Where are our men today?

[Mahonri]

If you were my neighbor I would have turned you into the crazy patrol long ago. Please move next to me bro.

Will do Shadow... I mean Mark. What's your address?

[Mark]

If you were my neighbor I would have turned you into the crazy patrol long ago. Please move next to me bro.

Will do Shadow... I mean Mark. What's your address?

Thats the first sane thing you've said in a long time. Shadow is my twin Brother. We both married twin sisters as well. Col. Flagg is our alter ego. Come to Logan and we will find you.

[Mahonri]

+1

[Mark]

From President Hinckley’s interview with Time:

Q: Just another related question that comes up is the statements in the King Follet discourse by the Prophet.

A: Yeah

Q: ... about that, God the Father was once a man as we were. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing. Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?

A: I don’t know that we teach it. I don’t know that we emphasize it. I haven’t heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don’t know. I don’t know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it. But I don’t know a lot about it and I don’t know that others know a lot about it.

time magazine, august 4, 1997

vrs:

God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, — I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form — like yourselves in all the person, image and very form as a man . . .

... I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

... he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

Here, then, is eternal life — to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done before you" (History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 304-306, see also, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith, pp. 345-347).

and:

“I had a direct revelation of this. It was most perfect and complete. If there
ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no
doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: “As
man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be.” (Teachings of
Lorenzo Snow, p.5)

What is your purpose of trying to discredit Pres. Hinckley and paint him as out of touch with the doctrines of the Lord? Pres. Hinckley also told the Saints to obey the laws of the land that you live and work within the system of govt you reside in to change bad laws but until those changes are made be a law abiding citizen regardless of whether you agree with those laws or not. Why bother going to an anti-LDS site. You can get all the fault finding and defamation of the Lords annointed you would want by just reading the LDS Freedom Forum. Come on guys stop the fault finding of the living prophets. It is beneath any faithful LDS.

[Mahonri]

How is it fault finding?

[Amore Vero]

Just curious, Dr. Jones and his story is known to members of this forum, including you I assume, if you've read many of the posts on his involvement w/9/11 investigations. Do you think Dr. Jones does not belong in this group of courageous and valiant men? Your reply seems tinged with a bit of sarcasm. Or did I misread you?

I was not being sarcastic at all, I am hoping to hear of men like Moroni out there, I know it's possible but it just seems rare. There are two requirements to being a Moroni, 1- you must be able to see just how awful our situation is & be able to discern who is on what side of the fight & 2 - once you realize how bad it is you must be willing to do what is needed to stand & fight for right.

I know men who are willing to somewhat help fight for right when they are asked, but if they can't see for themselves just how bad it is or discern who the real enemies are, they are still easily deceived & usually aren't willing to get that involved yet, & that's the problem, they are concerned to a point but do not yet have the righteous indignation that Moroni had that moved them to real action based on personal knowledge.

I do believe Dr. Jones has shown great courage & valiancy in standing up for truth. Thus I believe he probably would be willing to do whatever is needed to fight for right. I just have never spoken with him personally about if he sees just how bad things are, but he has shown great courage to be sure.

[Mark]

How is it fault finding?

Don't be coy with me Bro. The post is trying to paint Pres. Hinckley in a negative light by contrasting his words and feelings with those of Pres. Smith and Pres. Snow. It is attempting to pit one prophet against another. You know it and I know it. This would be classic fodder for fault finding anti's. There is no good reason or purpose in doing so.

[Mahonri]

How is it fault finding?

Don't be coy with me Bro. The post is trying to paint Pres. Hinckley in a negative light by contrasting his words and feelings with those of Pres. Smith and Pres. Snow. It is attempting to pit one prophet against another. You know it and I know it. This would be classic fodder for fault finding anti's. There is no good reason or purpose in doing so.

Looks like you are reading stuff into it. He made no commentary at all, so the interpretation was up to the reader. I think your comments say more about you than the quotes

[Mark]

How is it fault finding?

Don't be coy with me Bro. The post is trying to paint Pres. Hinckley in a negative light by contrasting his words and feelings with those of Pres. Smith and Pres. Snow. It is attempting to pit one prophet against another. You know it and I know it. This would be classic fodder for fault finding anti's. There is no good reason or purpose in doing so.

Looks like you are reading stuff into it. He made no commentary at all, so the interpretation was up to the reader. I think your comments say more about you than the quotes

Okay Mahonri I will play your game here since you seem to think I am out of line in my assumptions. What is your interpretation of the differences between the writings of Pres. Smith and Pres. Snow and that of the Pres. Hinckley interview concerning the nature of God?

[LukeAir2008]

Maybe Mark can speak to his Boss at Homeland Security and see if he can make it illegal to quote the founding Prophets of the Church.

Does it offend agent Mark to see quotes from the Prophet Joseph Smith and the Prophet Lorenzo Snow?

[Mahonri]

nah, him and Shadow are just here to distract from actual conversation. I don't think I have ever seen them actually contribute to a conversation, just name calling, making fun of, and accusatory.

[LukeAir2008]

Oh, by the way Mark, Pres. Hinckley is a dead Prophet not a living one.

In fairness to Pres. Hinckley who was very familiar with the teachings of his predecessors, he was speaking to an enemy outside the church who would have used that information to ridicule and discredit the church.

It's just a shame that the enemies inside the church now think he was speaking for them.

[LukeAir2008]

nah, him and Shadow are just here to distract from actual conversation. I don't think I have ever seen them actually contribute to a conversation, just name calling, making fun of, and accusatory.

+1

[shadow]

I find it funny that in other threads if a Prophet says something that they don't like, then it cannot contradict scripture, but if what the Church leader says something they do like than it "trumps" what a past Prophet/scripture says. (The first key is to correctly interpret what the scriptures actually say and mean. I realize you lack such means so I won't be too hard on you )

http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml

Just a few of Ezra T. Benson's fundamentals for those who won't read the link-

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
Fourth: The prophet will never lead the church astray.

Sixth: The prophet doesn't have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture. (Too bad ithink left us. This little nugget might help him a bit)

Eighth: The prophet is not limited to men's reasoning (or lack thereof!).

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency- the highest quorum in the church.
(The last one is off-topic for this thread, but fits in with another disagreement Mahonri and I have)

[Mark]

I find it funny that in other threads if a Prophet says something that they don't like, then it cannot contradict scripture, but if what the Church leader says something they do like than it "trumps" what a past Prophet/scripture says. (The first key is to correctly interpret what the scriptures actually say and mean. I realize you lack such means so I won't be too hard on you )

http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml

Just a few of Ezra T. Benson's fundamentals for those who won't read the link-

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
Fourth: The prophet will never lead the church astray.

Sixth: The prophet doesn't have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture. (Too bad ithink left us. This little nugget might help him a bit)

Eighth: The prophet is not limited to men's reasoning (or lack thereof!).




Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency- the highest quorum in the church.
(The last one is off-topic for this thread, but fits in with another disagreement Mahonri and I have)

The gig is up Wodahs. (play that Beatles record backwards ) Mahonri has us figured out. What he doesn't fully understand is that you are really just a clone of me. Remember Dolly the sheep?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdPXF448mjs

[Epistemology]

I saw this article today titled, The End of Men

It's interesting and has some points to ponder

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/why- ... ?GT1=43002

[Geeswell]

not that my opinion would matter, but I agree with Mark and Shadow here. it's not good form to discuss prophets in a light that could be construed as "ill speaking". We can be better than this. This topic has quickly become a series of arguments and name calling. Putting down quotes like they were without an explanation is like throwing a dry bone to a bunch of starving dogs. everyone is going to go at it, and really it's just meaningless and empty. The meaning was simply to see them riled up.

of course the conclusion that Mark found was exactly what I thought as well.

Perhaps this is why the modern day prophets counsel us to stick to plain and simple truths? As human beings we think we understand so much. Logic and all that. Frankly, this discussion has seemed border line apostate at times.

as far as the discussion about breaking the law vs abiding them

If the Prophet says to do it, then we do it. who here thinks they see more than the Prophet RIGHT NOW? and who here has the gall to step in front of him? to say he is wrong? to suggest he needs to do things differently.

if a person who desires to throw down tyranny thinks we have more of a duty to fight against it than listen to our prophet, then he is saying in affect, that he knows better.

If the spirit tells that man to act in a manner, that is his charge alone. for him to cause contention and rile people up contrary to our prophet is a sad case for apostasy. you can already see the seeds.

Im not talking about Dr Jones, nor am I talking about speaking out against corrupt government. It is the comparing the Prophet's words against things that individual thinks should happen that are of concern.

What if the Prophet told you to lay your weapons down at your sides and lay down your life without a fight? or something less "glorious"? how about just abiding by the law, until or IF ( IF IF IF) he gets revelations otherwise? perhaps our lot is to struggle through a corrupt government until the end of our time. Then that is what we do, and we do it faithfully, like SHEEP. heaven forbid.

[Fiannan]

I saw this article today titled, The End of Men

It's interesting and has some points to ponder

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/20/why- ... ?GT1=43002

Interesting article. I would have to say that most of our church leaders today were in their biological prime during the "white collar age of conformity" and perhaps when that generation moves on we will get a change in the style of leadership we have in the church.

As for political leaders there are a variety: I would argue that Putin is really popular at home and with many US conservatives because he blends the era of masculinity with the more modern beta male. Silvio Berlesconi is popular in Italy (and with anotehr subset of US conservatives) because he is a blend of beta and "playboy."

As for Obama they need a different category for him, as well as for Harry Reid -- "the castrated male." Come on, what do those two jokers have that a eunoch doesn't?

[Nan]

President Hinckley is correct. We don't teach it in church. I have never heard it in general conference in my life. We don't talk about it much. And quite frankly, we know nothing about Heavenly Father's experiences or what his life was, is or is going to be like. We know a concept. That is it. It is an amazing concept, and it is true. But we really know nothing else about it.

[Mark]

not that my opinion would matter, but I agree with Mark and Shadow here. it's not good form to discuss prophets in a light that could be construed as "ill speaking". We can be better than this. This topic has quickly become a series of arguments and name calling. Putting down quotes like they were without an explanation is like throwing a dry bone to a bunch of starving dogs. everyone is going to go at it, and really it's just meaningless and empty. The meaning was simply to see them riled up.

of course the conclusion that Mark found was exactly what I thought as well.

Perhaps this is why the modern day prophets counsel us to stick to plain and simple truths? As human beings we think we understand so much. Logic and all that. Frankly, this discussion has seemed border line apostate at times.

as far as the discussion about breaking the law vs abiding them

If the Prophet says to do it, then we do it. who here thinks they see more than the Prophet RIGHT NOW? and who here has the gall to step in front of him? to say he is wrong? to suggest he needs to do things differently.

if a person who desires to throw down tyranny thinks we have more of a duty to fight against it than listen to our prophet, then he is saying in affect, that he knows better.

If the spirit tells that man to act in a manner, that is his charge alone. for him to cause contention and rile people up contrary to our prophet is a sad case for apostasy. you can already see the seeds.

Im not talking about Dr Jones, nor am I talking about speaking out against corrupt government. It is the comparing the Prophet's words against things that individual thinks should happen that are of concern.

What if the Prophet told you to lay your weapons down at your sides and lay down your life without a fight? or something less "glorious"? how about just abiding by the law, until or IF ( IF IF IF) he gets revelations otherwise? perhaps our lot is to struggle through a corrupt government until the end of our time. Then that is what we do, and we do it faithfully, like SHEEP. heaven forbid.

Your opinion not only matters Geeswell but it is spot on. Thanks for sharing it.

[ChelC]

not that my opinion would matter, but I agree with Mark and Shadow here. it's not good form to discuss prophets in a light that could be construed as "ill speaking". We can be better than this. This topic has quickly become a series of arguments and name calling. Putting down quotes like they were without an explanation is like throwing a dry bone to a bunch of starving dogs. everyone is going to go at it, and really it's just meaningless and empty. The meaning was simply to see them riled up.

of course the conclusion that Mark found was exactly what I thought as well.

Perhaps this is why the modern day prophets counsel us to stick to plain and simple truths? As human beings we think we understand so much. Logic and all that. Frankly, this discussion has seemed border line apostate at times.

as far as the discussion about breaking the law vs abiding them

If the Prophet says to do it, then we do it. who here thinks they see more than the Prophet RIGHT NOW? and who here has the gall to step in front of him? to say he is wrong? to suggest he needs to do things differently.

if a person who desires to throw down tyranny thinks we have more of a duty to fight against it than listen to our prophet, then he is saying in affect, that he knows better.

If the spirit tells that man to act in a manner, that is his charge alone. for him to cause contention and rile people up contrary to our prophet is a sad case for apostasy. you can already see the seeds.

Im not talking about Dr Jones, nor am I talking about speaking out against corrupt government. It is the comparing the Prophet's words against things that individual thinks should happen that are of concern.

What if the Prophet told you to lay your weapons down at your sides and lay down your life without a fight? or something less "glorious"? how about just abiding by the law, until or IF ( IF IF IF) he gets revelations otherwise? perhaps our lot is to struggle through a corrupt government until the end of our time. Then that is what we do, and we do it faithfully, like SHEEP. heaven forbid.

I absolutely agree. Thanks for putting it so well.

[FreedomWorks]

APOSTLES PENROSE & RICHARDS LETTER TO JOHN TAYLOR 2/16/1887
We then say, we consider the law of God superior to the law of the State, and if we
have to break the law of the State to keep the law of God, we will stand by the
consequences.

First Presidency 7/7/1886
God is superior to governments and courts. But he tells his Church to befriend
the constitutional law of the land. If it is not constitutional, He says it comes of evil.
It must support the principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges; if not,
it comes of evil. Who is the Lord directing? His Church. Whatever is contrary to
the freedom guaranteed by the Constitution, which includes not mere belief but the
“free exercise” of religion, He does not command His people to obey, but says they
shall do His will.

For the record, the "First Presidency" quote above was probably written by Charles W. Penrose, editor of the Deseret News. Sadly, this quote is often mis-attributed, causing trusting Saints to believe it is official Church doctrine.

Here's four reasons why I'm pretty sure it isn't from a First Presidency letter:
1. In the Deseret News article where the quote originated (seen here: https://newspapers.lib.utah.edu/details?id=2666572 ), no author is listed and the Brethren didn't affix their names, which they do in official First Presidency letters.
2. The article is written from the point of view of an observer, not one of the Presidency; the language refers to the Church as "they", not "we".
3. The author calls Joseph Smith's son "degenerate" and accuses him of putting words in his father's mouth. Pretty sure the First Presidency isn't in the habit of calling names and accusing people.
4. The article itself says that it is written in response to an editorial in the Lamont Herald which had responded to an earlier article in the Deseret News. So the two papers were having an argument in their editorial sections about who got to decide whether anti-polygamy laws were constitutional or not.

Thanks.

PS. Penrose didn't become an apostle until 1904, so the attribution on the top quote is also misleading.

[sandman45]

I wonder...how would we describe the archetypical male in the Church today?

Is he an esoteric, spiritual deep-thinker like Joseph Smith was?

Is he a dynamic, loyal visionary like Brigham Young was?

Is he a rebellious defender of truth willing to advocate living the laws of the constitution even if it meant breaking the "law of the land" like John Taylor was?

Or is he kinda like a PeeWee Herman in a white shirt?

I really wonder what we are training our young men up to be. Are we training them to stand up and not worry about what the world says, or even what fellow members think, when they are doing what is right? Are we training them to look at the examples of their spiritual forefathers in regards to marriage and family and the eternal cycle of life? Are we teaching them that the future will require men who can spread the Gospel without apology?

Any thoughts?

I have only spotted about 2 or 3 real men in my ward.. the rest are women.

beard

tumblr_inline_nqdmbyUOnV1t5xeyh_500.jpg (31.41 KiB) Viewed 597 times

[sandman45]

I find it funny that in other threads if a Prophet says something that they don't like, then it cannot contradict scripture, but if what the Church leader says something they do like than it "trumps" what a past Prophet/scripture says. (The first key is to correctly interpret what the scriptures actually say and mean. I realize you lack such means so I won't be too hard on you )

http://www.lds-mormon.com/fourteen.shtml

Just a few of Ezra T. Benson's fundamentals for those who won't read the link-

Second: The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
Third: The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
Fourth: The prophet will never lead the church astray.

Sixth: The prophet doesn't have to say "Thus saith the Lord" to give us scripture. (Too bad ithink left us. This little nugget might help him a bit)

Eighth: The prophet is not limited to men's reasoning (or lack thereof!).

Thirteenth: The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency- the highest quorum in the church.
(The last one is off-topic for this thread, but fits in with another disagreement Mahonri and I have)

False Doctrine there..

here is true doctrine

Jeremiah 17: 5 ¶ Thus saith the Lord; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the Lord.

2 Nephi 4: 34 O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in man or maketh flesh his arm.

D&C 3: 7 For, behold, you should not have feared man more than God. Although men set at naught the counsels of God, and despise his words—

remember even Joseph made mistakes and so did the other brethren and they were chastised in the D&C.. trust not in man but trust in God

[brianj]

I have only spotted about 2 or 3 real men in my ward.. the rest are women.

tumblr_inline_nqdmbyUOnV1t5xeyh_500.jpg

Go to a ward or branch which serves a Marine Corps base and try asserting this. I dare you.