Why So Few Faithful?

[_maklelan]

Thanks for posting the questions.

Mak---You missed my point in posting the questions. I posted them so that there would be no question as to exactly what is asked in a temple interview situation. There seemed to be some disconnect on that issue by you, and other posters on the thread.

I thanked you for supplying the questions because I couldn't remember exactly what they were.

Why are YOU taking it upon YOURSELF to answer questions FOR Harmony? You are not HER. You are not HER JUDGE. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to answer these questions. No one can know what it is in another person's heart.

A temple recommend interview does not measure what's in one's heart, it measures whether or not they are living the covenants they have promised to live. Harmony is not, period. IF she tells the truth in a temple recommend interview she does not get it, irrespective of what's in her heart. If I commit adultery it doesn't matter what is in my heart or what I was thinking about at the time, I sinned. If harmony does not sustain the GA's (and it means publicly, not deep within your heart where no one can see it) she is not temple worthy.

[_Jersey Girl]

LDS posters do not post here because it lacks the right flavor. Many LDS posters are in the blogs and enjoy consorting with their own kind or with people who will respect the LDS church even if they may disagree with it. This is the flavor LDS posters enjoy.

And yes, LDS posters would find the cuss words just a little offensive here and may vanish without a post. The fact is the board is titled: Mormon Discussions and as such, it focuses on Mormon discussions. But such discussions need to be respectful of LDS poster morals and lifestyles. And at times, the board isn't such a board.

Juliann and Dan would never post here because they would both be trashed without a second thought by some of the posters here. And you all know it.

Uh...Juliann and Dan BOTH posted on Shades original board and weren't at all "trashed".

Jersey Girl

[_harmony]

Thanks for posting the questions.

Mak---You missed my point in posting the questions. I posted them so that there would be no question as to exactly what is asked in a temple interview situation. There seemed to be some disconnect on that issue by you, and other posters on the thread.

I thanked you for supplying the questions because I couldn't remember exactly what they were.

Why are YOU taking it upon YOURSELF to answer questions FOR Harmony? You are not HER. You are not HER JUDGE. It is IMPOSSIBLE for you to answer these questions. No one can know what it is in another person's heart.

A temple recommend interview does not measure what's in one's heart, it measures whether or not they are living the covenants they have promised to live. Harmony is not, period. IF she tells the truth in a temple recommend interview she does not get it, irrespective of what's in her heart. If I commit adultery it doesn't matter what is in my heart or what I was thinking about at the time, I sinned. If harmony does not sustain the GA's (and it means publicly, not deep within your heart where no one can see it) she is not temple worthy.

We seem to be getting hung up on the word "sustain". Perhaps it would be helpful if you posted what you think it means to sustain someone. Because publically and privately, I am certain I sustain my leaders and I'm comfortable with what that means (and doesn't mean), so I can answer that question with an emphatic and truthful "yes" in any TRI. And as long as I can answer that question appropriately to the satisfaction of the priesthood leaders who have stewardship over me (and who therefore receive inspiration for and about me from God), no one, especially no *insert cleverly worded insult here* like you can unilaterally declare that I am unworthy to partake of the Lord's blessings of the temple.

Or are you calling into question the worthiness and inspiration of my priesthood leaders too? My bishop? My stake president? You feel that your inspiration Trump's theirs? You feel qualified to judge them, their righteousness, their worthiness as leaders who know me in real life, who visit with me in my home and theirs, who break bread with me, who visit with me regularly, who see my good works and know my heart as well as they know anyone in my ward's? You're questioning their relationship with God, because they issue me a temple recommend? You, a stranger?

You have just redefined chutzpah, Maklelan. Congratulations.

I suspect my definition of "sustain" is different from yours. But since it's left up to the individual to determine if they sustain their leaders, my bishop won't be calling you anytime soon to find out what your feelings are about my definition of "sustain." I'm sure it just galls you, but no one's going to ask you, ever. Your opinion of me, of my worthiness, of my obedience doesn't matter at all. You could stand on top of the Hotel Utah and shout it from the rooftops "Harmony isn't temple worthy because she doesn't sustain our leaders" and no one will care. Because when push comes to shove, you have no inspiration about me at all. And what's really pathetic is, you're too proud to come to grips with your powerlessness.

It really makes me wonder what kind of busybody bishop/BP you made, that you feel qualified to comment about someone over whom you have no stewardship and whom you have never even met. I doubt that anyone who was privileged to witness this little tantrum of yours would entirely trust you, ever again.

[_maklelan]

We seem to be getting hung up on the word "sustain". Perhaps it would be helpful if you posted what you think it means to sustain someone. Because publically and privately, I am certain I sustain my leaders and I'm comfortable with what that means (and doesn't mean), so I can answer that question with an emphatic and truthful "yes" in any TRI. And as long as I can answer that question appropriately to the satisfaction of the priesthood leaders who have stewardship over me (and who therefore receive inspiration for and about me from God), no one, especially no *insert cleverly worded insult here* like you can unilaterally declare that I am unworthy to partake of the Lord's blessings of the temple.

And I can redefine any word I want so that I can vehemently answer yes to any question. "Did you have sex with another woman?" No, I didn't have it, I gave it to her. I define 'having sex' that way, so I'm still temple worthy!"

You're excuses are getting more and more pathetic. You know as well as anyone else that you do not sustain your priesthood leaders. If you can tell when they are following the Holy Ghost and when they are not then you obviously think you do a better job of it than they do. That's not sustaining them in anything. That you try to rationalize that is utterly idiotic.

[_harmony]

We seem to be getting hung up on the word "sustain". Perhaps it would be helpful if you posted what you think it means to sustain someone. Because publically and privately, I am certain I sustain my leaders and I'm comfortable with what that means (and doesn't mean), so I can answer that question with an emphatic and truthful "yes" in any TRI. And as long as I can answer that question appropriately to the satisfaction of the priesthood leaders who have stewardship over me (and who therefore receive inspiration for and about me from God), no one, especially no *insert cleverly worded insult here* like you can unilaterally declare that I am unworthy to partake of the Lord's blessings of the temple.

And I can redefine any word I want so that I can vehemently answer yes to any question. "Did you have sex with another woman?" No, I didn't have it, I gave it to her. I define 'having sex' that way, so I'm still temple worthy!"

You're excuses are getting more and more pathetic. You know as well as anyone else that you do not sustain your priesthood leaders. If you can tell when they are following the Holy Ghost and when they are not then you obviously think you do a better job of it than they do. That's not sustaining them in anything. That you try to rationalize that is utterly idiotic.

Mak, if you aren't using your personal revelation to determine if and when our leaders are being led by the Holy Ghost, then you are not following the prophet, because that's what we're all supposed to do. It just upsets you when someone else is doing what you're supposed to be doing. Just because I'm doing as the prophet has said and you aren't isn't my problem.

[_maklelan]

Mak, if you aren't using your personal revelation to determine if and when our leaders are being led by the Holy Ghost, then you are not following the prophet, because that's what we're all supposed to do. It just upsets you when someone else is doing what you're supposed to be doing. Just because I'm doing as the prophet has said and you aren't isn't my problem.

You misinterpret a fairly simple teaching harmony. It's not our job to decide when it is and when it is not necessary to follow them. If that were the case we wouldn't need them at all.

[_Bond...James Bond]

It's not our job to decide when it is and when it is not necessary to follow them.

Actually it is necessary to decide when to follow religious leaders. Some religious followers have been led to their dooms before (Jim Jones, David Koresh). Not that the LDS Church would do anything like that, but you have to be vigilant in life and keep an eye on where you're going.

If that were the case we wouldn't need them at all.

Perhaps you don't need them.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hardly sustaining them as prophets, seers or revelators. More like: "I am closer to God than they are, so I'll follow God when they fail to."[

Apologists do this. Consider their reasons for choosing the LGT over the HGT

Considering geography has absolutely nothing to do with doctrine and no general authority has ever made an official statement about it, I don't see your point. The only thing they ever say is that we don't know for sure.

This is debatable but for another thread. But there are other things, almost everything that an apologist does not really want to account for, that they pass off as the Prophet's opinion only. Start with Adam God, Blood atonement, plural marriage once being required for exaltation for starter.

If this is some attempt to garner respect for harmony's testimony by making us feel bad it's not a very good one.

I think it is inappropriate for you or anyone to make an issues of Harmony's or anyone else's temple recommend. Why not stick to debating issues and leave personal attacks aside.

I really wish you people would stop presuming to tell me anything about the Temple or about worthiness.

Why? Are the expert?

Aside from Liz's timely postings concerning the interview questions, none of you know the first thing about it, least of all harmony, so stop acting like you do. If you want to stand up for her maturity or her nice personality that's fine, but she's not temple worthy, period. I'm a very understanding interviewer. I've given a temple recommend to someone who wasn't paying their tithing, but harmony's interview would be over after the third question.

Contrary to your high opinion of yourself you are not the only one who knows about TR's. I imagine I have given many, many more interviews for TRs then you have and I will assert that it is not your place to judge her TR worthiness at all. It is up to her bishop and SP. They have the call and I am sure you would agree that they have the spirit and inspiration to decide whether to issue one or not. If she lies, that is her problem. If she shares some of her more "fringe" views and they decide to issue the recommend that is their business. If you are the expert you think you are on TRs then you would know this.

I suggest you drop it. You are looking immature and foolish.

[_Alter Idem]

LDS posters do not post here because it lacks the right flavor. Many LDS posters are in the blogs and enjoy consorting with their own kind or with people who will respect the LDS church even if they may disagree with it. This is the flavor LDS posters enjoy.

And yes, LDS posters would find the cuss words just a little offensive here and may vanish without a post. The fact is the board is titled: Mormon Discussions and as such, it focuses on Mormon discussions. But such discussions need to be respectful of LDS poster morals and lifestyles. And at times, the board isn't such a board.

Juliann and Dan would never post here because they would both be trashed without a second thought by some of the posters here. And you all know it.

Uh...Juliann and Dan BOTH posted on Shades original board and weren't at all "trashed".

Jersey Girl

Now that isn't quite accurate. I remember why Dan stopped posting. The creeps came out of the woodword and started attacking him like he had a big target on his back. The last straw was when someone posted doctored pictures of him in S&M-- They took the ridicule too far and he left. It happened back when the board was completely uncensored. As I recall, Dr. Shades did remove the picture though.

[_maklelan]

This is debatable but for another thread. But there are other things, almost everything that an apologist does not really want to account for, that they pass off as the Prophet's opinion only. Start with Adam God, Blood atonement, plural marriage once being required for exaltation for starter.

And I suppose that the general authorities said this long before any apologist did means nothing? Just because an apologist agrees with an interpretation that an authority espouses doesn't mean the apologist is trying to influence doctrine.

I think it is inappropriate for you or anyone to make an issues of Harmony's or anyone else's temple recommend. Why not stick to debating issues and leave personal attacks aside.

Fair enough.

Why? Are the expert?

Out of evryone who posts here, I'm the only one who has ever conducted temple recommend interviews (as far as I can tell). Having sat on both sides of the desk I consider myself to be more familiar with the requirements than anyone else here.

Contrary to your high opinion of yourself you are not the only one who knows about TR's. I imagine I have given many, many more interviews for TRs then you have and I will assert that it is not your place to judge her TR worthiness at all. It is up to her bishop and SP. They have the call and I am sure you would agree that they have the spirit and inspiration to decide whether to issue one or not. If she lies, that is her problem. If she shares some of her more "fringe" views and they decide to issue the recommend that is their business. If you are the expert you think you are on TRs then you would know this.

I stand corrected about being the only one, but if she is honest it's not in the realm of "fringe issues," it's in the realm of cognitive disobedience. She does not sustain her priesthood authorities, period. There is no grey area in the question. It is binary. Yes or no. She cannot honestly answer yes.

I suggest you drop it. You are looking immature and foolish.

And again my concern arises that anyone opposed to the church can come on here and literally say whatever they want and never be thought less of, but anyone who disagrees with the criticism skates on thin ice, no matter how much more they know about the issue. Harmony's argument is a freaking joke and anyone who is currently and actively living the gospel can see that. If she doesn't want to discuss it then she shouldn't wave it around like it validates her arguments.