How do you come up with so much material to blog with?…

Will you have internet access an the institution?

Cause if yes … long walks on the big well manicured lawn, lots of jello … I can think of worse fates!

~

It’s mean to have someone read that at nearly 1AM their time. The saliva dripping down my chin could get me institutionalized.

I think so. Enough and more than enough, heaven!!

I feel this way about those big sugar cookies with pink frosting that you can buy at the Seven-Eleven.

~

Nick, it occurs to me that you often say things I agree with but I rarely say so because I only silently ascent. So let me say that everything you say that follows the above quote was very well thought out and interesting and I agree with it. I do believe “ethical hedonism” is a fully realized ethical system — just as you describe.

I don’t necessarily see it as taking one the whole way to true morality, but I think it gets really really close. Probably closer than any of us will live out in a life time. So I feel ethical hedonists should be considered viable “believers” after a fashion.

(I also think it has a few logical problems worth exploring… but for another time.)

One of my favorite ethical hedonists, btw, is Richard Garriot who is a computer game designer and self styled philosopher. For those that grew up with computer games like me, he made the Ultima series which was based around virtuous living.

I didn’t say you needed to start your own church and proclaim yourself a prophet. I said that you already had for all intents and purposes.

I suppose, to be fair, there might be more than one definition of “church” and “prophet” but from a Mormon view point you have all the necessary qualifications:

1. Claims to revelation from God - check
2. Claims to having a unique truth or message from God that all must accept or be “apostate” and maybe damned - check
3. Prophecy of the future - check
4. Authoratative interpretation of scripture that clarifies God’s real intent (i.e. by this I mean “closes down all other possible readings”) - check
5. Pronouncing God’s judgments upon others - check

You may be a “church” (organization or congregation) of one, but you are still a Church. And in so far as others disagree with you, you believe them to be wrong or even apostate. So you are also claiming to be the one true Church (of one person) of God and not just one possible interpretation of truth.

For the record, I didn’t say there was anything wrong with this — though I personally have my doubts. I just pointed out that it was a fact as per how I understand those terms.

The rest of my comments were to point out that all the issues you had with the LDS Church were inevitable if you ever tried to have a body of believers that attempt unity of belief. Measuring goals that don’t look upon the heart, for example, are the only possible goals at all. Can you imagine GBH getting up and saying “we are 20% more pure of heart this year than last year.” It would be cool if it were possible though. But unfortunately it’s impossible… so I see little reason to entertain the possibility that it’s a sign of apostacy.

But you have now clarified that you believe all religious organizations are man-made (except your own “church of one” of course) so none of what I said on that front logically matters any more. I retract all my comments along those lines to you because you made them irrelevant when you explained yourself further.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that people need to pick their own spiritual path and picking a customized one is a tried and true way and I don’t necessarily believe it to be bad. You have a good moral belief system as far as I can tell (I see no advocacy of use of arms to force belief or something like that) so I think your “religion of one” is a good thing in general and the world is better for it.

I am as willing to call you “brother in the Gospel” as I am any fellow Christian or non-Christian believer (or even willing for any non-believing ethicist.) And I believe I could learn from your ideas even if I think a great many of them are wrong — as we can all learn from each other.

But I also believe you have started to act the role of a prophet with an exclusive truth. (Again, individual defintions may vary. I do not wish to be an offender for a word. So let me just say you claiming to be a “prophet” as I, as a Mormon, understand that term. And likely as most people understand that term.)

Let me assure you that you are not alone in believing yourself to be God’s one true prophet to the world. It’s a common thing that happens to people in all religions, as far as I can tell. I honestly believe “God’s revealed religion of one” was the single most common religion I encountered while on my mission. And rarely if ever was it understood as a personal take on truth. Far more common — as with you — it was seen as something to be evangelized to the world for the world to know about, repent, and accept as the truth it was intended to be.

I didn’t realize I needed to start my own church and proclaim myself a prophet before I could present my studies of the scriptures in this forum. Being relatively new to this part of the blogosphere, I appreciate your interest in helping me keep the social contract of the group.

Nick, how you you like to read the book and let me know what you think before I try it on my agnostic molecular biologist son?

Hedonism is a pretty extreme word! I certainly have been very self-indulgent, even at the expense of other people. But, even at that, there may have been days of hedonism, but I wouldn’t have used that word to describe my life. I’ve only known a couple of hedonists. Actually, I’m not sure if I’ve ever known a hedonist.

I do think there is something to Dostoevsky’s ‘without God, everything is permitted.’ That is, unless there is an image of goodness that transcends the self and has more authority than the self, then the self is left as the final measure of goodness: as in, to thine own self be true as the most authoritative answer to life. What do you called a society that has this as its final measurement of action? You call that a doomed society. But even at this, note, however, that where religion is mistaken as synonymous with ‘the true and living’ God there is so much room for oppression in the name of God, holding out a fixed image of God, that I highly prefer the weaker model of a social compact with minimized restrictions on the individual, and generalized moral notion that attempts to gently and ‘without compulsory means’ curtail selfishness. Note how the various forms of oppression, both religious and atheistic, hold out an image to which the individual must conform - and that image is not in the person of Jesus freely discovered and accepted. (note that also in Mormon culture)

Ray would certainly be an excellent bishop. But, he doesn’t have time for that as his blogging habit is fairly foregrounded at this time. (Seriously, he is likely do more good here, for now. Bishop is pretty time intensive.)

~

Makes you think about how much talent is being wasted by discounting about half the adult membership…

I hasten to point out, however, that this bishop was a nutcase, and emphatically NOT your average LDS bishop. The same bishop (a full-time seminary teacher) would get up in sacrament meeting and tell the congregation of married university students that they were all much too young to reliably handle any of their callings. Then he began telling us in sacrament meetings about dreams he had, in which he was a savior figure sent to “rescue” the ward members, who were entirely unaware of the imminent spiritual and physical dangers about to engulf them. He was sort of scary.

I am as big a “support and sustain your local leadership” guy as anyone; I just don’t believe I am required to accept everything any local leader says without question. The entire council system in the Church argues against that proposition.

(Btw, I disagree vehemently with any interpretation of that statement that includes local leadership in the “will never lead you astray” category. That, imo, simply is indefensible, and I don’t believe that I am obligated to do what a local leader requests - no matter the request. I’m not a big fan of the Mountain Meadows Massacre.)

I’m not questioning the morality of agnostics and atheists; I’m just saying that the embedded foundation of religious altruism plays a part even in their own actions toward others. Granted, I believe what I view as distorted religious arrogance that claims all will burn in Hell unless they accept Jesus in this life, which leads often to indifference and disdain and contemptible attitudes and actions, is more abominable in this context than “mere agnosticism or atheism” (meaning I think you have abetter shot at advanced glory than many adamantly self-professed Christians [including Mormons]) - but that is considered heretical, as well.

I’m ok being a heretic in that regard.

Except that, in LDS culture and teaching, a man who does something objectively wrong, but in obedience to priesthood authority, will be blessed for that obedience, and any penalty will be upon the head of the misguided priesthood leader. Is this “official” doctrine? No, hardly anything is when we parse as the LDS public affairs department does. It is still, however, a significant belief in LDS culture, and an almost necessary corellary to the emphasis on obedience to leaders.

Ray, I’m a bit surprised that you would leap to this sort of conclusion. While we’ve never met in person, I’ve read enough of your thoughts to believe that your good choices don’t rely purely on your religious faith. Now, while I no longer believe in deity as an individual personality, I’d stop short of calling myself an atheist. I am most definitely not a christian, although in most ways I try to reflect in my daily life the wise teachings of great individuals such as Jesus of Nazareth. I’ll admit to being very “agnostic” as to the precise state of our existence after death, and I’m actually quite okay with that uncertainty, as referenced in another thread.

According to what you’ve written above, my only motivation is “to maximize [my] own comfort and minimize [my] own pain.” You suggest that I have no incentive to consider the impact of my behavior on others, to act with social consciousness, or to engage in selfless sacrifice. Ray, none of these statements are true.

Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that my primarly/only motivation really was to “maximize my own comfort and minimize my own pain.” Have you ever considered that both of these goals actually require that I consider the impact of my behavior on others? To the degree that I cause pain for others, I live in a world where people fail to live up to their potential, hampering my own happiness and “comfort.” To the degree that I cause pain for others, I live in a more violent world, placing myself at risk of injury or death. To the degree that I act without integrity, I encourage others to be dishonest, greatly increasing the likelihood that I will suffer unjust. To the degree that I lack compassion, I create a more hostile, cold, uncaring society, in which I will be less likely to find comfort when I am in pain. I could easily go on much further, but surely you get my point. The philosophy of life that religious people are fond of calling “hedonism,” in its truest sense, actually requires the “hedonist” to act in ways that will bless and serve others.

It would probably be considered offensive, although arguably quite true, to suggest that religious persons also act with a motivation of “maximizing their own comfort and minimizing their own pain.” Religious persons seek to “maximize their own comfort” in this life, and more particularly in the next, since they wish to obtain a blissful, comfortable future existence. Religious persons seek to “minimize their own pain” when they avoid behavior which, according to their belief, would subject them to punishment, pain and suffering in a future existence. Even when religious persons acts in ways that bless others’ lives, they genuinely believe (even if they are too altruistic to be “primarily” motivated by that belief) that by doing so, they are minimizing their own pain, and maximizing their own comfort.

I have been extremely civil. I have expressed my belief that the priesthood ban was not God’s will on this thread and many others - over and over and over again. I have expressed my belief that not every action of all prophets over time has been the will of God, including much of what God got blamed for in the OT. If you can’t address what I’ve actually said but have to resort to “not all Mormons believe that” (to which I would respond, “DUH!”), what good is this discussion? I believe that most (the large majority of) members do believe what I’ve written, so I won’t get sucked into the endless loop of what some might believe.

Finally, if you look at the VAST majority of Christian congregations in this country at this time, it is fairly obvious that the Mormon Church is AHEAD of them as far as racial integration and allowing black members to lead mixed and even predominantly white congregations. That usually gets ignored completely in these discussions, but it is directly relevant to the underlying charges of current racism. The hypocrisy of many of those making those charges is astounding.

If we can’t have a conversation without resorting to this type of hyperbolic generalization, I’m done.

Coming from a guy that just explained to everyone here that all evil in a non-united marriage must of necessity be 100% the Mormon spouse’s fault (see #149 and #152) while never even pausing to consider equivalent maritial challenges in all philosophical differences possible in a marriage (which is likely nearly all marriages, I might add)… it would seem to me you still think exactly that way but in reverse now.

“I have a very hard time envisioning a scenario where a prophet teaches something like, “It’s ok to go out and kill or steal or commit adultery - or do whatever you want, since God will forgive you in the end.” Following that type of teaching would take us off course and land us in a degree of glory different than what we would receive without it.”

-There was lots of killing and stealing in the old testament by the command of God. I guess its all OK because God said so.
-Adultery? Many people would consider Joseph an adulterer. I know–if you marry them first, its not adultery.
-Many would consider D+C 132:26 to directly conflict with what you say above.

“Iow, there is a HUGE difference between “not lead you astray” and “never be mistaken, even about important things”. I accept the former; I reject the latter.”

-Perpetuating racism for 100 years? That was just a mistake–no one ever got lead astray. Wait, wait–that wasn’t a mistake either, that was God’s will that we can’t understand.

This is exactly how I used to think. Somehow the church seems to push you to think that you can either believe in God or be a mass murderer–with no options in between. There is true charity outside of religion and often more so than within religion. Things do matter, life isn’t useless even if there isn’t a God and we all cease to exist after this life. Perhaps you’d have to not believe to understand.

“Astray” means “off course”. I believe firmly that prophets of all ages have believed things that were not Truth - that were incorrect, but I believe just as strongly that nothing the prophets have taught us will lead us “off course”. Iow, I have a very hard time envisioning a scenario where a prophet teaches something like, “It’s ok to go out and kill or steal or commit adultery - or do whatever you want, since God will forgive you in the end.” Following that type of teaching would take us off course and land us in a degree of glory different than what we would receive without it.

I don’t see anything that has been taught that, if followed, will change our eternal reward - even though I simultaneously believe that we need not believe everything the prophets say as the pure word of God. I believe most things are filtered through inspired but still mortal and fallible human beings. I just don’t think those human beings will “lead us astray” in the sense that I believe the quote was meant.

Iow, there is a HUGE difference between “not lead you astray” and “never be mistaken, even about important things”. I accept the former; I reject the latter.

If I were a prophet, with that kind of responsibility, like WW I would find it immensely comforting to believe that before I really ran the train off the tracks God would just strike me dead. Frankly, I’d probably pray for that every single day.

Ray,

I read your above comment with interest and appreciate your teaching. You put into words well the feelings I have in this area. I wonder how you would respond to the inevitable challenge regarding the following quote being likend to the statement you have made above?

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so he will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. God bless you” (Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212-13; see also Official Declaration 1).

So, if none of it is true, I’ll fall back on what makes me happy.

“However, Christ himself is quoted as saying that he came not to bring peace but a sword, and that if we weren’t willing to leave everything else behind to follow him, we were not worthy of him. Those are strong words and certainly cold comfort in an inter-faith marriage.”

The whole point of this discussion is to explore ‘what if it isn’t true’. If it (meaning Christianity as well as mormonism) isn’t true, its not so simple as to say that the church doesn’t do any harm, given statements like the one above and the broken families that have resulted from this type of thinking.

That isn’t worth a response, Bill, so I won’t dignify it with one - other than to label it as despicable.

“Very few organizations (other than religious organizations) teach that not belonging to the organization will send you to hell.”

As Hawkgrrl said, that’s not what Mormonism teaches, so it is irrelevant here - unless it is used to illustrate that we are different than other religions that do teach it.

You supply not only the scripture, but a personal interpretation that you believe everyone must accept as true. Again, for all intents and purposes you are declaring yourself God’s one true prophet to the world with a unique message of truth all must accept to be saved.

In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with that. Joseph Smith did the same, as did many prophets in the Old and New Testament. But at least Joseph and the others had the courage to actually say so (i.e. that God called them to be a prophet to the world) and let people seek answers from God on the subject. I do not see you doing the same.

Very few organizations (other than religious organizations) teach that not belonging to the organization will send you to hell.

Its not a priority matter–like spending too much time at the local country club. The problem is when the local country club teaches that your spouse will go to hell because they aren’t a member of the country club.

“especially someone who is not in a united marriage”. How do you know you are in a truly united marriage? You might be surprised what your wife puts up with–in order to maintain the appearance of unity.

I only can answer for myself. I can’t answer for anyone else - especially someone who is not in a united marriage. ANY organization can have the effect you describe (and many non-religious ones often do), if one spouse prioritizes it and the other one doesn’t.

No, the topic wasn’t. Fighting and screaming publicly about it was.

“My point is that the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost is a singular event.”

It can be, as evidenced by instances in our scriptures. Those same scriptures, however, that speak of such a singular event also illustrate that the *impact* of this event isn’t enough - in isolation - to assure a continuation of the presence of the Holy Ghost. King Benjamin’s people are the perfect example of this - that people can have a life-altering, baptism of fire event and still end up fading away from what they learned at the time of that event. The “event” of cleansing is critical, but, imho, it is more important to experience an on-going cleansing than to experience it once - no matter how powerful that once is. This appears to have been the experience of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis, and they are the ones of whom it is said that they were more converted than any other group recorded in the BofM. (The experience of their sons is especially instructive, as there is NO indication that these sons had a “singular event” but rather years of steady indoctrination and steadfast obedience.) I simply have a hard time claiming that the experience of King Benjamin’s people was “better” in any way than that of the Anti-Nephi-Lehis and, particularly, the Sons of Helaman.

I also don’t think the baptism of fire happens “gradually over time”. I think it can happen repeatedly over time. There is a HUGE difference between those two.

I’ve seen a happily couples where one spouse joins the church. The other spouse has no interest in the church. The new member realizes that they aren’t married for eternity. They become very negative about the evil coffee and the occasional alcoholic beverage that their non-member spouse drinks. Things move toward divorce, with the member not really working to save the marriage. After all, without a temple marriage, they will be divorced when they die–why not just get it over with now.

The same sort of thing happens when one spouse wants to stop their activity in the church. There can be lots of problems.

At times, the church has very effectively fulfilled the scripture:

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

If its not true, there are a number of broken families that were ruined for no reason.

I think one has two options when considering the path to salvation and sanctification.

1. Follow the prophet as they will never lead you astray
2. Look past your church leaders and come unto Christ.

This first one is found everywhere from Primary songs to conference talks. To me its message is: don’t worry, we are in control and will safely see you through. It asks you to ignore the noise of dissidents and apostates. Fulfill your church callings, pay your tithing, attend your meetings, support your leaders and you will be safe.

The second option encourages you to look past the political, theological, and commercial foibles of your leaders and seek to be one with Christ. It requires you to, as Enos did, wrestle with God to receive a remission of your sins. It places your sanctification squarely on your shoulders.

I think we each must choose the path we feel will bring us the most joy.

*
Ray

I am glad to hear that you think the connection is alive and well in the Church. Perhaps in some locales it is just hard to find. I agree with you on the rich contents of ‘Mormonism.’ It is interesting that you mentioned the concept of the heavenly Mother. That topic for some was worthy on excommunication.

*
Bruce

You said:
“All you’ve done here is show that no Church can pass your test of “truthness.”

Yes, I regretfully acknowledge that I think all religion is man-made.

As far as polygamy is concerned, I have not come to grips with the implications of our history. I find some comfort in the words of Eliza R. Snow who was, at first, appalled by the concept but come to embrace it.

Regarding my ‘theology,’ I have spoken only of those things that I have found in the scriptures that are defined as the doctrine, gospel, and church of Christ. If you disagree with my interpretation, please show me an alternative thought process.

I have no intention to compete with the Church. I do, however, believe that the prophecies in the latter day scriptures regarding the Gentile Church will be fulfilled.

*
Thomas Parkin

I was heartened when I heard Elder Bednar and, most recently Eldar Christiansen, speak of the baptism of fire. Several years ago, I went back through the conference talks seeking references to the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost. As I remember, I found only 1 indirect reference in the 20 years I reviewed.

I do have concern with the idea that this second baptism can occur gradually over the span of many years. I have not found any examples in the scriptures that support that idea. To me, it seems akin to saying that a baptism by immersion (water) can occur over time as long as all the parts of the body are immersed.

One scripture that has been used to support that idea is found in 3rd Nephi 9:20 which speaks of the Lamanites baptism by fire:

“And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.”

The idea that the Lamanites didn’t know they were baptized by fire could be taken two ways. Either they didn’t know it happened or they didn’t understand what was happening. Before the 1981 edition of the scriptures was released, there was a footnote that points this scripture back to the Helamen 5:45. This event is where Lehi and Nephi are freed from the Lamanite prison and over three hundred Lamanites are converted. Aminadab, a relapsed Nephite, had to explain to the Lamanites what was happening. There is still a forward reference to 3rd Nephi 9 in the footnote of Helaman 5:45. There is no question, in my mind, that the latter is the case. They didn’t understand what was happening to them.

My point is that the baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost is a singular event. In my opinion, it is the most significant event that can happen in a person’s life. It brings with it exquisite joy and an unbounded feeling of love, charity, and purity. It can last for days. The burning of the bosom and the emotional spiritual highs that sometimes occur in our lives cannot hold a candle to the this second baptism offered to us by the Savior.

Lots of people do that.

That is a completely different topic, but an interesting one and one that divides religions from the lack of them.

Having incorrect beliefs on fringe subjects doesn’t mean one has been “misled.” Mislead means that one is going in totally the wrong direction from the way the Lord would have us go, and with the direction the Church is headed, that is simply not the case.

As many as are out of touch with whatever will be revealed in the future of course. Even Joseph Fielding Smith said this would be the case in Doctrines of Salvation, so it isn’t like this is a new and catastrophic fact.

RE: “How can you excommunicate someone for promoting (insert your favorite mystery here) today when tomorrow it could be taught from the pulpit at conference?”

Easily. Because excommunication for apostasy is never about whatever your favorite mystery is. It is repeated belligerent opposition to the Church and its leaders after being warned to stop, or repeated and defiant preaching of such and such mystery after being warned to stop. So it isn’t a personal belief of a “heresy” that might even turn out to be true. It is defiance after one has been instructed to stop doing something by priesthood authority. Just because something is true will never justify defiance of priesthood authority.

We have no disagreement there, I believe, and I see the core principles of the Gospel as those that are necessary to be purified in that way - to be connected to the living vine that produces fruit meet for repentance. I think that connection is alive and well in the Church. I know it is available there - along with the unique understanding of why it is important and what it produces.

Back to the original question of the post, I will add one more thing:

If Mormonism isn’t true, but the truth resides in another understanding of Christianity, I will have lost a very powerful and transformative connection to a REAL and TANGIBLE Father (and, even more starkly, my wife to a similar Mother). More so than almost any other concept of the Restored Gospel (or all of them combined), that loss alone would be tragic, imho.

All you’ve done here is show that no Church can pass your test of “truthness.”

Spektator, I have been staying out of this conversation, but I have something to add. I wrote this article for you (or for this train of thought anyhow) a long time ago.

It’s oh so easy to be critical of others beliefs and pick out the “errors” of other’s ways. It’s oh so much harder to be fair and equally critical of your own. Yet when we fail to be skeptical of ourselves, we never feel like we’ve failed because your brain tricks us into thinking otherwise. (It’s called confirmation bias.)

You offer evidence of an apostate LDS Church and in the process, for all intents and purposes, set yourself up as the one true prophet to the world. Put your money where your mouth is and attempt to start your own “church” that solves the very problems that you complain about. My guess is you can’t either.

Instead of picking on the LDS Church’s theological short comings, I’d like to see you attempt your own well thought out theological position and give it to us in full and let others pick it apart for you and see if you actually have a belief system that is more or less consistent then the one you are attacking.

We can start with the fact that you seem to base your faith on the theology of a man that you think might have started polygamy to justify his adultry with Fanny Alger. But what type of God would give such a man these great truths you are basing your religion on right during and in the midst of his adultry?

I think even the few little facts you’ve given us here about your theology place you in a much weaker theological position then the LDS church. Once your full doctrine comes out, I suspect the inconsistencies in your theology will likely be orders of magnitude harder to rationalize away then the very ones you are attacking. This is the inherent problem with attacking one belief system while not really offering an alternative. It’s the ultimate position of weakness that attempts to mask it’s impotence through silence.

Spektator, I can’t tell from your writings if you think of yourself as a reformer from within or as a separate “Church” in competition with the LDS Church.

If a reformer from within (i.e. to encourage baptism by fire), then you are using an approach that is nearly the opposite of effective. For example, it is interesting to note that you and Ray share many theological points, yet I suspect Ray has much stronger influence in the LDS Church than is possible for you with your current approach of attacking rather than building. Ray is the real “reformer” here and yet he would never consider himself such.

If you think of yourself as a “Church” that is in competition with the LDS Church, which picks and chooses from the revelations of Joseph Smith using through faith in your own discernment, that is your own business of course. And you and your Church have as much right to a missionary effort as the LDS Church does, so I do not begrudge you that. But I, for one, feel President Hinckley and Monson, for all their shortcomings, have greater discernment than you do. But you are entitled to your beliefs nonetheless.

Great question(s). My own answer is no.

I think anyone who has ever sat in a PEC meeting can confirm that things are not always done with this question in mind.

I bring my scriptures to PEC every week. Know how many times I’ve opened them, to ask the kind of questions you just asked? Never. That isn’t even meant as a criticism. My Bishop is man I enjoy, admire and follow. He’s a good freind. I trust that he is seeking and receiving inspiration in what he is doing in the ward. But … I’d like to have us say way more often … are the measurements we are using those that Christ would use to measure?

I don’t think the measurements GBH mentioned are irrelevent, or even bad measurements. It is tough to look into a man’s heart, where the Lord looks. It is even tougher to look into the heart of an institution. We often have to look at

By the way, Spektator, I think your emphasis on D&C 19 (that is one I’ve come back to again and again in the last several months), and all your comments around the neccesity of the baptism of fire and the centrality of that to the gospel are dead on. Faith, repentence, baptism all are meant to bring us to the baptism of fire. I think Elder Bednar has been great on these themes. This theme is _everywhere_ in the scriptures. Once I saw it, I started seeing it everywhere. Just one more place:

D&C 33

11 Yea, repent and be baptized, every one of you, for a remission of your sins; yea, be baptized even by water, and then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost.
12 Behold, verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel …

~

In my opinion, the church is a means not an end. When it becomes the end and gatekeeper, we get into problems. As D&C 121 states, almost all men will screw it up if you give them a little power and authority. I know, I honed it to a fine art.

One time as a member of the bishopric, I accompanied our ward youth to a summer youth conference. We found out that some of the kids had left the dorms after curfew. As duly ordained keepers of orthodoxy, the other councilor and I pulled the offenders out of the closing testimony meeting and chastised them for breaking the rule. Their punishment for breaking the curfew rule was to withhold from them the spiritual feast.

How shortsighted and sick is that? But that is what I thought was demanded by the institutional church. I am currently reading Here I Stand; A Life of Martin Luther by Bainton. I am struck with how lethal the Holy Roman Church was to any unorthodox thinking. At least today, we only excommunicate them as opposed to the bon(e)fire.

The purpose of the church is to provide us the knowledge of how to come unto Christ. The leaders are, as found in 3rd Nephi 12:1, were chosen ‘to minister unto you , and to be your servants.’ I think we are far away from that concept considering chauffeured limousines and million dollar penthouses that I hear about.

In the end, I believe we are here to improve our knowledge and learn the lessons we need to go to the next level.

“Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.” D&C 10 67-69

This is the church that I strive to join.

I suppose I’ve never quite understood why sometimes we have such a problem with contigency. Maybe its just the fact that historically the emphasis has so much been upon the answers we have rather than exploring, searching in and growing (or rejecting) those ideas. Maybe it is a human thing magnified by Mormon culture and isolation. I suppose I do recall growing up the feeling that not only did we have good answers, we had the best possible answers and that one ought to do be able to see that. This sort of fixity has always been problematic to me. And I’m thankful for the influences I had that shielded me (or inoculated me ) from it.

What it means is that our prophets and leaders are men, capable of misjudgement, and that policies and doctrines preached now not only can fall out of favor - some absolutely will fall out of favor. Maybe sooner rather than later. This isn’t the real question. The question is, are we collectively approaching Zion under inspired, if imperfect, leadership. The reality is, for the most part doctrine has shifted, has slowly advanced or receded - and much of it has never been set in stone. A part of what we believe is barely hinted at in the canonized scriptures. (Causing, imho, a huge historical dissonance between - just as an example - forgrounding ‘Familes are Forever’ rather than the saving doctrines taught in the BoM. I think this is being bravely corrected, and his having a wonderful effect in may people’s lives.) The reason polygamy and the Priesthood ban are so omnipresent in these discussions is that they are the two main, notable examples of us clearly turning our backs, in public, on previous teachings of the prophets. But most of the changes between generations are in areas where the ground was never really settled, anyway. And, for all the controversy on the bloggernacle, when I read Joseph, I read what I believe. I feel very much at home in much of what was ever said by Brigham Young and all the rest. There are some big exceptions - and since here we are always talking about those exceptions, they take on the dissonan