A question about the Mormon remnant movement

[drtanner]

Also here's a thought;

"...He also tells me that if I don't believe he's a messenger of God, its because I don't love him, and I don't have Charity or eternal life abiding in my heart. And right now he's washed his hands of me, and won't answer any questions...."

This is classic child behavior. The child CONFRONTS the parent, not edifies them. The child then has the behavior of, if you really loved me you'd buy me that toy. Any parent can confirm this. And that's what he just did. Also the not answering messages or talking to him. That's classic child tantrum behavior too. So when my family members get offended that I represent the church and have told my parents they can't have anarchy in the house, they then all gang up and give me the silent treatment. This is the same thing he's doing, while withholding love to force you to be conquered under him.

Thank you, and that may be true, but I haven't seen anyone explain what 1 Corinthians 13:7 means.

It does say that Charity believes all things.

Does that mean that I should believe the denial that Denver Snuffer wrote on his blog today, unless I receive some personal revelation to the contrary?

And if that's not what it means, what does it mean?

6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;

7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.

How can Charity believe ALL things but ONLY rejoice in the truth? Maybe that will help answer your question.

[AI2.0]

My understanding is that at this time, in this day-- men who exercise priesthood can give blessings and healing blessings without permission of those priesthood brethren over them, but all ordinances need permission, including Baptism.

A rebaptism can be performed if permission is given. However, at this time, If men choose to do it without permission, they are wrongfully attempting to exercise priesthood, IMO and my understanding is that it could mean excommunication for the one performing the baptism and the one being baptized. If you believe the church is headed by the Lord's prophet, then you accept his authority and do not violate what he's forbidden at this time--just like you wouldn't enter a plural marriage today, even though it was allowed in the past. While you may not agree or understand--it's simple--it comes down to obedience to the laws and precepts as given to YOU, in YOUR DAY, not to the saints in Brigham Young's day or the Saint's in Peter's day or Alma's day or any one else's time.

And this is where the rubber meets the road. It is apparent here that many on this forum do not believe that the LDS church is in fact directed by the Savior thru His Prophet and First Presidency. Its just as simple as that. They are willing to go contrary to the revealed word of the Lords Prophet/President of the High Priesthood today because they dont really believe he is just that. This verse in section 42 is critical to this point:
11 Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church.

This isnt rocket science here. Some guy on the internet cant go around rebaptizing or reconfirming or performing temple ordinances at their home made alters or whatever other ordinance you want to discuss here unless he has the necessary Priesthood keys and authority given him by the heads of the church to do so. This is for the protection of the Saints to guard against wolves entering the flock etc.

4 Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good; and all this to be answered upon the heads of the rebellious, saith the Lord.

The Lord commands His Saints and revokes those commands thru His spokesman the Prophet who has been given that authority and exercises those Priesthood keys that have been given him. Why are people trying to redefine or change how the Lord works and has done so since the restoration? Sounds like a bad idea to me.. :-ss

I agree, it's not rocket science and you've explained it clearly, but it doesn't seem to help. How many times has it happened that members have decided they no longer have faith in the LDS church and it's Prophet, doctrines and teachings and have broken away to start their own--more to their liking.

[lemuel]

Thank you, and that may be true, but I haven't seen anyone explain what 1 Corinthians 13:7 means.

It does say that Charity believes all things.

Does that mean that I should believe the denial that Denver Snuffer wrote on his blog today, unless I receive some personal revelation to the contrary?

And if that's not what it means, what does it mean?

I've wondered on the phrase "believe all things" too. Can I believe in A and not A simultaneously?

My best answer is, "if something isn't true, then it's not a thing".

So believe all things that are true.

[drtanner]

Thank you, and that may be true, but I haven't seen anyone explain what 1 Corinthians 13:7 means.

It does say that Charity believes all things.

Does that mean that I should believe the denial that Denver Snuffer wrote on his blog today, unless I receive some personal revelation to the contrary?

And if that's not what it means, what does it mean?

I've wondered on the phrase "believe all things" too. Can I believe in A and not A simultaneously?

My best answer is, "if something isn't true, then it's not a thing".

So believe all things that are true.

Very good insight and to add,

D&C 93: 24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;

25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.

[inquirringmind]

Thank you, and that may be true, but I haven't seen anyone explain what 1 Corinthians 13:7 means.

It does say that Charity believes all things.

Does that mean that I should believe the denial that Denver Snuffer wrote on his blog today, unless I receive some personal revelation to the contrary?

And if that's not what it means, what does it mean?

I've wondered on the phrase "believe all things" too. Can I believe in A and not A simultaneously?

My best answer is, "if something isn't true, then it's not a thing".

So believe all things that are true.

Thank you.
I'm especially grateful for your reply here.