Why So Few Faithful?

[_harmony]

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.

*sigh*... No, Mak. You're the one who is missing the point of that elementary teaching.

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

Indeed, that is our most important job. Otherwise we end up abdicating our agency to poeple we don't even know. I, for one, will not do that.

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

Well, someone has to run the church. I've got a job that I love, so there's no sense in asking me to do it. And you're too young, so there's no sense in asking you to do it. Since they've supposedly received that which is necessary for them to do it, I suspect God wants them to do it, I sustain them in their callings, even if I don't personally like them. What I am not required to do, and therefore do not do, is sustain them in running my life. And I trust my personal revelation enough to be able to tell the difference between when they're running the church and when they're trying to run my life.

[_maklelan]

*sigh*... No, Mak. You're the one who is missing the point of that elementary teaching.

I wish my faithfulness and study could afford me half the understanding of the real meaning of the gospel as your rebellion and reticence does you.

Indeed, that is our most important job. Otherwise we end up abdicating our agency to poeple we don't even know. I, for one, will not do that.

So you admit that you refuse to sustain them as your priesthood leaders. You will only sustain them as occasional council as long as you agree with it. Thanks for making that clear.

Well, someone has to run the church. I've got a job that I love, so there's no sense in asking me to do it. And you're too young, so there's no sense in asking you to do it. Since they've supposedly received that which is necessary for them to do it, I suspect God wants them to do it, I sustain them in their callings, even if I don't personally like them. What I am not required to do, and therefore do not do, is sustain them in running my life. And I trust my personal revelation enough to be able to tell the difference between when they're running the church and when they're trying to run my life.

So you sustain them in running their own lives, but when it touches your life you only sustain yourself. Again, thanks for clarifying.

[_harmony]

*sigh*... No, Mak. You're the one who is missing the point of that elementary teaching.

I wish my faithfulness and study could afford me half the understanding of the real meaning of the gospel as your rebellion and reticence does you.

Give it time. Life has a way of teaching is all sorts of things.

Indeed, that is our most important job. Otherwise we end up abdicating our agency to poeple we don't even know. I, for one, will not do that.

So you admit that you refuse to sustain them as your priesthood leaders. You will only sustain them as occasional council as long as you agree with it. Thanks for making that clear.

I admit nothing of the sort.

I sustain them in their calling. It's not their calling to run my life. Their calling is to run the church. I feel free to criticize things like them spending billions of dollars of non-tithing money on SLC real estate, because they are supposed to be running the church, not a multi-billion dollar business. It's not their calling to run the businesses; it's their calling to run the church, and when they're running the businesses, they're not running the church.

Well, someone has to run the church. I've got a job that I love, so there's no sense in asking me to do it. And you're too young, so there's no sense in asking you to do it. Since they've supposedly received that which is necessary for them to do it, I suspect God wants them to do it, I sustain them in their callings, even if I don't personally like them. What I am not required to do, and therefore do not do, is sustain them in running my life. And I trust my personal revelation enough to be able to tell the difference between when they're running the church and when they're trying to run my life.

So you sustain them in running their own lives, but when it touches your life you only sustain yourself. Again, thanks for clarifying.

[/quote]

Did you just read what you said? Of course I sustain them in running their own lives. Heck, I sustain you in running yours! No way do I abdicate my life to anyone who is mortal. I bow my head and bend my knee only to God.

[_Yoda]

(Moderator Note) I moved this thread because it spiralled into a more "Terrestrial" realm. Celestial threads need to be a bit less accusatory.

Nothing wrong with the material...just thought this forum would be a better "fit" considering how it is progressing.

[_harmony]

(Moderator Note) I moved this thread because it spiralled into a more "Terrestrial" realm. Celestial threads need to be a bit less accusatory.

Nothing wrong with the material...just thought this forum would be a better "fit" considering how it is progressing.

Personally, I think it's dead, because Mak can't bear to stay on topic.

[_bcspace]

We have a small handful of LDS posters who continue to post here, and a few posters in the middle who appear to honestly be objective about things

Assuming that because some are "in the middle" they must be objective is one of the most egregious errors in correlation ever.

[_Roger Morrison]

We have a small handful of LDS posters who continue to post here, and a few posters in the middle who appear to honestly be objective about things

Assuming that because some are "in the middle" they must be objective is one of the most egregious errors in correlation ever.

What IS your assessment of the "correlation" of "in the middle" and "be(ing) objective? Do you consider yourself "objective" when it comes to things-LDS?

Warm regards, Roger

[_ldsguy]

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.

I agree with this. I participated in a a couple boards much like this one, and was frustrated alot because while not using ad hominem outright, most posters have extreme disrespect for one another's view points. So I registered on FairLDS discussion boards, then never went back after the first day. I am of the opinion that the the average LDS person is turned away by too much hostility, but when among their own there's nothing to discuss, because everyone agrees.

I've thought about the really amazing discussions I have had with friends, family, members, and they never are about proving doctrines. They are about applying them. The moment in my life when I stopped being scared of what career I was going to go into was during a discussion with a mission companion where we talked about our families, our girlfriends, how hard missions are, how great missions are, talents, our hobbies, the light of Christ, the potential we have to learn and grow, and it kept building and building until I knew that whatever life brings, God would be there to support me, that life's purpose was a beautifully complex mystery that no man can know yet every man can come to learn.

It's just not possible on a message board where people assume they know your mind because of what sind of the argument you are on, and demand hours of research to justify your position, research which won't even be accepted if given. I think LDS, and any other human wants to feel understood and respected, and that simply doesn't happen in online message boards.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi again ldsguy, am i a 'stalker' ;-) You said:

I think LDS, and any other human wants to feel understood and respected, and that simply doesn't happen in online message boards. (Bold added)

If yer looking for discussion on what we have in common, it is not that sentiment. Starting off as a "victim" already? ;-) Sorry, it was just too much of a temptation... But, i do now know You better... Warm regards, Roger

[_Alter Idem]

Hi LDSguy, it's nice to have you here! I thought you made some good points too, thanks.