im becoming disenchanted with the church.... - Page 4 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

ute4ever · 11-01-2005, 01:43 AM

LDS media vs National media

We all know when you watch the evening news you will primarily hear about negative things that have happened. And yes unfortunate circumstances do pop up, but I believe they are greatly outweighed by the good or the neutral. For every asshole who gets road rage and shoots somebody, there are 1,000 instances of somebody letting someone else in his lane.

For every scumbag who shoots his wife and dumps her in the trashbin, there are 1,000,000 instances of husbands complimenting their wives and kissing them goodnight.

Instead of reporting the negative things, the church reports the good things. LDS media aggregately follows the example of Gordon B. Hinckley who once said, "nobody ever went blind for looking on the bright side of things."

Crap does happen within the church, but for every missionary that sleeps in and masterbates, there are a hundred who get up on time and read their scriptures.

non sequitur · 11-01-2005, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ute4ever

. . . but for every missionary that sleeps in and masterbates, there are a hundred who get up on time and read their scriptures.

Your numbers might be off. I think what you meant to say is that for every missionary who masturbates, there are a hundred who claim they don't. :wink:

I swear I am not making this up. When I was on my mission I was talking with a fellow missionary who told me he had an appointment to speak with the mission president. He said he was going to ask for special permission to masturbate because he was in such a state of discomfort and anxiety. I told him you can't get special permission to masturbate, but he said he was still going to talk with the mission president. I saw the guy a few weeks later and asked him how his meeting with the president went. He told me the president gave him permission. I told him he was full of crap, but he insisted it was true. I still think the guy is full of crap and that the president never really granted him permission, but I always thought it was funny that the guy would make such a request.

fusnik11 · 11-01-2005, 03:52 PM

one thing i am not understanding about the manifesto, post and pre-polygamy is why did john taylor say the lord would never remove it, and 5 years later tell wilford woodruff, if you keep practicing it youll be arrested and the temples seized?

Archaea · 11-01-2005, 04:44 PM

first what do you mean by "remove"?

is the concept removed or the practice removed by common consent?

Does it remain a valid concept?

Was Taylor speaking "thus saith the Lord", or was he giving his personal opinion?

In light of the political pressures, and the vote of common consent, the Lord allowed the people to vote their view. In a way, the process is very encouraging, the Lord will allow his people some say in what how the principles of the Gospel are practiced.

Dan · 11-01-2005, 04:50 PM

... have that visitation. I think he did. If Jesus did tell him that God would not overturn the edict, so be it. If WW was then shown a vision of what would happen if the saints kept practicing it, so be it. that does not mean WW was told they must stop practicing it. In fact, WW was given a revelation a couple years prior to the manifesto telling him the edict would not be reversed. The manifesto was an attempt to use the cunning of man to outsmart the government, to get pressure off the church and allow the saints to quietly keep practicing it. Maybe God wanted the saints to go through the trial of losing all earthly things once again, and we failed the test because instead of remaining steadfast, we tried to use subterfuge through the manifesto. In time it backfired on the leaders of the church. I do not blame them for what they did in a very hairy situation. They were doing what they felt was the best option. It does create some uncomfortable history for those of us who find out later, but they did what they thought was best. They are not perfect men after all.

fusnik11 · 11-01-2005, 04:52 PM

heres what was related by john w. taylor....

1. My Son John. You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people;

2. Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant; for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever.

3. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my laws and the keeping of my commandment and yet have I borne with them these many years and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times,

4. And furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regards to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not.

5. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham?

6. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; Even so Amen.

(See minutes of meeting of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, 22 February 1911--the Trial of Apostle John W. Taylor)

as i re-read it, i can see how one can interpret as the lord saying that it will always be a commandment, and the manifesto is not contradicting that, but john w taylor was released as an apostle because he believed that the lord meant that it was never to be stopped...
[/quote]

Dan · 11-01-2005, 04:53 PM

... I do believe God allows us to govern ourselves through common consent. The downside, though, is that when God's will is revealed and we vote against it, it does not mean we are off the hook. It means we are effectively damned until we turn things around in time (hopefully) and get it right.

fusnik11 · 11-01-2005, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan

... I do believe God allows us to govern ourselves through common consent. The downside, though, is that when God's will is revealed and we vote against it, it does not mean we are off the hook. It means we are effectively damned until we turn things around in time (hopefully) and get it right.

what do you mean by this dan? do you mean it was gods will to have polygamy, we as a church went against it, and now we must work hard to someday have all things restored including polygamy?

Dan · 11-01-2005, 06:21 PM

But I can see how you deduced that as when I reread what I wrote I sort of implied that since the general topic in this thread is polygamy. I meant that God can give us his will (about any issue) but he never forces us to abide by it. He allows us to govern ourselves. If we choose to wilfully go against His counsel, we are at liberty to do so by common consent in the church. But when we do so, we are only closing doorways before us that God had opened up through his counsel in the first place. Regarding polygamy, I do not know what God's will is. I believe we are not supposed to practice it at this time the way things are. I do believe that God can give special dispensation, even under current circumstances, to individuals to practice it who are ready for it and need the particular challenges that it would bring. God is not bound by the standard rules of the church for the bulk of the members. If people need it, He can tell people, individually, to practice it just as he did with joseph and other early brethren when the principle was still on the down low and against the law.

fusnik11 · 11-01-2005, 07:26 PM

common consent....interesting indeed. any examples where common consent has overruled the will of the lord?

this has given me a different view of the polygamists today....

im understanding more and more their point of view, and the reasons why they continued with polygamy.

i can see how one would continue on this path. wonder if they will be judged much differently than i previously perceived...(hell, fire and damnation for the polygamists)

11-01-2005, 03:52 PM	#33
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	.... one thing i am not understanding about the manifesto, post and pre-polygamy is why did john taylor say the lord would never remove it, and 5 years later tell wilford woodruff, if you keep practicing it youll be arrested and the temples seized?

11-01-2005, 04:44 PM	#34
Archaea Assistant to the Regional Manager Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: The Orgasmatron Posts: 24,338	Several answers: first what do you mean by "remove"? is the concept removed or the practice removed by common consent? Does it remain a valid concept? Was Taylor speaking "thus saith the Lord", or was he giving his personal opinion? In light of the political pressures, and the vote of common consent, the Lord allowed the people to vote their view. In a way, the process is very encouraging, the Lord will allow his people some say in what how the principles of the Gospel are practiced. __________________ Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα

11-01-2005, 04:50 PM	#35
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Many argue that Taylor did not ... ... have that visitation. I think he did. If Jesus did tell him that God would not overturn the edict, so be it. If WW was then shown a vision of what would happen if the saints kept practicing it, so be it. that does not mean WW was told they must stop practicing it. In fact, WW was given a revelation a couple years prior to the manifesto telling him the edict would not be reversed. The manifesto was an attempt to use the cunning of man to outsmart the government, to get pressure off the church and allow the saints to quietly keep practicing it. Maybe God wanted the saints to go through the trial of losing all earthly things once again, and we failed the test because instead of remaining steadfast, we tried to use subterfuge through the manifesto. In time it backfired on the leaders of the church. I do not blame them for what they did in a very hairy situation. They were doing what they felt was the best option. It does create some uncomfortable history for those of us who find out later, but they did what they thought was best. They are not perfect men after all. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

11-01-2005, 04:52 PM	#36
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	.... heres what was related by john w. taylor.... 1. My Son John. You have asked me concerning the New and Everlasting Covenant and how far it is binding upon my people; 2. Thus saith the Lord: All commandments that I give must be obeyed by those calling themselves by my name, unless they are revoked by me or by my authority, and how can I revoke an everlasting covenant; for I the Lord am everlasting and my everlasting covenants cannot be abrogated nor done away with, but they stand forever. 3. Have I not given my word in great plainness on this subject? Yet have not great numbers of my people been negligent in the observance of my laws and the keeping of my commandment and yet have I borne with them these many years and this because of their weakness, because of the perilous times, 4. And furthermore, it is more pleasing to me that men should use their free agency in regards to these matters. Nevertheless, I the Lord do not change and my word and my covenants and my law do not. 5. And as I have heretofore said by my servant Joseph: All those who would enter into my glory must and shall obey my law. And have I not commanded men that if they were Abraham's seed and would enter into my glory, they must do the works of Abraham? 6. I have not revoked this law, nor will I, for it is everlasting, and those who will enter into my glory must obey the conditions thereof; Even so Amen. (See minutes of meeting of the Quorum of 12 Apostles, 22 February 1911--the Trial of Apostle John W. Taylor) as i re-read it, i can see how one can interpret as the lord saying that it will always be a commandment, and the manifesto is not contradicting that, but john w taylor was released as an apostle because he believed that the lord meant that it was never to be stopped... [/quote]

11-01-2005, 04:53 PM	#37
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	Archaea ... ... I do believe God allows us to govern ourselves through common consent. The downside, though, is that when God's will is revealed and we vote against it, it does not mean we are off the hook. It means we are effectively damned until we turn things around in time (hopefully) and get it right. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

11-01-2005, 01:43 AM	#31
ute4ever I must not tell lies Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 5,103	LDS media vs National media We all know when you watch the evening news you will primarily hear about negative things that have happened. And yes unfortunate circumstances do pop up, but I believe they are greatly outweighed by the good or the neutral. For every asshole who gets road rage and shoots somebody, there are 1,000 instances of somebody letting someone else in his lane. For every scumbag who shoots his wife and dumps her in the trashbin, there are 1,000,000 instances of husbands complimenting their wives and kissing them goodnight. Instead of reporting the negative things, the church reports the good things. LDS media aggregately follows the example of Gordon B. Hinckley who once said, "nobody ever went blind for looking on the bright side of things." Crap does happen within the church, but for every missionary that sleeps in and masterbates, there are a hundred who get up on time and read their scriptures.

11-01-2005, 06:21 PM	#39
Dan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Elk Grove, California Posts: 211	I was speaking in general fusnik But I can see how you deduced that as when I reread what I wrote I sort of implied that since the general topic in this thread is polygamy. I meant that God can give us his will (about any issue) but he never forces us to abide by it. He allows us to govern ourselves. If we choose to wilfully go against His counsel, we are at liberty to do so by common consent in the church. But when we do so, we are only closing doorways before us that God had opened up through his counsel in the first place. Regarding polygamy, I do not know what God's will is. I believe we are not supposed to practice it at this time the way things are. I do believe that God can give special dispensation, even under current circumstances, to individuals to practice it who are ready for it and need the particular challenges that it would bring. God is not bound by the standard rules of the church for the bulk of the members. If people need it, He can tell people, individually, to practice it just as he did with joseph and other early brethren when the principle was still on the down low and against the law. __________________ Dan Temet Nosce - \"Know Thyself\"

11-01-2005, 07:26 PM	#40
fusnik11 Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 2,506	.... common consent....interesting indeed. any examples where common consent has overruled the will of the lord? this has given me a different view of the polygamists today.... im understanding more and more their point of view, and the reasons why they continued with polygamy. i can see how one would continue on this path. wonder if they will be judged much differently than i previously perceived...(hell, fire and damnation for the polygamists)