A very Strang finding

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

What I'm saying is a catholic priest, a Christian pastor, minister, Jewish rabbi and so on, dont hold the proper Authority to judge sin.

Okay.  I'm not sure what "judge sin" means in this context.  If I take the Lord's name in vain, I don't need a bishop to tell me that I've sinned, right?

And a bishop, in any event, does not forgive sin.  Do you agree with this?

29 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Proper repentance has to be done by talking to a judge of Israel (mormon bishop, stake pres. Apostle, prophet). Correct?

For those under the covenants of the Restored Gospel, yes.

Are you suggesting that people who are not members of the Church are incapable of "proper repentance?"  At all?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

Again, you seem to be overlooking the Atonement.  Mercy.  Grace.  The love of God.  The central tenets of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm not over looking anything,  I agree with what you said, but we also believe in works, keeping the commandments.

I agree with you.

Quote

Your above statement is correct if one is striving for only salvation, but our religion isn't concerned about the 2 lower kingdoms,

It's not?

Quote

we strive for exaltation, the celestial kingdom, anything else is falling short of our purpose here on earth. If I'm wrong, tell me now so I can go by some normal underwear.

I think we ought to be concerned about the entirety of the Restored Gospel.  That we ought to strive for the Celestial Kingdom does not mean we are not "concerned about" the other provisions for the destination of souls.

We seem to be getting a little far afield.  I don't think we categorize everyone outside the Church as "worse sinner{s} than we are."  That was the point with which I disagree.  

Also, I'd hope you would not mock or make light of the garment.  "Trifle not with sacred things," as it were (D&C 6:12).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 8, 2021 by smac97

[CV75]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Right now I honestly dont know. I can tell you for some reason, the things Joseph did dont bother. Also, church history doesn't bother me that much, I can allow for mistakes, these men are human. But for some reason the realist side of me has a hard time with the fact that the brethren chose to double the amount of temples 2 years before the 2nd millennium.  So yes I'm starting to question if there's a second coming. Food storage was huge in the 80s and 90s. But now, atleast in my area, we never talk about it. Shouldn't food storage be extremely important if we're preparing for the 2nd coming, like it was in the 80s and 90s?

I think it would be good to identify the root of your faith crisis so you can effectively deal with it.

I understand that "folk doctrine" puts the date of the Second Coming at the year 2000, but I do not see where that was identified by the Brethren as the time of the Second Coming and the impetus for quickly building many temples. The explanations I've heard at the pulpit, in addition to those that have been shared, was a season of opportunity (financially, economically and geopolitically). But of course temples prepare us for the Second Coming, whenever it is to come. These are the last days before that time.

Food storage was singularly important in a much less socially complex time (I'm speaking both domestically and globally). Today's self-reliance initiative addresses that complexity, and food storage (later evolving into "home storage" and "home production and storage" from the 60s into the 90s) is still an element of that. But even in its heyday, food storage was for emergencies (extended unemployment, natural disaster, helping others), not the Second Coming. A one-year supply was always a recommended, and not a magical, number. Self-reliance is better, more broadly-based and flexible preparation in today's world for the Second Coming, whenever it is to come, than simple food storage.

Maybe you held to some of these folk/popular beliefs and attitudes -- e.g. Second Coming in Year 2000, food storage is for a "mass extinction event" to bunker until the Second Coming, etc. -- but there can can be liberty, not crisis, in learning your "conservatism" or "rigor" in this regard may have set you up for disappointment.

Edited February 8, 2021 by CV75

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

If a catholic repents to their priest,that's not seen as truly repenting because that priest holds no authority according to mormon teachings. According to our teachings only a judge of Israel (mormon bishop) has the proper authority to judge sin. Which means all other religous leaders are basically giving glorified pep talks when trying to forgive sin. That's why we dont accept other religions baptism,  the investigator has to be vetted by a man with proper authority, because no matter how many times they might of repented in the past as a catholic, baptist, Methodist and so on, the repenting they did with their ecclesiastical leader was done without confessing to a man who holds the correct priesthood keys to forgive sin on Gods behalf. Am I looking at this incorrectly? Also, is this the definition of what a monopoly would be as far as mortal sin is concerned?

Not only that, but baptism is only workable in the LDS church, and only recognized by God because we have the only authority. 

[JLHPROF]

14 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I do think building temples is a good idea, yes ma'am. But from the beginning in 1800s up till 1997, we had 51 temples. And then in 3 years 1998 to 2000 the brethren dedicated 51 temples, doubling the amount. Do you remember all the hype around the year 2000? Everyone was stocking food, toilet paper, gold, silver, we had food storage classes at the church in the 90s. I dont no about in Utah but out here food storage is hardly talked about. 

You do remember the corresponding exponential increase in membership after 1978?  Of course more temples will be needed.

But I know what you mean.  Sometimes it seems like we've forgotten the Latter Day part of our name or our Millennialist doctrines.  I have heard a lot of members quoting Pres. Packer and implying that we have generations left before then.
Which considering D&C 77 is a bit odd.
I will say that Pres. Nelson seems to have a bit more urgency and warning about upcoming events.  They don't want to encourage end of the world thinking which is wise, but I also think perhaps we are too busy fullfiling Luke 17:26-30.

[AtlanticMike]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

52 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

What I'm saying is a catholic priest, a Christian pastor, minister, Jewish rabbi and so on, dont hold the proper Authority to judge sin.

Okay.  I'm not sure what "judge sin" means in this context.  If I take the Lord's name in vain, I don't need a bishop to tell me that I've sinned, right?

And a bishop, in any event, does not forgive sin.  Do you agree with this?

"Judge sin" a bishop sits in judgement of a transgressor (a sinner). Its his duty. He does this "judging" so ultimately god can forgive us once we complete the repentance process. My question to you, can any other religion do this?

[AtlanticMike]

38 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Proper repentance has to be done by talking to a judge of Israel (mormon bishop, stake pres. Apostle, prophet). Correct?

For those under the covenants of the Restored Gospel, yes.

Are you suggesting that people who are not members of the Church are incapable of "proper repentance?"  At all?

According to the restored gospel, yes. That's why we seek them out through missions, through ministering to inactives, and so on.  Again can a nonmember repent of his or her sin to an ecclesiastical leader other than a common judge of Israel (mormon bishop, stake pres, )? In you opinion. 

Edited February 8, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[AtlanticMike]

11 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Not only that, but baptism is only workable in the LDS church, and only recognized by God because we have the only authority. 

I have to admit, sometimes when I'm talking on here , i feel like I'm in the 1980s when we were proud of our unique doctrine.

[AtlanticMike]

16 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You do remember the corresponding exponential increase in membership after 1978?  Of course more temples will be needed.

But I know what you mean.  Sometimes it seems like we've forgotten the Latter Day part of our name or our Millennialist doctrines.  I have heard a lot of members quoting Pres. Packer and implying that we have generations left before then.
Which considering D&C 77 is a bit odd.
I will say that Pres. Nelson seems to have a bit more urgency and warning about upcoming events.  They don't want to encourage end of the world thinking which is wise, but I also think perhaps we are too busy fullfiling Luke 17:26-30.

Yes. I've written a few post on this board that I'm concerned we're moving away from the Latter Day Saint part of the churches name. Well, maybe not concerned,  but I'm just observing that's the way its going.

[AtlanticMike]

39 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think it would be good to identify the root of your faith crisis so you can effectively deal with it.

I understand that "folk doctrine" puts the date of the Second Coming at the year 2000, but I do not see where that was identified by the Brethren as the time of the Second Coming and the impetus for quickly building many temples. The explanations I've heard at the pulpit, in addition to those that have been shared, was a season of opportunity (financially, economically and geopolitically). But of course temples prepare us for the Second Coming, whenever it is to come. These are the last days before that time.

Food storage was singularly important in a much less socially complex time (I'm speaking both domestically and globally). Today's self-reliance initiative addresses that complexity, and food storage (later evolving into "home storage" and "home production and storage" from the 60s into the 90s) is still an element of that. But even in its heyday, food storage was for emergencies (extended unemployment, natural disaster, helping others), not the Second Coming. A one-year supply was always a recommended, and not a magical, number. Self-reliance is better, more broadly-based and flexible preparation in today's world for the Second Coming, whenever it is to come, than simple food storage.

Maybe you held to some of these folk/popular beliefs and attitudes -- e.g. Second Coming in Year 2000, food storage is for a "mass extinction event" to bunker until the Second Coming, etc. -- but there can can be liberty, not crisis, in learning your "conservatism" or "rigor" in this regard may have set you up for disappointment.

Thank you for this post, it's very thoughtful and gives me alot to think about.

[smac97]

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

I don't understand.  You want them to "deal with what {you're} saying" . . . how, exactly?  You are not bringing these topics up with the intention of "finding answers" to them from these people, so why are you "confront{ing}" them with these topics?  What is your objective?

Well. You have to bring up a topic so you can see if they're willing to talk about it. That's my objective, to see if they're willing to talk.

   Now you're confusing me. You asked me "so why are you confront(ing) them with these topics?" My question to you is why not? 

Because it sort of sounds like your intent to is to provoke.  To stir the pot.  To present controversies more for "shock value" than for fostering meaningful and constructive discussion (since, as you said, you are not bringing up these controversies with the intention of "finding answers" to them).

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

I also suggest you give some thought as to why you are bringing up controversial topics with families and friends.  If it's not to seek answers to such things, then what is the point?  Surely you aren't just looking to stir the pot or provoke dissension.  So what's the objective?  And if you don't really have one, then perhaps your friends/family are looking at your efforts as pot-stirring?

I read this paragraph a couple of times to make sure I understood it correctly. Ist, the topics I brought up to family are mormon history, by your own admission in this paragraph you see mormon history as controversial?

You didn't say you were bringing up "mormon history."  You said you were bringing up a specific subset: "difficult history of the church."

Obviously nobody is going to have a problem with discussing the history of the Church in the abstract, but your comments made it sound like you are focusing on controversies.  You know, "difficult" stuff.

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Again you have to ask questions to see if people are willing to talk, that's the point.

Talk about what, though?

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

I never said I was trying to stir the pot, actually i said the opposite, i said i had to pull back.

Well, okay.  It sure sounds like you were trying to stir the pot.  I stand corrected.

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

    Lastly, i think you might want to read your statement again and ask yourself why you personally believe talking about the mormon church and its history is controversial. 

I have been on this board since 2004.  I am nearing 12,000 posts.  If I was afraid of or opposed to "talking about the mormon church and its history," I would not be here.

That said, I do tend to take exception to the Jerry Springer / Maury Povich / Jeremy Runnells approach to church history.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

A few years back I had a friend come to me with a laundry list of her grievances for leaving the Church.  She was reading from a sheaf of papers that I could tell had been printed out from a website.  It was pretty obvious that she hadn't really studied these items in any meaningful or in-depth way.  She just read the list and accepted it.  As I recall, virtually every point she recited is found in the CES Letter (in fact, it may well have been the CES Letter she was reading from).

I let her go on for a while, as I could tell she was angry and was looking to vent.  After about 20 minutes of her reading from this list, I asked her if she wanted to talk about these various items.  She actually seemed a little surprised, as I think she thought that I would be flummoxed at her endless list of grievances.  As she had a number of questions and concerns about the First Vision and the various accounts of it, I asked if if she had read the book 'Opening the Heavens: Accounts of Divine Manifestations,' edited by John Welch.  I said that it has some pretty good information about this topic.  She said no.  I also asked if she had read anything written by Jeff Lindsay about the First Vision accounts.  She said no.  I asked her if she had read anything on the FAIR website about this topic.  She said no.  I asked her if she would be willing to read some of these things and then have a discussion about this topic.  She said no.  I asked her to reconsider, and suggested that her conclusions about this topic might not be complete if all she has done is read a long list of criticisms against the Church while simultaneously refusing to listen to the Church and its members explain and defend the Church's position on these issues.  Again, she said no.  I then asked her why not, and she became angry.  I tried to find a way to continue the discussion, but she declined and left.  A few weeks later she resigned her membership in the Church.

In retrospect, I think I could have handled that interaction better.  I think she was in a state of anger and high emotion, and perhaps I should have allowed her some time and space to let those feelings dissipate.  Instead, I attempted to talk and reason with her in the moment.  I thought that this is what she wanted (she approached me, after all).  However, I don't think she was situated to have a calm and reasoned discussion.  I dunno.  I recall silently praying while she was reading her diatribe, hoping that I would be able to say things that could mollify her anger and calm her down.  I failed in that regard.  Perhaps that was an unattainable goal.  Perhaps she was bound and determined to view the Church and its teachings and people in the worst possible ways, and I was just one of the last people to talk with her as she walked out the door.

My friend is currently pursuing a course of conduct that may be called "riotous living."  I think about her often.  There are certainly other factors that have affected the course she is presently taking in life.  However, the laundry list of grievances she found online really shook her up.  This list was designed not to inform, but to maximize shock value.  Through decontextualization and sensationalism.  It was designed to foment anger, even hatred.  Against the Church, and its doctrines, and its leaders, and its members.  And it is effective at achieving these objectives.

Cheap shots presented for shock value.  Presentism.  Facile criticism.  Misrepresentation by omission and distortion.  A determined effort to keep these topics decontextualized and sensationalized.  Sarcasm.  No effort to study or meaningfully understand.

We can and ought to address and study the history of the Church.  Not to find fault and condemn, but to understand and contextualize.

Based on your remarks, it sounded like you were bringing up "shock value" topics.  And not to seek understanding or "answers" about such things, but to provoke.  To stir the pot.  If that is not the case, then I apologize.  But I hope you can see how your remarks could give rise to such an inference.

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

Mormonie" = "Mormonism?"  The Church

Yes, you can become to mormonie.

I've never heard the word "Mormonie."  I'm not sure what you are saying.

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

You can let Mormonism consume you to the point where you don't see the rest of your life objectively anymore.

Living the life of a Latter-day Saint is fully compatible with "see{ing} the rest of your life objectively."  The former very much helps in working on the latter.

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Extreme example in my opinion would be the Flds.

They are not members of the Church.

They are not following the counsel of the leaders of the Church, and have instead taken a path that is increasingly divergent.

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Apparently even while in jail, 1000s of Flds mormons follow Warren Jeff's allowing him to dictate their lives from jail.

Again, these folks are not members of the Church.

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Even in our church people can get so caught up in church they allow themselves to see the rest of the world as the devil's playground and all nonmembers as "sinners ".

And they are wrong to so think.  That is why, in fact, I reject your repeated characterization of Latter-day Saints as believing that people who are not members of the Church are "worse sinners."

You are the one presenting this worldview.  I am saying that this is not a correct understanding or application of the Restored Gospel.

19 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Also, it's not just Mormonism, its other religions  and other institutions people will get totally fixated on. Life is about balance. To much of one thing usually doesn't work out that good in the long run.

I agree.

I think living the life of a Latter-day Saint is congruent with having a "balance{d}" life.  "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."  (Ether 12:4)

I appear to be misunderstanding you.  If so, I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Maestrophil]

I might have missed it, and forgive me if I did - but what happened to the Voree Plate witnesses?  Did they all have similar testimonies to the BOM witnesses in that they did not loose their faith or renege their testimonies? 

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

I might have missed it, and forgive me if I did - but what happened to the Voree Plate witnesses?  Did they all have similar testimonies to the BOM witnesses in that they did not loose their faith or renege their testimonies? 

No, a few of them recanted and/or admitted to helping Strang make the plates and bury them so they could be “found” later. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

No, a few of them recanted and/or admitted to helping Strang make the plates and bury them so they could be “found” later. 

Just curious where you got that information.  Was it from the official Strang web site or some anti Strang site?  Because you can find sources that say the BoM witnesses also recanted their testimony.  Here is one example that claims documented proof.

Example:  Martin Harris

Quote

Was know for being very unstable religiously.  Over his whole life, he changed his affiliations over 13 times.  

Martin Harris was first a Quaker, then a Universalist, next a Restorationist, then a Baptist, next a Presbyterian, and then a Mormon

Phineas Young wrote to his older brother Brigham Young on December 31, 1841, from Kirtland, Ohio: "There are in this place all kinds of teaching; Martin Harris is a firm believer in Shakerism, says his testimony is greater than it was for the Book of Mormon

Martin Harris testified that his testimony for Shakerism was greater than it was for Mormonism. The Shaker's "Sacred Roll and Book" was also delivered by an angel. 

Like David Whitmer, Martin Harris later testified that he did not see the plates literally with his fleshly eyes: He said he saw the plates with "the eyes of faith and not with the natural eyes".

 

I am not making a judgement of what is true and what is not.  I just don't think it is fair for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to make a flat out statement of fact about another religions claims unless they come from an official web site of that religion.  So before you make such a definitive statement, I would like to know where your source came from in fairness to their beliefs.  Hope you can see as a matter of fairness how important it is to get all sides of the answer.

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Because it sort of sounds like your intent to is to provoke.  To stir the pot.  To present controversies more for "shock value" than for fostering meaningful and constructive discussion (since, as you said, you are not bringing up these controversies with the intention of "finding answers" to them).

You didn't say you were bringing up "mormon history."  You said you were bringing up a specific subset: "difficult history of the church."

Obviously nobody is going to have a problem with discussing the history of the Church in the abstract, but your comments made it sound like you are focusing on controversies.  You know, "difficult" stuff.

Talk about what, though?

Well, okay.  It sure sounds like you were trying to stir the pot.  I stand corrected.

I have been on this board since 2004.  I am nearing 12,000 posts.  If I was afraid of or opposed to "talking about the mormon church and its history," I would not be here.

That said, I do tend to take exception to the Jerry Springer / Maury Povich / Jeremy Runnells approach to church history.  See, e.g., here:

We can and ought to address and study the history of the Church.  Not to find fault and condemn, but to understand and contextualize.

Based on your remarks, it sounded like you were bringing up "shock value" topics.  And not to seek understanding or "answers" about such things, but to provoke.  To stir the pot.  If that is not the case, then I apologize.  But I hope you can see how your remarks could give rise to such an inference.

I've never heard the word "Mormonie."  I'm not sure what you are saying.

Living the life of a Latter-day Saint is fully compatible with "see{ing} the rest of your life objectively."  The former very much helps in working on the latter.

They are not members of the Church.

They are not following the counsel of the leaders of the Church, and have instead taken a path that is increasingly divergent.

Again, these folks are not members of the Church.

And they are wrong to so think.  That is why, in fact, I reject your repeated characterization of Latter-day Saints as believing that people who are not members of the Church are "worse sinners."

You are the one presenting this worldview.  I am saying that this is not a correct understanding or application of the Restored Gospel.

I agree.

I think living the life of a Latter-day Saint is congruent with having a "balance{d}" life.  "Wherefore, whoso believeth in God might with surety hope for a better world, yea, even a place at the right hand of God, which hope cometh of faith, maketh an anchor to the souls of men, which would make them sure and steadfast, always abounding in good works, being led to glorify God."  (Ether 12:4)

I appear to be misunderstanding you.  If so, I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your experience with the woman who brought you a “laundry list of grievances” reminds me of something I heard Scott Gordon say in a FairMormon Conference address. He said that in his experience, by the time people get around to raising their questions and verbalizing their doubts, they have already pretty much hardened their decision and are not so much seeking answers as endeavoring to justify the choice they have already made. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Just curious where you got that information.  Was it from the official Strang web site or some anti Strang site?  Because you can find sources that say the BoM witnesses also recanted their testimony.  Here is one example that claims documented proof.

Example:  Martin Harris

 

I am not making a judgement of what is true and what is not.  I just don't think it is fair for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to make a flat out statement of fact about another religions claims unless they come from an official web site of that religion.  So before you make such a definitive statement, I would like to know where your source came from in fairness to their beliefs.  Hope you can see as a matter of fairness how important it is to get all sides of the answer.

Martin Harris eventually went to Utah and was re-baptized in the faith, having never recounted his earlier testimony.   Here are some statements concerning his belief--

Quote

 

When in England to preach for an LDS splinter group, Martin Harris was ejected from a meeting of Latter-day Saints. He left, and began to loudly criticize the Church leadership. Critics of Mormonism arrived quickly:

When we came out of the meeting Martin Harris was beset with a crowd in the street, expecting he would furnish them with material to war against Mormonism; but when asked if Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, he answered yes; and when asked if the Book of Mormon was true, this was his answer: "Do you know that is the sun shining on us? Because as sure as you know that, I know that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God, and that he translated that book by the power of God."[13]

An LDS author reported in 1870:

On one occasion several of his old acquaintances made an effort to get him tipsy by treating him to some wine. When they thought he was in a good mood for talk they put the question very carefully to him, ‘Well, now, Martin, we want you to be frank and candid with us in regard to this story of your seeing an angel and the golden plates of the Book of Mormon that are so much talked about. We have always taken you to be an honest good farmer and neighbor of ours but could not believe that you did see an angel. Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake?’ ‘No,’ said Martin, ‘I do not believe it.’ The crowd were delighted, but soon a different feeling prevailed, as Martin true to his trust, said, ‘Gentlemen, what I have said is true, from the fact that my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel, and it was the brightness of day.”[14]

And, at his death, Harris reported:

The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true.

 

Here's an article written by Dan Peterson that has quotes from some of the Strang witnesses.  I agree that it's important to be fair when assessing supernatural claims.  

[smac97]

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Quote

Are you suggesting that people who are not members of the Church are incapable of "proper repentance?"  At all?

According to the restored gospel, yes.

I invite you to reconsider that.  Also, CFR.  That's a "call for references" that "according to the restored gospel" "people who are not members of the Church are incapable of 'proper repentance.'"  I don't think that's so.

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

That's why we seek them out through missions, through ministering to inactives, and so on. 

Well, we'll see.  I look forward to your cited references.

4 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Again can a nonmember repent of his or her sin to an ecclesiastical leader other than a common judge of Israel (mormon bishop, stake pres, )? In you opinion. 

Again, members of the Church do not "repent ... to an ecclesastical leader."  They confess transgressions to such leaders. There is a marked difference between the two.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

5 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

"Judge sin" a bishop sits in judgement of a transgressor (a sinner). Its his duty. He does this "judging" so ultimately god can forgive us once we complete the repentance process. My question to you, can any other religion do this?

No, they cannot.

But that's a separate question from the one I had, namely, whether "people who are not members of the Church are incapable of 'proper repentance.'"  I think they can, and you think they cannot because they can't confess to a bishop.  And from this you extrapolate that we, as Latter-day Saints, "categorize everyone outside the Church as 'worse sinner{s} than we are.'"

I just don't agree with these propositions.

Thank you,

-Smac

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Your experience with the woman who brought you a “laundry list of grievances” reminds me of something I heard Scott Gordon say in a FairMormon Conference address. He said that in his experience, by the time people get around to raising their questions and verbalizing their doubts, they have already pretty much hardened their decision and are not so much seeking answers as endeavoring to justify the choice they have already made. 

This is very true.
Heber C. Kimball said something similar.

"I do not feel as I used to when I see a man going away from the society of the Church of God. I used to be filled with sympathy and plead with them hours and hours, importuning with them until my head would ache and my heart sicken; and I never had the satisfaction in even converting one such character in my life. If I should happen to get one converted he would not stay converted, so I have concluded, and I think wisely, to let them go, and not suffer myself to have any more feelings about it than I would about any of the common occurrences of life."

Once they've become dissatisfied there is no changing minds.  Joseph taught that once we start complaining about our leaders and the Church we are on the road to apostasy.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

Proper repentance has to be done by talking to a judge of Israel (mormon bishop, stake pres. Apostle, prophet). Correct?

I have never confessed sins to a bishop. Are you saying I have never really repented according to LDS doctrine?  If so, can you please cite where you find this doctrine of confession being required for all sin to be repented of?

[AtlanticMike]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have never confessed sins to a bishop. Are you saying I have never really repented according to LDS doctrine?  If so, can you please cite where you find this doctrine of confession being required for all sin to be repented of?

First, I have no problem admitting if I'm wrong,  i learn alot from you and smac. so this question goes to you and smac97. So how does a sinner enter the kingdom of god without confessing their sins. For example, a friend of mine committed adultry years ago. Could he of worked that out on his own without recieving council from the bishop? This is where I'm getting confused what you guys are talking about. Also one more, let's say a nonmember committed adultry, can he take care of that sin by going straight to god.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Also one more, let's say a nonmember committed adultry, can he take care of that sin by going straight to god.

I have always thought so. Confession to a leader imo is to help resolve issues as humans have a hard time sometimes accepting forgiveness from God on their own as they see themselves in unrealistic ways.  “Serious sins” tend to alter how we view ourselves imo, and therefore it is a blessing imo that the Lord has involved another person who does not absolve our sins for us, but acts as a sounding board and therapist and reality check for us, ideally doing so while inspired by the Lord. 
 

From the official topic listing for Repentance:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/for-the-strength-of-youth/repentance?lang=eng

Quote

Repentance is more than simply acknowledging wrongdoings. It is a change of mind and heart. It includes turning away from sin and turning to God for forgiveness.

And

Quote

To repent, you need to confess your sins to the Lord. Then seek forgiveness from those you have wronged, and restore as far as possible what has been damaged by your actions. As you strive to repent, seek help and counsel from your parents.

As to what sins require members to participate in confession to the bishop, there is only a subset of “serious sins”.  

Quote

Serious sins, such as sexual transgression or use of pornography, need to be confessed to your bishop. Be completely honest with him. He will help you repent. If you have a question about what should be discussed with the bishop, talk with your parents or with him.

 

Edited February 8, 2021 by Calm

[webbles]

6 hours ago, Maestrophil said:

I might have missed it, and forgive me if I did - but what happened to the Voree Plate witnesses?  Did they all have similar testimonies to the BOM witnesses in that they did not loose their faith or renege their testimonies? 

The Voree Plate witnesses aren't actually needed.  The plates themselves were displayed in a museum and anyone could come and see them.  So the existence of the plates aren't in doubt.  The only thing that the Voree Plate witnesses attest to besides the plates is that the ground where they found the plates was untouched.  So whether they lost the faith or reneged their testimony is kind of pointless since thousands of people saw the plates.

[Calm]

As to what sins need to be confessed to a bishop when a member:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1971/12/confession-and-forsaking-elements-of-genuine-repentance?lang=engyes 

Quote

“That confession must be made first to him or her who has been most wronged by your acts. A sincere confession is not merely admitting guilt after the proof is already in evidence. If you have ‘“That confession must be made first to him or her who has been most wronged by your acts. A sincere confession is not merely admitting guilt after the proof is already in evidence. If you have ‘offended many persons openly,’ your acknowledgment is to be made openly and before those whom you have offended that you might show your shame and humility and willingness to receive a merited rebuke. If your act is secret and has resulted in injury to no one but yourself, your confession should be in secret, and your Heavenly Father who hears in secret may reward you openly.

 

Quote

Acts that may affect your standing in the Church, or your right to privileges or advancement in the Church, are to be promptly confessed to the bishop whom the Lord has appointed as a shepherd over every flock and commissioned to be a common judge in Israel. He may hear such confessions in secret and deal justly and mercifully, as each case warrants. … Following confession, one in sin must show forth the fruits of his repentance by good deeds that are weighed against the bad. He must make proper restitution to the limit of his power to restore that which he has taken away or to repair the damage he has done.” (Youth and the Church [Deseret Book Co., 1970], p. 99.)

Emotionally this makes excellent sense. Humans generally see a need for balance in their lives. If we have harmed others, we need to balance that harm with acts of contrition.  And given it is often impossible to fully restore what our sin has taken from others, it is wisdom and charity for God to have put in place a way for a semi public act (involves another human being, but is confidential) that acknowledges the place of God in healing of the wounded beyond what our own acts of repentance can do.  A bishop can be a surrogate for the injured in the repenting member’s emotional mindset as well as a representative of God. Having an actual person involved also may be essential for some that don’t easily communicate through the Spirit, imo. 
——

As for nonmembers and serious sins, they too may need to involve others for the same reasons imo...to make restitution is part of true repentance and to become transparent about their sin so as to be able to move past the feeling  of guilt, that they need to hide that part of themselves from others, which fear of exposure too often may lead to further sins if one lies to hide the truth because one doesn’t want to be rejected, etc. 

Confession to another human being may be part of that and it may be helpful emotionally and mentally and even spiritually if that person has been given the role of spiritual leadership for that person, such as being their pastor or priest. 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/confession?lang=eng

 

Quote

A second usage of confession is confession of sin. It is a duty of all persons to confess all their sins to the Lord and, when necessary, to the person or persons sinned against. Sins against the public must be publicly confessed (D&C 42:88–93). Other items may be confessed to a church official (bishop), or in many cases to the Lord alone. Confession to a church official (in most cases the bishop) is necessary whenever one’s transgression is of a nature for which the Church might impose loss of membership or other disciplinary action. The bishop cannot and does not forgive sin, but he may judge the matter and waive the penalty that the Church might otherwise impose against the person. The repentant sinner must still make confession and obtain forgiveness of the Lord.

Nothing in there suggests nonmembers have to confess to a bishop (Latter-day Saint variety) in order to be forgiven by the Lord. 
 

Added: Mike, it is harder to find references for something that is not required than something that is, in this case nonmembers confessing serious sins to a bishop as opposed. Have there been enough references that demonstrate nonmembers can repent without confession to bishops (at the very least because generally they are not sinning even in serious ways that damage the Church or its members in general unlike members who commit serious sins) or is there something else that needs clarification for you?

Edited February 9, 2021 by Calm