"Worthiness"...

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by Tex

Two things that confuse me about this conclusion:

1. How do arrive at the conclusion that it doesn't apply? Admittedly D&C 130 doesn't specifically say, so you might have a outside point there (though I think it's a stretch). But D&C 121 is talking about those who hold the priesthood ... presumably those who have been confirmed, no?

2. I think you are misunderstanding the sacrament prayers. "That they may always have his Spirit to with them" has several antecedents: conditions, if you will. In other words, "if you do these things, the Spirit will always be with you."

Exactly why just quoting a scripture is problematic. People don't always agree with what a written thing means. What you are saying is that you believe the Gift of the Holy Ghost to be a conditional gift. Are you saying God takes back his gifts? Are you saying the Gift of the HG is no better than not having it?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by K-dog

Exactly why just quoting a scripture is problematic. People don't always agree with what a written thing means. What you are saying is that you believe the Gift of the Holy Ghost to be a conditional gift. Are you saying God takes back his gifts? Are you saying the Gift of the HG is no better than not having it?

What do you think those two scriptures mean, K-Dog?

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by Tex

What do you think those two scriptures mean, K-Dog?

I told you. I think it is referring to the influence of the Spirit. I don't think you drive the spirit away but by living incorrectly you no longer hear his influence. I believe sometimes Prophets speak in the way they understand and convey shaded information.

Do you want to respond to my questions? Are they too hard to answer? You seem very interested in no answering questions or defining your own beliefs, as Adam pointed out. If you are so sure you are correct in everything you state, why do you avoid explaining or defining? I admit I'm open to revisiting positions on things. You, otoh, seem to decide what you think and then find facts to support your position.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by K-dog

Exactly why just quoting a scripture is problematic. People don't always agree with what a written thing means. What you are saying is that you believe the Gift of the Holy Ghost to be a conditional gift. Are you saying God takes back his gifts? Are you saying the Gift of the HG is no better than not having it?

Dude, this is BASIC doctrine. You think once someone is given the Gift of the HG, the HG will ALWAYS be with you, no matter what you do or how you live your life? You can't be serious.

God's not taking back anything. The Gift of the HG means you CAN have his constant presence in your life, IF you live worthily. ONLY those that receive this gift have this opportunity.

[scottie]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Dude, this is BASIC doctrine. You think once someone is given the Gift of the HG, the HG will ALWAYS be with you, no matter what you do or how you live your life? You can't be serious.

God's not taking back anything. The Gift of the HG means you CAN have his constant presence in your life, IF you live worthily. ONLY those that receive this gift have this opportunity.

Would NorCal Cat be considered a mullah?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by scottie

Would NorCal Cat be considered a mullah?

No, I wouldn't say so.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by scottie

Would NorCal Cat be considered a mullah?

To me, mullahs aren't stupid. This is why they are dangerous. So, no.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by K-dog

I told you. I think it is referring to the influence of the Spirit. I don't think you drive the spirit away but by living incorrectly you no longer hear his influence. I believe sometimes Prophets speak in the way they understand and convey shaded information.

Do you want to respond to my questions? Are they too hard to answer?

I did answer your questions. I think when the scripture says "may not tarry" it means "may not tarry." When it says, "when it is withdrawn" it means "when it is withdrawn."

Your question is clumsily phrased, anyway. God doesn't revoke the gift of the Holy Ghost anymore than one needs an additional confirmation ordinance after sinning. But that doesn't mean the Holy Ghost abides with someone embracing sin.

Aren't we really splitting hairs anyway? Does it really make a doctrinal difference whether the Spirit is physically with the person or not?

Originally Posted by K-dog

You seem very interested in no answering questions or defining your own beliefs, as Adam pointed out. If you are so sure you are correct in everything you state, why do you avoid explaining or defining? I admit I'm open to revisiting positions on things. You, otoh, seem to decide what you think and then find facts to support your position.

This is a good example of that:

Originally Posted by Adam

DC 130 just says that it is possible that the HG will leave a man it once was with. OK. William Law probably didn't have the HG when he went with the Carthage Greys to murder Joseph Smith--no one would argue with this. But what is the applicability of this doctrine to regular members with regular sins? This is the real question. The question that is really being asked here. The question you are ignoring.

DC 121 is talking specifically about priesthood leadership and unrighteous dominion and has no specific applicablity to the HG dwelling with people. That the HG withdraws from an domineering church leader in respect to his priesthood and authority says little about other contexts.

I'll be sure to let God know, he needs to put a little asterisk next to these two scriptures for all the lawyers.

Originally Posted by Adam

You don't have to be "worthy" to feel the Spirit. Anyone who taught investigators on a mission knows this.

The gift of the HG confirms to the baptized/confirmed that they are covered by the atonement. So yes, if you are not covered by the atonement you won't have the gift of the HG with you. You can still feel the Spirit and even speak by the Spirit. And being covered by the atonement is not dependent on doing or not doing specific works, it depends on a broken heart and contrite spirit.

So if you redefine "worthy" to mean "broken heart and contrite spirit" then fine.

I think a worthy man is a repentant man.

Originally Posted by Adam

But then you are using Orwellian doublespeak which honest people will admit works as a scare tactic to control the immature.

That's a laugh. It's never worked on you.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by NorCal Cat

Dude, this is BASIC doctrine. You think once someone is given the Gift of the HG, the HG will ALWAYS be with you, no matter what you do or how you live your life? You can't be serious.

God's not taking back anything. The Gift of the HG means you CAN have his constant presence in your life, IF you live worthily. ONLY those that receive this gift have this opportunity.

So how does this work with a "wayward" stake patriarch? Could he have a lady on the side but still be in tune with the HG to perform his calling? Or at some point does the HG sort of bypass the patriarch's own spirituality to get the task done, sort of an automatic revelation process independent of whatever the patriarch might be up to in his life?

I don't think it's as if the patriarch would always come in and state "I've made mistakes and have lost my abilities. Replace me."

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think a worthy man is a repentant man.

But you also believe if you after repenting for a sin commit the same sin again, all the previous sins will come back to you as if never repented for.

You also believe time periods of perfection and elimination of sin are requisite for repentance to prove you really repented.

So by that, I don't know how anyone could ever be worthy by your definition. Is anyone ever truly repentant and therefore worthy in your world? Or does it go back to the issue that you only define sin as the stuff you don't do, the "big ones".