[stemelbow]

28 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Agreed, others absolutely influenced him.   He was a young 20 year old when this started.  Cowdery, Harris, Rigdon, all had profound influence on him, his environment and culture and family and friends all shaped his experience.  Can you imagine some young RMs in today's church starting their own religion, I could be amazing, silly, innovative, brave and naive all at the same time.  This is Mormonism and it doesn't have any systematized theology, its a hodge podge.  

Perfect.  Early Mormism really was "amazing, silly, innovative, brave and naive all at the same time".

[hope_for_things]

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand your characterization of apostasy (or, more particularly, church discipline arising in response to apostasy) as "an artifact of old tradition that needs to be done away with."  

Members of the Church calling each other "Brother" and "Sister" is an "old tradition."

Taking the Sacrament with the right hand is an "old tradition."

"Funeral Potatoes" are an "old tradition."

All these and many more are "traditions."  All of these can be suspended or superseded or ignored or what have you.

But the Church's responsibilities regarding apostasy are an entirely different matter.  People who apostatize and fail to repent cannot remain in the community of faith.  On this we have a clear mandate:

Its a matter of interpretation and emphasis.  I can find many scriptures especially in the OT that we ignore the specific instructions on because they are considered unethical in our modern culture.  We don't need to take these scriptures you quote literally and can interpret them differently or ignore them entirely.  Since scripture contains the cultural biases of its time and place, no reason to believe these are eternal practices that are unchangeable.  

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't want them these people to leave the Church. I want them in it. I want everyone in it. But we are a community of faith. We cohere around faith. When we disregard apostasy we weaken our community.

So with respect, I'll have to disagree that addressing apostasy in the Church is something "that needs to be done away with."  We can't do it, any more than we can willfully disregard the Word of Wisdom or the Law of Chastity or the Law of Tithing, or the central salvific role of Jesus Christ.

It might weaken the community, thats a possibility.  I believe it will strengthen the community in the long run, but possibly weaken things in the short term.  I think the entire church culture needs to go through a renaissance of sorts.  

For the WoW since you gave that example, we totally ignore much of it today, and we overemphasize parts of it and reinterpret other parts.  Thats a great example of how we pick and choose and change our emphasis over time.  Same with Tithing and Chastity.  All those interpretations have evolved and morphed significantly in less than 200 yrs of modern Mormonism.  

I don't think we're overall that far away about how we need to treat each other in the church.  Some slight differences on emphasis and probably some major differences on our ways of interpreting the gospel message, but hopefully we can learn from the interactions with one another and grow through trying to understand each other.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

yes.  I just read his anger as too misplaced for my tastes.  I don't mind the anger, though.  It happens. 

The digging in heels, creating sides and being overly judgmental is the type of stuff I struggle with in Church.  It seems completely silly to criticize the Church from such a perspective.  Hopefully he gets to a better place. 

On second thought, I can definitely see where anger is justified, if family members destroy a marriage. In the past week I've read about two instances that the parents of the son and one a daughter told their spouses to leave them when their son or daughter quit believing in the church. That angers or would anger me and is understandable. 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll say one more thing and move on because this isn't the point of the thread anyway. But I feel like you are intentionally ignoring information because it doesn't fit with your preconceived idea that Jesus isn't the second comforter and that the idea is some kind of weird Snufferite teaching.

I've linked to lessons on lds.org that discuss Jesus as the second comforter. I've linked to lds.org topics page. I've referenced the topical guide. As my final effort to help you see that this is an official teaching of the LDS church, that Jesus Christ is taught to be the second comforter, I'll share this from the Bible dictionary.

You can choose to ignore it if you like, I just don't understand why you would. This isn't an unusual teaching or some kind of fringe idea.  If this is blowing your mind you may want to stay away from info about the second anointing/endowment.

This is exactly right.
The first comforter is the Holy Ghost, because you receive it first and it provides knowledge and guidance for your life (comfort).
The second comforter is the Savior himself because he confirms your blessings upon you (more sure comfort, and a more sure testimony of him - the more sure word of prophecy).
 

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

This other comforter spoken of by Joseph Smith is not Jesus. Jesus said He would pray to the Father, and the Father would send "another comforter." It is not Jesus.

No, this is a reference to the Holy Ghost - the first comforter.
This is not a reference to Christ, the second comforter.

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, mnn727 said:

I've often thought there should be a "Church of the Terrestrial Kingdom" for those that don't really want to be very active or believe everything, or like their coffee a bit too much, but still want the social contacts and the heritage factors. 

adding: Or just need a rest for a bit.

Ummm...a rather smug comment

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

On second thought, I can definitely see where anger is justified, if family members destroy a marriage. In the past week I've read about two instances that the parents of the son and one a daughter told their spouses to leave them when their son or daughter quit believing in the church. That angers or would anger me and is understandable. 

If that was all to the story, then the parents were wrong, imo.  However, I have seen claims made this happened when I knew from other comments there was more going on, mainly pressure from the unbelieving spouse to leave the Church as well or going ahead and bringing into the home things the believing spouse was uncomfortable with, such as alcohol and porn.  Descriptions approached abuse if they were not actual abuse, imo.

In other words, I would suggest hearing from all those involved before making judgments of the right or wrongness of anger.

Edited June 27, 2017 by Calm

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

On second thought, I can definitely see where anger is justified, if family members destroy a marriage. In the past week I've read about two instances that the parents of the son and one a daughter told their spouses to leave them when their son or daughter quit believing in the church. That angers or would anger me and is understandable. 

I second what Calm mentioned. Of the people I've got to meet in person who were being told to divorce a spouce leaving the church, they reasons weren't simply that they were leaving the church. It had more to do with their behaviors, interactions, etc. Even on the lowest level of renegotiating what the family does or doesn't do and when, what's acceptable for both of them as parents and partners, etc can be tricky. But sometimes there's more, like insisting something is acceptable that the partner doesn't believe is or using the church as justifications for why they can now do xyz when the partner is personally uncomfortable with xyz. 

I would find it inappropriate for someone outside the marriage suggesting divorce just for leaving the church. But I just haven't met anyone yet who left or was leaving that that was the case. People had suggested divorce to the other partner, but honestly that was the least of their problems these others were concerned about.

 

With luv,

BD

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

On second thought, I can definitely see where anger is justified, if family members destroy a marriage. In the past week I've read about two instances that the parents of the son and one a daughter told their spouses to leave them when their son or daughter quit believing in the church. That angers or would anger me and is understandable. 

In my observation, those who were/are the most dedicated and faithful..hold the most anger and for longer. 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

In my observation, those who were/are the most dedicated and faithful..hold the most anger and for longer.

That has always been the way.
Joseph's worst enemies were his former followers.
And then there was this man named Judas....

[Jeanne]

Just now, JLHPROF said:

That has always been the way.
Joseph's worst enemies were his former followers.
And then there was this man named Judas....

Of course you are right and I agree.  It is the nature of being human and feeling betrayed.