If you reject the LDS message...

[Rescued One]

Well, apparently it is her job to point out that Mormons have "consign[ed] people to hell". My point in asking for a response was to show that she also does "consign people to hell",

I do not consign anyone to hell.

but apparently doesn't feel bad in the least, because it appears to me that Phoebe believes that God loves her type of believers more than Mormons or Hindus. I reject that proposition--God loves us all.

This statement is inflammatory and an attack on my character.

Not everyone on earth loves God. He knows who loves Him. Is John 3:18 translated correctly? What about 1 John 5:12?

He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
John 3:18

He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
1 John 5:12

Phoebe Ann, I am calling a unilateral truce (long overdue). I would like to build a better relationship with you. Several people have noted that you appear to enjoy posting argumentative LDS topics.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing. We are not clones of one another. If a topic comes up that you consider argumentative, no one is forcing you to argue.

If you're truly interested in avoiding being labeled as "intentionally misrepresenting the LDS faith", I would like to offer you a word of advice.

When someone asks you a question, please don't answer with a question, or skirt the issue.

That's a double standard. Many, if not most, of my questions go unanswered. Softspoken answers more questions than most LDS who post here.

It does not create productive dialogue. Please answer the question directly so that your position is clear and not misunderstood.

Now you want me to have the ability to know what others are going to glean from my posts. Well, we all have different abilities. That is not one of mine(study the autism spectrum). I find that LDS show resentment merely because I post here. I do not attack a person's character and make it personal. Other people do.

Phoebe, I wish I could post more frequently like you do and clear up misunderstandings sooner, but my schedule does not allow that. Of course, you probably don't think much of my opinion, but I will extend a hand of cooperation and friendship anyway. I hope you accept my offer of greater civility.

Sure.

 

[Rescued One]

This is getting into a faith vs. works discussion, and the works people will never win because the Bible is clear that it is faith, alone, which saves. But to respond to your points, I agree that not all who say "Lord, Lord" are saved. I believe that there are many sitting in churches around the world that are not real Christians because they don't have God-given faith. They are living off the faith of their parents, or spouse, for example. Or they see some good things happening around Christians that they know, and want to be part of it. I don't know, but when someone can walk out of church and be a different person, then I can't say that I can see their heart, but it seems that they don't really know Christ. A good Christian, however, one that really knows Christ, is a new creature. They are created unto good works in Christ. Works meant for the glory of God. There is a lot of difference between the works that faith creates (which bring glory to God), and the works that man creates (that brings glory to himself.) When someone has to do something to merit salvation, that is works-based, and none of faith the Bible says. So while works are 'required', they are not required for salvation, they are necessarily a part of the daily life of a Christian because, as a new creature in Christ, he has been created unto them.

This is a stupendous post well-worth everyone's attention.

 

[Moodshadow]

That is exactly what I'm telling you. You make it sound as though these things must occupy our thoughts incessantly—that we must verify from minute to minute that we are in harmony with all this. My oldest son is turning 12 in 7 months. Do you think I harp on him every day that if he doesn't receive the Aaronic Priesthood he'll be damned? My goodness! What a religion you lived! No thanks. I'll take Mormonsim any day over that insanity you describe. My life within Mormonsim is as fluid from day to day as yours is without it. I believe you have a seriously warped view of what it means to live the Restored Gospel. Hold on, here. NO, that's not what I was saying, so let's back up. Please remember that I was a faithful Latter-day Saint, just as you are now. I know, as you do, that the church does not require you to think about The Gospel every second of every waking hour. But if it is your intention to achieve exaltation, it does require of you every last one of the items - ALL of the "insanity" (your word, not mine) - I mentioned in that checklist, and we both know that, and there can be no honest denial of it. You can call my list "seriously warped" if you want to, but it's nothing more than normal, everyday Mormon reality, and again, we both know it. Any rank-and-file member - present or former - would corroborate that. I never said your life could not be "fluid" within Mormonism, nor did I say or even imply that I hated mine at the time, and in fact I loved my very active LDS life and had zero problem with it and was grateful at the time for the whole of it. If the truth be told, I'm not the one distorting the view here, Sir.

Good for you. I'm glad you've found what brings you peace.

Thank you - but I'm beginning to worry a little now about your own...

 

[Rescued One]

Irish Catholics and Protestants have fought wars for years. They believe in Christ. Does Christ accept them, or do they work iniquity?

When I watch the news or read a history of ireland, I do not know who is Christian and who isn't. Were there no christians fighting in World War II? If there were, which country were they fighting for?

During the Crusades, Catholic Christians attacked Eastern Orthodox Christians in Constantinople. Does Christ accept Catholic and Orthodox warriors, or do they work iniquity?

Have there been any LDS fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan? Did LDS fight in Vietnam? Did LDS fight in Missouri?

In my opinion, it takes a bit more than simply faith in Christ. What do you think?

What takes more than faith in Christ? You did not make that clear.

I bring these situations up because most people clearly see that Hindus are unbelievers.

Are you trying to tell us that Hindus are Christians? Is faith in Christ not so important after all? Why do LDS send missionaries to Hindu homes?

I think Catholic Christians were clearly in the wrong when they attacked Orthodox Christians.

Which Catholics were Christians and which Orthodox were Christians?

(Not my place to judge--just speculating here.) I haven't followed the Irish conflict to make a good assessment of which side is right/wrong, but it could very well be both of them. I think a good case can be made that these Catholic Crusaders were unbelievers as well, despite their "faith in Christ" which led them to Constantinople.

If a Catholic is an unbeliever, he is not a Christian.

(Of course, other Crusades attacked Muslims and Jews as well.) Perhaps Irish Catholics and Protestants are also unbelievers. What do you think--should these groups be considered unbelievers?

Who can say that there are no believers among those who profess faith in Christ? If someone does not have faith in Christ, he is an unbeliever for sure.

I also think that God will be happier with a good Hindu than a bad Christian. LDS theology seems to indicate that the good Hindu can inherit a higher degree of glory than say a Crusading Christian. Does your belief system offer that, or is the good Hindu assigned to Hell because he does not have faith in Christ?

Is it about being good apart from Christ? I'm getting confused about why you think Christ died on the cross. What did He actually accomplish by that? Does His blood save individuals who come to Him or does it save all people regardless of what god they serve?



What is a bad Christian? Don't you mean non-Christian?

 

[A New Dawn]

New Dawn,

I'm not interested in a faith/works debate again, but can you clarify something? Are you saying that not fighting fellow Christians is considered a work?

Moving on to faith,



Clearly Jesus has a different perspective on belief/unbelief than you do. If his disciplines who personally knew Jesus were guilty of "unbelief", I think the standard of belief is a bit higher than you imply. Believing in Christ means more than simply acknowledging him. The Crusaders acknowledged Christ, but I don't think they believed in Christ the way Christ would have them believe. If Christ's disciples were guilty of unbelief, would not this apply to warring Christians as well?

Do you remember that phrase that Joseph Smith spoke against all of Christendom in his first vision "They speak of me with their lips but their hearts are far from me"? Well, I do believe that has a place, and it's right next to those to whom Jesus says "Not all that say "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom". There is a difference between growing up in a Christian household and being Christian. There is a difference between giving Christ lip service and truly knowing Him. Just acknowledging Christ doesn't make one a Christian, but by the same token, committing sin does not make one not a Christian. All of us sin. All of us struggle to put the things of the world away. That doesn't mean we aren't Christian, and since you can't see into their heart to know one way or another, then it really doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.

 

[SoftSpoken]

Hold on, here. NO, that's not what I was saying, so let's back up. Please remember that I was a faithful Latter-day Saint, just as you are now. I know, as you do, that the church does not require you to think about The Gospel every second of every waking hour. But if it is your intention to achieve exaltation, it does require of you every last one of the items

So what? This is a burden to me? If I say I love God then ought I not to be happy to keep his commandments? If I get sloppy because of the stresses of the world and the weaknesses of my flesh (which God himself gave me, and He knows this), I can repent and know that I'll be forgiven. Where, then, is the burden? Is it only in that God has seen fit to excat some specifics from me? That he expects lifelong dedication and continuous labor in his vineyard? If that is all, where is the burden? If you found it burdensome, why?

- ALL of the "insanity" (your word, not mine) - I mentioned in that checklist, and we both know that, and there can be no honest denial of it.

LOL, I did not call the list insanity, I called your perception of living the Restored Gospel insanity. And I couldn't do it either. No wonder you left!

You can call my list "seriously warped" if you want to, but it's nothing more than normal, everyday Mormon reality, and again, we both know it.

Again, I didn't call your list seriously warped. I called "your view of what it means to live the Restored Gospel" seriously warped. And I hold to that statement, as you have yet to show me that you understand what it means to truly live the Restored Gospel.

Any rank-and-file member - present or former - would corroborate that.

Well, there are a few others here. Let's ask them whether or not you have a clear understanding of the burden of Mormonsim.

I never said your life could not be "fluid" within Mormonism, nor did I say or even imply that I hated mine at the time, and in fact I loved my very active LDS life and had zero problem with it and was grateful at the time for the whole of it. If the truth be told, I'm not the one distorting the view here, Sir.

I suppose, then, that I'm the one distorting the view? I have a warped view of what it means to live the Restored Gospel... is that right? That's the only other alternative I see here, in this two-person discussion. So maybe I'll backpedal and say that from my perspective your view is warped, and you'll say that from your perspective mine is warped. And neither of us, then, has any clue what it really means to live the Restored Gospel. We'll let the Gospel speak for itself. Is that fair? If so, let's let the Gospel speak:

"Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;" (3 Ne. 27:19-20)
​

That's my Gospel and I'm sticking to it. Pretty simple, I'd say.

Thank you - but I'm beginning to worry a little now about your own.

Please do tell why.

 

[A New Dawn]

It was a source of sorrow to me, too, at first - deep, gut-wrenching sorrow the likes of which I had never before experienced in all my life. I wasn't even sure I wanted to survive it, in fact. But I did survive, and now I can't even tell you how grateful I am to have finally learned the truth, even though it took me forty years to get here. It is - at long last - the peace that passes understanding.

I know how you feel, Moodshadow. As I was coming to know the truth about the restored gospel, I was in agony. And when I was finally liberated, the joy and peace and truth God gave to me was awesomely lightening. There was a lot to repent from, and still, there are times when I wish with all my heart that I could go back, because my whole life revolved around the church. All of it. I can't get a college bulletin without bursting into tears. Most of my friends on facebook are church members. It's a life-altering event.

 

[Zechariah]

Due to time constraints, I have compiled some of the comments (pro & con) that have been made pertaining to the dusting off of feet, as per the D&C, for which I find the Luke 10 passage particularly relevant. (Use of alternating color is for post quote separation purposes only.)

To pronounce a cursing on someone, is to assume the responsibility or "job" of God. God and God only, is the one authorized (the LDS usually like that word) to judge or "curse" another person or people. I can only see that, according to the D & C, Mr. Smith has consigned the job of cursing to the missionaries. I read nowhere where in the Biblical texts that God gives up His responsibility of judging people.

I do not curse non-Christians. I do not wash my feet as a testimony against them.

These scriptures that I posted from the D&C are not in keeping with how Christ told us to treat others (Christian or non-Christian).

In the same way, the disciples were to shake off the dust of their feet to show that they were not responsible for whatever judgment that people received for rejecting Christ. In itself, it wasn't a curse but a symbol that absolved them from any responsibility for these people's decision to reject Christ and the result of doing so.

Christ did not tell His servants to curse anyone. The Doctrine and Covenants were said to come from Christ.

Well, inherent in the dusting off of one's feet in ancient times was the pronouncement of judgment. The definition of curse that I provided and that you quoted makes it VERY clear that the two are synonymous.

I am surprised to learn that LDS are encouraged to curse anyone.

But are you equally surprised that the Lord instructed his apostles to bear witness against people by shaking off the dust of their feet as they departed their homes or towns, which witness would result in their condemnation?

At any rate, the latter-day instruction was and is for called, set apart elders, not for the general membership. We are not encouraged to curse people. And even in regards to the "ordinance" of dusting off one's feet, we (the elders) are instructed to do so only as the spirit dictates.

As you said, "I read nowhere where in the Biblical texts that God gives up His responsibility of judging people." I tell you that despite anyone's perception that missionaries have the "job" of cursing people, that is simply not the case. God curses people, not missionaries.​

I find that the Luke 10 passage indicates more than just a, sort of, passive, symbolic gesture of dusting off one's feet as he leaves a place.

Jesus, speaking to the seventy, instructs them:

Luke 10: 10-12
10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

(emphasis mine)

The chapter also touches on related things that have been mentioned in discussing this.

 

[Rescued One]

...I find that the Luke 10 passage indicates more than just a, sort of, passive, symbolic gesture of dusting off one's feet as he leaves a place.

Jesus, speaking to the seventy, instructs them:

Luke 10: 10-12
10 But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,
11 Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
12 But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.

(emphasis mine)

The chapter also touches on related things that have been mentioned in discussing this.

So if an entire city rejects the gospel of Christ, they are to be left with a harsh warning, right?

Luke 10:10-11 (King James Version)

10But into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say,

11Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.

 

[Obiwan]

I know how you feel, Moodshadow. As I was coming to know the truth about the restored gospel, I was in agony. And when I was finally liberated, the joy and peace and truth God gave to me was awesomely lightening. There was a lot to repent from, and still, there are times when I wish with all my heart that I could go back, because my whole life revolved around the church. All of it. I can't get a college bulletin without bursting into tears. Most of my friends on facebook are church members. It's a life-altering event.

The mistake you've made was assuming your new found "understanding" of mormonism (the contra-mormonism version) is actually the end all truth of the matter. It's not sorry to tell you, especially since you're from the RLDS/COC, they have a lot of things wrong.

What you should have done is been patient and seek out how LDS scholarship actually answers the claims of the contra's. If you had done that, you wouldn't have had a crisis of faith. Of course, you likely still would have because the RLDS/COC is just another man-made religion, thus you might have had a better chance if you were LDS.

But anyway, we all choose our own paths and choices......

 

[A New Dawn]

The mistake you've made was assuming your new found "understanding" of mormonism (the contra-mormonism version) is actually the end all truth of the matter. It's not sorry to tell you, especially since you're from the RLDS/COC, they have a lot of things wrong.

What you should have done is been patient and seek out how LDS scholarship actually answers the claims of the contra's. If you had done that, you wouldn't have had a crisis of faith. Of course, you likely still would have because the RLDS/COC is just another man-made religion, thus you might have had a better chance if you were LDS.

But anyway, we all choose our own paths and choices......

God didn't just say "The RLDS church is wrong", God said "The restoration is wrong". So there you have it. Sorry.

 

[Obiwan]

God didn't just say "The RLDS church is wrong", God said "The restoration is wrong". So there you have it. Sorry.

I know.... But, you shouldn't assume so easily that your "intellectual" persuits and the resulting thought change was actually "God" speaking. You should have spent just as much effort to find out if what contra-mormonism was saying was actually true by studying LDS scholarship. Since I know you didn't, you can't "assume" that your "current" beliefs are actually from God. After all, as someone who's been a non-believer, a basic Christian believer, a basic believing mormon and someone who has left the Church and religion all together, being even contra-mormon and anti-religion, but now forever faithful, I can tell you for sure that your current perceptions of mormonism ARE NOT "the truth", nor was inspired by God. God may be keeping you a Christian still, but that doesn't mean he sustains all of your intellectual beliefs therefrom.

But, that's my view and experience..... You will I'm sure still believe differently.

 

[Rescued One]

God didn't just say "The RLDS church is wrong", God said "The restoration is wrong". So there you have it. Sorry.

Yes, God told me that also.

 

[Moodshadow]

So what? This is a burden to me? If I say I love God then ought I not to be happy to keep his commandments? If I get sloppy because of the stresses of the world and the weaknesses of my flesh (which God himself gave me, and He knows this), I can repent and know that I'll be forgiven. Where, then, is the burden? Is it only in that God has seen fit to excat some specifics from me? That he expects lifelong dedication and continuous labor in his vineyard? If that is all, where is the burden? If you found it burdensome, why?

LOL, I did not call the list insanity, I called your perception of living the Restored Gospel insanity. And I couldn't do it either. No wonder you left!

Again, I didn't call your list seriously warped. I called "your view of what it means to live the Restored Gospel" seriously warped. And I hold to that statement, as you have yet to show me that you understand what it means to truly live the Restored Gospel.

Well, there are a few others here. Let's ask them whether or not you have a clear understanding of the burden of Mormonsim.

I suppose, then, that I'm the one distorting the view? I have a warped view of what it means to live the Restored Gospel... is that right? That's the only other alternative I see here, in this two-person discussion. So maybe I'll backpedal and say that from my perspective your view is warped, and you'll say that from your perspective mine is warped. And neither of us, then, has any clue what it really means to live the Restored Gospel. We'll let the Gospel speak for itself. Is that fair? If so, let's let the Gospel speak:

"Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. Verily, verily I say unto you, this is my gospel; and ye know the things that ye must do in my church; for the works which ye have seen me do that shall ye also do; for that which ye have seen me do even that shall ye do;" (3 Ne. 27:19-20)
​

That's my Gospel and I'm sticking to it. Pretty simple, I'd say.

Wow. From other posters here I would have expected this kind of response - or at least not been at all surprised by it - but from you this is both surprising and supremely disappointing. I held the apparently mistaken opinion that you were different somehow. But no, just like your Royal Priesthood colleagues here, you've completely taken my words and twisted the meaning into something altogether different from their intent, and I will not be convinced that you didn't know exactly what you were doing. Oh, well, at least I see now what we're really dealing with here, so I guess I can be thankful for that, huh? I was going to take each thing point by point, but on second thought, why would I volunteer for more of the same old Take-It-and-Torque-It game? I don't think so. Have a nice day.

 

[Obiwan]

Pot meet kettle.....

 

[A New Dawn]

I know.... But, you shouldn't assume so easily that your "intellectual" persuits and the resulting thought change was actually "God" speaking. You should have spent just as much effort to find out if what contra-mormonism was saying was actually true by studying LDS scholarship. Since I know you didn't, you can't "assume" that your "current" beliefs are actually from God. After all, as someone who's been a non-believer, a basic Christian believer, a basic believing mormon and someone who has left the Church and religion all together, being even contra-mormon and anti-religion, but now forever faithful, I can tell you for sure that your current perceptions of mormonism ARE NOT "the truth", nor was inspired by God. God may be keeping you a Christian still, but that doesn't mean he sustains all of your intellectual beliefs therefrom.

But, that's my view and experience..... You will I'm sure still believe differently.

You know what? Just like all prophecy points to Christ, so I believe that all testimonies (true testimonies) point to Christ. Had I had a testimony that pointed to a church, rather than Christ, I would have deeply questioned that experience. But since this testimony left me loving God more than I had before, I can't but doubt that it was a true testimony. One that points to, and glorifies, Christ.

 

[Obiwan]

It's one thing to have a testimony of Christ, quite another to actually know what his doctrines actually are contrasted to the doctrines of men. I know you want to think you're all about Christ, Christ is the most important thing etc., but that's not really true, because you spend all your time here attacking things you once more or less believed in. You also shouldn't confuse your current testimony of Christ as being the same thing as you being accurate in what His Truths IN FULL actually are.

To many leave the Church and then find Jesus and then think that it was the Church that prevented you from finding Jesus. Problem with that is that many find Jesus before becoming mormon and still know Jesus, they just know HIS Truths better, as well most find Jesus while being mormon. Thus, the thing is, did you ever consider that it's a flaw in your own thinking and progress from not being able to "find Christ" in the Church, hence why it was so "easy" for you to believe the perversions of mormonism and scripture over what the truth actually is??? Food for thought.

Knowing the "truth" in full is not the same as feeling the Holy Spirit. Everyone has access to the Spirit, but not everyone has the Truth.

Had I had a testimony that pointed to a church, rather than Christ, I would have deeply questioned that experience.

And you actually prove my point..... You had a different "intellectual" change in you at some point in which everything else rolled from that change, and such is separate from the Spirit of Christ. Further, you incorrectly assume that if Christ's Church is actually on the earth, that the Church is actually "separate" from Christ. It is not..... You are right concerning man-made religion, but you are wrong when it concerns Christ's Church. Finding His Church is finding Him...... Such is of both the intellect and the heart.

 

[Rescued One]

Wow. From other posters here I would have expected this kind of response - or at least not been at all surprised by it - but from you this is both surprising and supremely disappointing. I held the apparently mistaken opinion that you were different somehow. But no, just like your Royal Priesthood colleagues here, you've completely taken my words and twisted the meaning into something altogether different from their intent, and I will not be convinced that you didn't know exactly what you were doing. Oh, well, at least I see now what we're really dealing with here, so I guess I can be thankful for that, huh? I was going to take each thing point by point, but on second thought, why would I volunteer for more of the same old Take-It-and-Torque-It game? I don't think so. Have a nice day.

 

[SoftSpoken]

------------------------------------------
Before you read my comments below, please understand that I am only leaving them here for the sake of transparency, so that my true feelings on all levels can be seen. I have tried again to respond to your earlier post, which response is on the next page. I would prefer that you focus any response on the content of that post, as opposed to the one immediately following your words below. As always, however, you may do what you deem appropriate.
-----------------------------------------

Wow. From other posters here I would have expected this kind of response - or at least not been at all surprised by it - but from you this is both surprising and supremely disappointing. I held the apparently mistaken opinion that you were different somehow. But no, just like your Royal Priesthood colleagues here, you've completely taken my words and twisted the meaning into something altogether different from their intent, and I will not be convinced that you didn't know exactly what you were doing. Oh, well, at least I see now what we're really dealing with here, so I guess I can be thankful for that, huh? I was going to take each thing point by point, but on second thought, why would I volunteer for more of the same old Take-It-and-Torque-It game? I don't think so. Have a nice day.

I suppose, then, that you have never expressed the slightest bit of emotion in any of your posts. I also suppose that if you have, you were 100% justified in so doing, and whoever got their feathers ruffeld by your justified expression of human nature was wrong for even taking note of it. This is what I suppose, since my post is not worth your response.

So you can abandon it, or you could stick it out with me, and see if we can't endure the rough edges of one another's comportment, and come to where we understand one another. Regardless of how obvious it is to you—now that I'm fallen from your graces—that I am just a clone of the next LDS poster, my post was a sincere response to what I understand to be a sincere post—emotion or not. If you can stomach composing one to such a cretin as myself, I'd appreciate a response. Make it feisty and fiery if you like. You could start by showing me where I twisted your words, since as I review both your post and my response, I see no place where i Have engaged in take-it-and-torque-it dialogue. And if that has no interest for you, show me where I "planned" this fiendish distortion. After all, that's an accusation that's not previously been lobbed at me here. Nevertheless, I'll wear any shoe that you show I've fashioned for myself.

 

[SoftSpoken]

Hold on, here. NO, that's not what I was saying, so let's back up. Please remember that I was a faithful Latter-day Saint, just as you are now.

Yes, I remember.

I know, as you do, that the church does not require you to think about The Gospel every second of every waking hour. But if it is your intention to achieve exaltation, it does require of you every last one of the items

This is where our respective experiences in Mormonism seem to dramatically diverge. You see, I do not identify the Church as requiring anything of me, whereas it appears to me that you felt it did. I identify God as requiring of me love and fealty, both of which are expressed by obedience to his commandments, the first and most basic of which are faith in Christ, repentance, and submission to baptism after the manner of the death and resurrection of Christ. This He requires of me in order to even be a member of His church, which membership is bestowed, along with the promsed gift of the Holy Ghost, by the laying on of hands, once I wifully and sincerely keep those first commandments, acting no hypocricy before God in my action. Then—once a member—He extends to me greater blessings, which blessings I am under no obligation to desire or pursue, each of which come with greater responsibility to serve Him and others. These include the holding of the Priesthood and the blessings offered through ordinances in the temple. And inherent in my discipleship all the while, regardless of my interest in the greater blessings offered, is the expectation that I will show my love for God and man until the end of mortal life through faith in Christ, repentance, service and self-sacrifice, and obedience in spirit and in truth to all other commandments within the Gospel as contained in the scriptures, ancient and modern (this is where the majority of the items on your list will be found, such as tithes, etc.).

Now, that is no sugar-coating of the "requirements" of the Gospel. That is an accurate encapsulation of them. The scriptures are my witness, and I will be glad to produce the raw, revealed word to show it, should you request it of me. And it is my personal experience that any variation in the rising or falling of any part of those requirements, as pertaining to their importance or focus in any given member's life, comes on account of the agency of that member, and in relation to his comprehension of both the Gospel, his Savior's atonement, and his Father's love and attributes.

So in my life, I do not consider the Restored Gospel, and what God through it requires of me, a burdensome list of spiritual busiwork. I understand both the doctrines of the Gospel, and their intended effect upon my soul. I understand the atonement of Christ, and how it affords me all that I am and can become. And I understand my Father, and can see in the Restored Gospel his love for me and all mankind, and the perfection with which he deals with us all. And so I enjoy serving God and laboring for Him in the Gospel. All I can do at this point is hope that you will see why I do not believe the Restoration is a burden.

- ALL of the "insanity" (your word, not mine) - I mentioned in that checklist, and we both know that, and there can be no honest denial of it. You can call my list "seriously warped" if you want to, but it's nothing more than normal, everyday Mormon reality, and again, we both know it. Any rank-and-file member - present or former - would corroborate that. I never said your life could not be "fluid" within Mormonism, nor did I say or even imply that I hated mine at the time, and in fact I loved my very active LDS life and had zero problem with it and was grateful at the time for the whole of it. If the truth be told, I'm not the one distorting the view here, Sir.

I am not distorting any view. I have no desire, no motivation, nor any reason whatever to do so.

I have not called your list warped. The commandments in the Gospel (or as they are being called here—requirements) are listed clearly in scripture, and in the literature of the Church. Any person who so desires can read what God commands of members of the Restored Church and decide to bring those commandments upon himself by covenant, or not.

Thank you - but I'm beginning to worry a little now about your own.

..

I would like to know why you are worried about my view, or whatever it was to which you were referring here.


I apologize for my earlier comments. Not, mind you, because I showed emotion in my words, nor because the conviction behind them was misplaced, but for the contemptuous tone of my words.