I have been surprised by the level of excitement which some of my posts have caused. My views are an extension of the faith I hold. It is not possible to take one issue and isolate it from the whole of what I know to be true. Therefore, if you want to understand the view, you need to take the time to read what I have written, which explains fully what I know, and why I know it.
To understand it will be necessary for you to study the faith as restored through Joseph Smith. I have explained what I believe and why I believe it in six books now. Rather than attempting to argue me into another position, it might be helpful to first understand what I have written.
However, I realize some people will not do that and therefore I attempt to respond piecemeal here to questions asked. But there are really two dialogues going on here. One is between those who have read what I have written and know why I am responding as I do. The other is between those who have no background from which to understand my answers and who make presumptions about them.
I appreciate the convictions of others, including those who disagree with me. I am thankful to the people who raise questions about what I have written. The level of excited rhetoric is something I do not find personally offensive, but I worry that those who use it will later regret doing so. I put up a quote from my father a little bit ago about never speaking a word in anger that he did not later regret. I would extend that to words spoken in haste, or in overwrought judgmentalism. Oftentimes at a later point a person regrets saying them. So I was extending to the authors of the comments a few days to reflect on whether they wanted them to be put up before them appearing here, as a courtesy to those who wrote them.
I am a trial lawyer. Everything I do for a living is opposed by someone who is paid to oppose my positions, my arguments, my reasoning. Therefore I do not get upset when someone holds a contrary view and expresses it. I live with that daily. My concern lies with those who express forcefully and judgmentally things which they may, upon second thought, realize reflects more about them than they would like.
In any event, I do want to note that there are at least two different dialogues going on here at any given time.
Thank you for your willingness and ability to articulate well valid concerns of so many saints. Thank you for your books–ALL of them! I learned of them through recommendations of others, and have passed on the same to many. The concern I feel most is when the words of the scriptures and latter-day prophets are referred to, but the meaning unheeded–when it is so clear!
An example is when Nephi “received directions” from Lehi in hunting with the new bow. But the indications are otherwise in the written account. Though there have been pictures in the Ensign of Lehi pointing the way, the liahona message seems to have provoked a much different response, and Nephi’s trip to the mountain top seems more significant than just a grocery trip. He was the one who brought the much needed sustenance. He beautifully understates many significant events. Though the liahona did give instruction, it is not certain that Lehi was the one who was holding it.
It is true that the words of the prophets are sometimes stated in their clarity and then explained into oblivion, nullifying the very truth that was to be imparted.
In a relief society meeting, the teacher read a selection that indicated the importance of teaching children truth by those who live it. The local ward had been rocked by finding out that the public school choir, in which most of the youth of that ward were enrolled, was to be taught by a man that claimed to be and actively promoted homosexuality. The teacher, seemly embarrassed by the clear statement, placated the mothers. “I think that means that we are supposed to be aware of what is going on.” Aware of the music selections, recordings of the class, attitudes of “tolerance” promoted? And then what? At what point do we actually follow clear statements? Then the inevitable–“that was a long time ago”. So why were they reading it out of currently provided material?
Your books helped me to patiently work better alongside others inclusively, stifling pride and separation, because of the loving spirit it fosters. While hesitant to clarify truth before, reference to the spirit of the revelation or teaching makes it easier to love and lift ourselves and others.
All of us want to support and encourage the teacher. But at some point, when we remember this is supposed to be the restored gospel, zeal for the spirit of truth tugs strongly for support as well. That can only be done effectively with love. I am sad when I see people suffer, or make decisions or embrace or promote attitudes and ideas that will separate us from the Lord and lead to suffering.
Thank you for all the hours you and others spent writing and editing. Thanks for caring to inspire and lift. Diane Henry
It’s a shame you have to explain yourself Denver.
Further, ours is a Gospel that requires one to check their egos at the door upon entrance, and from what I’ve read this hasn’t been done by some.
Chalk it all up for “opposition in all things” I suppose for those w egos.
;)
dbs
Agreed. I have not read everything you have written, but all I have read in the books and here, and I think I have read almost all your blog posts, are always in tune with truth. I get a huge AMEN and my second witness from me! I look forward to getting where you are, I know I’m walking in the right way and I’m excited for what is to come. I’m glad the Lord has moved you to share what you have. It is light and confirmation to what I have always believed is possible “for the least” and “last” saint “as soon as they are ready to bare it.”
Be well. John Morgan in E. TN.
The greatest inspiration a lay member of the Church receives from Denver is that w he being an Attorney and having the experiences he’s had, it now gives renewed vigor and hope for the LDS used car salesman..;)
Obviously I am new to this blog as all my comments are two or more months post the original but still found this fascinating. This particular blog seems it could be referencing the two earlier ones labeled “The battle is the Lord’s” and it’s follow up “violence and the violent”.
I find that I lean towards Denver’s stance, however, I cannot be certain of how I would respond if faced with the situation and had the Lord command me to kill someone. I know I would argue every other possibility with Him first and them if there were no other way it would be done with deep sorrow and pain to myself.
With this in mind I was interested in reading the point, counter-point positions and found them to be rather insightful. However, there were a couple where as I read them I strongly felt the spirit of contention and an almost prideful vengeance in the slaying of the enemy. I found this rather ironic in a blog post that was speaking of peace.
Apparently topics of peace bring up the most contention as demonstrated by the many comments on this. Interesting…..