Sam Young is Excommunicated

[Exiled]

22 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Of course not. That’s absurd. There are other choices  

Nevertheless, dissension in the Church always leads to grief. The scriptures are clear on that, giving repeated warnings about backbiting, evil speaking, finding fault, and causing contention. The Church has the right to resist such destructive activities. They do not come from the Spirit. 

It is absurd. Would you say the same thing about the strengthening the members committee?

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

All that is very true, but Christ also said-

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

I love how Christ acknowledges the weaknesses of His servants a few verses before this verse-

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.  And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;  And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;  And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;  And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

It is follow the Prophet, as he (sometimes imperfectly) follows Christ.    This is what Christ has asked of us.

I agree with that, Pres. Cannon said this 

"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not beshaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight and the pure in heart are dear to Him.

Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, seek after the Holy Spirit and the unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel and prepare a people for His coming. . . ."

[Duncan]

4 hours ago, changed said:

Most of the 7.7 billion people on this earth have no prophet to follow.  Most of the people on this earth through history had no prophet to follow.  That is by design - by design God did not send prophets and apostles to the vast majority of the people on this earth.... Why is that?  

If God wanted all of us to follow prophets, he would have given all the people on earth through all history prophets to follow.  Those in China, those in India, those in Africa - they would have all had prophets.  Instead they lived their lives without scriptures, without religious leaders - why was it designed this way?  God did not send apostles and prophets to the majority of his children.

If God wanted a personal relationship with all of us - if he wanted us to follow our own conscience - he would have left most people, most of the time, without a solid guide to follow.  

Humans by nature are lazy - not wanting to think for themselves, not wanting to take responsibility for themselves, preferring to just rely on others for their strength and testimony... the only way perhaps is to take away those supports - no supports = forced to stand on your own two feet.

Dependent at the start, but at some point, those supports will be pulled away - by the end, we are all supposed to stand on our own two feet.

Follow the light of Christ, Follow the Spirit...

Upon this rock - not upon Peter - upon personal revelation - upon this rock is the church built.

I think that is an assumption to make that he did not send prophets to all these people, maybe they kept records or maybe they didn't or maybe they didn't have the priesthood. as I read through what the brethren have said it sounds like God gives humanity portions of his light through inspired people, who is to say Muhammed, Confucius, St. Thomas Aquinas, Zoroaster weren't inspired of the Lord? Read the First Presidency statement, Feb. 1978. If we are all teachable then I think we can learn, either we hear a prophet in this or the next life

Edited September 23, 2018 by Duncan

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

I agree with that, Pres. Cannon said this 

"Do not, brethren, put your trust in man though he be a Bishop, an Apostle or a President; if you do, they will fail you at some time or place; they will do wrong or seem to, and your support be gone; but if we lean on God, He never will fail us. When men and women depend on God alone and trust in Him alone, their faith will not beshaken if the highest in the Church should step aside. They could still see that He is just and true, that truth is lovely in His sight and the pure in heart are dear to Him.

Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men. Therefore, seek after the Holy Spirit and the unfailing testimony of God and His work upon the earth. Rest not until you know for yourselves that God has set His hand to redeem Israel and prepare a people for His coming. . . ."

Love it!

 

[Calm]

Quote

Perhaps it is His own design that faults and weaknesses should appear in high places in order that His Saints may learn to trust in Him and not in any man or men.

This is what I have always believed and why finding flaws, even major flaws, in our leaders has never bugged me.  Humans are generally speaking takers of the paths of least resistance unless we have good reasons to fight, imo.   I think we may often trust others more than ourselves as well since we are so intimately familiar with our own shortcomings and others may seem to be have less troubles/hangups.

It would be too easy, imo, to rely on prophets and other leaders if they had only minor flaws and skip working towards having our own 'face to face' with God. At the very least, we need an occasional major screwup to force ourselves to accept personal responsibility for spiritual connection.

[cdowis]

8 hours ago, changed said:

Prophets and apostles have arms of flesh.... consider the original 12 apostles - they could not walk on water, could not always heal people, they wanted to keep children from coming to Jesus, could not stay awake when needed, they doubted, one betrayed Jesus with a kiss.... no, I will not have a testimony of any prophet or apostle.  Apostles are just a reminder that God works with imperfect people.

 

It is up to all of us to gain our own personal testimony, follow our own conscience - the light of Christ that comes individually to each of us.  

Not "Follow the Prophet" - it is follow Christ, follow Heavenly Father.  On none else should anyone's testimony rest.

I will heed the words of the Lord and not your personal opinions ==========>>>>>>>>>>

DC 1 

4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.

5 And they shall go forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.

6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, 

8 And verily I say unto you, that they who go forth, bearing these tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, to them is power given to seal both 
on earth and in heaven, the unbelieving and rebellious;

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;

Edited September 24, 2018 by cdowis

[YJacket]

44 minutes ago, cdowis said:

I will heed the words of the Lord and not your personal opinions ==========>>>>>>>>>>

DC 1 

4 And the voice of warning shall be unto all people, by the mouths of my disciples, whom I have chosen in these last days.

5 And they shall go forth and none shall stay them, for I the Lord have commanded them.

6 Behold, this is mine authority, and the authority of my servants, 

8 And verily I say unto you, that they who go forth, bearing these tidings unto the inhabitants of the earth, to them is power given to seal both 
on earth and in heaven, the unbelieving and rebellious;

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;

Great scripture.  A couple of points for thought.  verse 4: define "my disciples".  Are not those who are baptized "disciples of Christ".  Does one need to be an official Apostle or Prophet to have verse 4 apply?

verse 6: authority of my servants.  Is it just Apostles and Prophets that are talked about in this verse?  What about DC 20? 

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

The duty of the elders, priests, teachers, deacons, and members of the church of Christ—An apostle is an elder, and it is his calling to baptize;

39 And to ordain other elders, priests, teachers, and deacons;

40 And to administer bread and wine—the emblems of the flesh and blood of Christ—

41 And to confirm those who are baptized into the church, by the laying on of hands for the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, according to the scriptures;

42 And to teach, expound, exhort, baptize, and watch over the church;

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

Why would an Elder or a Teacher or a Priest who speaks by the Power of God in their respective calling not have God's Authority?  Verse 14.  First it says "neither the voice of his servants", are not Elders, Bishops, Teachers, Priests, etc. his disciples and servants?  I think we do a big, big disservice in ONLY believing that the voice of God can ONLY come through Apostles and Prophets.  God has certainly given men the Authority to speak by the power of the Holy Ghost-and it's not just reserved for 12 (or 15 men).  Test their words against the scriptures, regardless of who the man might be.

[YJacket]

On 9/21/2018 at 9:27 AM, HappyJackWagon said:

So would you admit that there are 2 separate versions of the law of chastity, one for straights and one for gays?

So you're suggesting that any h0mosxual tendency is sin. You don't accept the church's official position about SS attraction? You think gay people can become non-gay? How? Faith and prayer?

You mentioned in an earlier post that there will be haters who think you are bigoted. I think you're right that there are many who will think you're bigoted but that doesn't necessarily make them haters.

No I do not believe in 2 separate versions of the law of Chastity.  There is only one, which is man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the wife do the same.  Any sexual relations outside of this God ordained order is sin.  Christ taught that sexual relations are not just in physical acts but in the mind and heart.

Yes, I'm not suggesting it-I'm telling you homosexuality is sin-period.  No I do not accept the Church's official position on SS attraction-it is a corrupted message that has no basis in God's Word as revealed to us in the scriptures. I have searched the scriptures, I have pondered, I have prayed and I have found the Church's message is out-of-line with biblical teaching and is a corrupt message. If the Church's leaders truly believe this current teaching (and maybe they do,but if they do they have been deceived), and they want the rest of the Church to believe it-they should get a revelation and have it sustained-otherwise what they are teaching is false doctrine and I do not believe it will be well with them at the last day as the blood and sins of this generation will be upon their heads for not teaching correct doctrine (but that's not my problem-and I'm very glad for that!).

Yes I do believe homosexuals can become non-homosexuals.  How?  By doing the things anyone does to change; people change all the time-they change their habits, their thoughts, their likes, their dislikes-happens all the time.  Ralph Waldo Emerson "“Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny.”

It's happened to me personally, I've grown older-I no longer like the same things I did when I was a child.  My tastes have changed, my likes have changed, my dislikes have changed.  If you look at your life, you will find the same thing has happened to you.  I've had habits and thought patterns that were apart of my life for decades and then I saw they were sin, I had a desire to change them and I did.  Yes it was hard and difficult but not impossible-it required a willing heart and mind to conform my life more in keeping with what God wants as dictated through Holy Scripture. 

[YJacket]

On 9/20/2018 at 9:43 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I don't think they shot themselves in the foot.  They simply are recognizing something that always has been true.  That being only Jesus was perfect and prophets are allowed to make decisions and hold views on issue that may not be correct.  This is part of the learning process for us.  If God did not allow the church to make any mistakes, we would have a harder time progressing.  Where God does keep things pretty much centered is true doctrine as established in the scriptures.  Where anyone including an apostle can go wrong is moving beyond what is established in the scriptures to one of speculating. 

They already have moved beyond established scriptures with regards to homosexuality.  I agree they are recognizing something that has already been true; what it means though is that as a member I'm free to vehemently disagree with teachings that have no basis in scripture and still be a TR church going member-I'm okay with that.

[YJacket]

On 9/20/2018 at 9:23 PM, kllindley said:

Of course you have every right to reject the teachings of living prophets and apostles. That's no different than the members who think the Brethren are wrong about any other topic. 

I find it quite clear that the scriptures differentiate between sin and weakness. While the needed response to each is the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, one calls for repentance while the other does not. 

I find it incredibly arrogant for someone to claim that anyone who hasn't changed just doesn't want it bad enough.  You can claim you're not attacking anyone, but that is absolutely an attack on the integrity and character of those who have wanted nothing more than to change and did not.

Do you likewise judge anyone who is sick, blind, deaf, suffering from mental illness, or is paralyzed? Surely God has the power to heal them? Are they just lacking sufficient faith? 

Again choosing to reject God's authorized servants on this issue is entirely your prerogative. Many choose their own interpretation of scripture over the words of His messengers. 

If their teachings do not conform to the Holy Scriptures than I have a duty to reject their words.  If they are going against Scripture and want me to accept their words then they should get a revelation, have the membership sustain it and then I'm duty-bound to accept those teachings.

Please show me scriptures that differentiate between sin and weakness.  You seem to have a very narrow definition of sin and a narrow definition of sin negates the Atonement.  Due to our modern culture, I like to reflect back to Joseph Smith's time to understand how words were defined when he was translating the Book of Mormon and receiving DC.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/sin

The voluntary departure of a moral agent from a known rule of rectitude or duty, prescribed by God; any voluntary transgression of the divine law, or violation of a divine command; a wicked act; iniquity. sin is either a positive act in which a known divine law is violated, or it is the voluntary neglect to obey a positive divine command, or a rule of duty clearly implied in such command. sin comprehends not action only, but neglect of known duty, all evil thoughts purposes, words and desires, whatever is contrary to God's commands or law.

That encompasses a lot of things. Is thinking sexual thoughts or feelings about another individual who is not our spouse (as described in Scripture) a sin-absolutely!  Anyone who says otherwise, simply has not read or does not believe scripture.

Arrogance has nothing to do with it-I would say that is a personal attack on me-i.e. to claim that I am arrogant simply b/c I am stating what I find in the scriptures which states that weak things will be made strong, which describes how God can give us a "new heart".  But that is okay-I do forgive you for your personal attack, I do not mean harm only to proclaim the Word of God and if it produces harm, "the wicked taketh the truth to be hard".

Physical ailments are vastly different than mental/emotional/spiritual ailments.  Speaking in the worldly science-I have plenty of experience in those areas and "scientist, mental health experts" etc.  they have no clue how to heal the human mind/psyche/emotion.  They pump people up with drugs that don't work, or work about as good as placebo's, the studies they have done on human beings have been absolutely horrific, from electro-shock therapy, to the Stanford prison experiment, to you name it.  Kinsley's vaunted study on sexuality is a fraud-the data he used hasn't been reproduced, he most likely fabricated much of his data, he used a subset of the population (criminals) and then extrapolated that to the general public.  The mental health industry is one giant big fraud perpetrated by a bunch of (largely) immoral-amoral individuals funded by huge drug companies with the sole purpose of making money.  The psychologist who founded the "chemical imbalance" theory is on the record as saying that it is simply "a useful metaphor".  By any metric they use to measure seratonin (which can't be measured directly-only indirectly), the drugs only temporarily depress seratonin but the brain rewires itself and then produces MORE after drug usage.  The studies about short term improvements using drugs is inconclusive and any long-term studies (of which there are few) actually show that individuals who have mental health problems who are off drugs and stay off drugs do much better long-term than those who stay on drugs.  All this to say that I have done my research, I have been though it and nobody has a blooming clue about the things of the mind or spirit.

Homosexuality (a sin of the heart/mind/soul) and mental issues-I don't like to call them mental issues b/c they are really spiritual issues not mental issues-can only be solved by the things of the spirit not by the things of the world.

The biggest problem to actually solving these problems is when people take what I have said as an attack-instead of searching for truth in God's word and then comparing it to what I say-but again the wicked taketh the truth to be hard.  

Like I said before, I don't care if someone calls me bigoted, intolerant, etc-b/c it's not true and ultimately what you say or anyone else says about me has 0 bearing on my standing with God.  I've had my soul racked by my sins and I've felt His redeeming love and conforming myself to His Word and then proclaiming His Word to others is all that really matters to me.

[rockpond]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

All that is very true, but Christ also said-

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

I love how Christ acknowledges the weaknesses of His servants a few verses before this verse-

Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding.  And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known;  And inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed;  And inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent;  And inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time.

It is follow the Prophet, as he (sometimes imperfectly) follows Christ.    This is what Christ has asked of us.

I also like that the Lord acknowledges the weaknesses and fallibilty of His servants.  I think that is important to remember along with the lack of scriptural support for this modern day idea that we should follow the prophet. 

We follow the Lord, our God.  We look to our prophet to point the way and seek a confirmation of what he teaches.  And we look to our apostles for their witness and testimony of the Savior.  But we only follow the Lord. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I also like that the Lord acknowledges the weaknesses and fallibilty of His servants.  I think that is important to remember along with the lack of scriptural support for this modern day idea that we should follow the prophet. 

We follow the Lord, our God.  We look to our prophet to point the way and seek a confirmation of what he teaches.  And we look to our apostles for their witness and testimony of the Savior.  But we only follow the Lord. 

Which includes the exhortation to heed the direction of his anointed prophets and apostles.

 

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which includes the exhortation to heed the direction of his anointed prophets and apostles.

 

Absolutely. 

I think heed is a better fitting term than follow. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Absolutely. 

I think heed is a better fitting term than follow. 

That strikes me as semantic quibbling. 

[rockpond]

38 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That strikes me as semantic quibbling. 

There is overlap between the definitions of the two words.  But heed feels like the more appropriate term.  It also happens to be the one that is used at the end endowment ceremony. 

We follow the Lord, our perfect example. 

We heed the counsel and teachings of the prophets as they point to the Lord. 

You may consider it “semantic quibbling” but it is an important distinction for me. 

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Exiled said:

It is absurd. Would you say the same thing about the strengthening the members committee?

Why not stop beating around the bush and just make your point.

[Hamba Tuhan]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But heed feels like the more appropriate term.  It also happens to be the one that is used at the end endowment ceremony. 

'Strict heed', in fact. Immediately followed by a beautifully assuring promise. (Unless you were referring to something else? This is not quite what I would consider the 'end'.)

[Scott Lloyd]

57 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is overlap between the definitions of the two words.  But heed feels like the more appropriate term.  It also happens to be the one that is used at the end endowment ceremony. 

We follow the Lord, our perfect example. 

We heed the counsel and teachings of the prophets as they point to the Lord. 

You may consider it “semantic quibbling” but it is an important distinction for me. 

I won’t discuss any temple ceremony content. I consider such discussion inappropriate here. 

But I suspect you draw a distinction because it helps you rationalize rejecting some of the teachings of the apostles and prophets. 

Edited September 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Strict heed', in fact. Immediately followed by a beautifully assuring promise. (Unless you were referring to something else? This is not quite what I would consider the 'end'.)

I suspect that was a typo, a false start in typing “endowment.” 

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I suspect that was a typo, a false start in typing “endowment.” 

In any case, it has certainly been my personal experience that we receive the Saviour by heeding the servants whom He has authorised to lead us.

And as He instructed the original Seventy: 'He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me'. Despising the counsel and teachings of the living prophets and other Church leaders is toxic to the spiritual life of a person and, if not arrested, halts the flow of personal revelation in short order ... no matter how much one may protest that s/he is really following Jesus.

Edited September 24, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Abulafia]

3 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In any case, it has certainly been my personal experience that we receive the Saviour by heeding the servants whom He has authorised to lead us.

And as He instructed the original Seventy: 'He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me'. Despising the counsel and teachings of the living prophets and other Church leaders is toxic to the spiritual life of a person and, if not arrested, halts the flow of personal revelation in short order ... no matter how much one may protest that s/he is really following Jesus.

If this modern concept of unquestioned authority were present in the early Christian communities, then Paul (who was never a pillar or one of the 12) would be an excommunicated apostate.

Just a thought.

[Hamba Tuhan]

57 minutes ago, Abulafia said:

Just a thought.

Jesus never mentioned 'unquestioned authority'. Despising his chosen servants is still an act of Spirit-blocking defiance. Please don't think you can impose some silly black-and-white 'thought' bubble on the Saints.

[rockpond]

7 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

'Strict heed', in fact. Immediately followed by a beautifully assuring promise. (Unless you were referring to something else? This is not quite what I would consider the 'end'.)

Yes.  

And you are right...  not the end of the endowment... the end of the video portion. 

[smac97]

On 9/16/2018 at 2:44 PM, Abulafia said:

Okay, let me explain further. I do not believe that any priest or bishop is in a position to judge the worthiness of my child. Private confession to a male authority figure is a later Catholic practice that had no place in the communities that tried to follow Jesus's teachings, and had no place in Judaism. You confessed to the person you hurt and tried to put it right with them. Criminal matters were tried in the courts.

I would be curious as to your thoughts on the meaning of Bishops being common judges in Israel.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, YJacket said:

No I do not believe in 2 separate versions of the law of Chastity.  There is only one, which is man shall leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the wife do the same.  Any sexual relations outside of this God ordained order is sin.  Christ taught that sexual relations are not just in physical acts but in the mind and heart.

Yes, I'm not suggesting it-I'm telling you homosexuality is sin-period.  No I do not accept the Church's official position on SS attraction-it is a corrupted message that has no basis in God's Word as revealed to us in the scriptures. I have searched the scriptures, I have pondered, I have prayed and I have found the Church's message is out-of-line with biblical teaching and is a corrupt message. If the Church's leaders truly believe this current teaching (and maybe they do,but if they do they have been deceived), and they want the rest of the Church to believe it-they should get a revelation and have it sustained-otherwise what they are teaching is false doctrine and I do not believe it will be well with them at the last day as the blood and sins of this generation will be upon their heads for not teaching correct doctrine (but that's not my problem-and I'm very glad for that!).

Yes I do believe homosexuals can become non-homosexuals.  How?  By doing the things anyone does to change; people change all the time-they change their habits, their thoughts, their likes, their dislikes-happens all the time.  Ralph Waldo Emerson "“Sow a thought and you reap an action; sow an act and you reap a habit; sow a habit and you reap a character; sow a character and you reap a destiny.”

It's happened to me personally, I've grown older-I no longer like the same things I did when I was a child.  My tastes have changed, my likes have changed, my dislikes have changed.  If you look at your life, you will find the same thing has happened to you.  I've had habits and thought patterns that were apart of my life for decades and then I saw they were sin, I had a desire to change them and I did.  Yes it was hard and difficult but not impossible-it required a willing heart and mind to conform my life more in keeping with what God wants as dictated through Holy Scripture. 

Thank you for your honesty. It's good to know you stand to the far ultra-orthodox right of the brethren. I suspect many in the church feel similarly. I find that SUPER depressing but it upholds my general belief that almost everyone in the church, whether on the right or left, progressive or orthodox, pick and choose how they follow the prophet. It seems we are all cafeteria Mormons.

I think your POV on hmosxuality is a good illustration of why the church isn't a usually a safe place for the LGBT community and why allies often become disheartened in the church.