Thursday, December 6, 2007

Cleaning Up the Desk

I have made reference previously to the difficulties my brother, Craig, has faced in his struggle against cancer. The doctors have acknowledged that temporarily they need to alter his treatment regimen. They discontinued the chemo to allow some recovery for the side effects of that treatment. He will have home hospice care in the mean time. I urgently ask for the support of our readers through prayer. I truly believe that God’s intervention is his only hope. He has the bravado and the intestinal fortitude but he will definitely need Divine intervention to defeat this disease. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not misunderstand the inclusion of this blog reference. It will give you access to the speech which was given by Gov. Mitt Romney in response to requests for his views on faith and the role of religion in Government. Personally, I have other candidates which I back and hope to see in the oval office. That in no way prevents me from acknowledging the brilliance of his speech and his consequent awareness of the role of the Creator in our government. It would be my prayer that every candidate should share his views.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I printed that entire blog post from the center place board because I tend to give greater importance to words on hard copies than the fleeting images on the computer screen. As I pored over those eighty pages, several messages stood out.

Its overall theme was rigidity. Almost without exception, every poster had an unbending opinion of the truth of his cause. Oh, there was an excess of flowery language which hoped to cloak that rigidity, but, it was there nonetheless. I confess that I am probably guilty as well. While I don’t waste time mixing it up on that particular board, I have some very fixed concepts of my faith and the will of God. Regular readers of this blog are likely nodding their heads right now. My desire is that, in remembrance, I would be described as having a “steadfast faith.” Yes, I am stubborn in my understanding of Jesus Christ and if you choose to sway me on any particular, you’d best come armed with valid scripture and a demonstrable interest in my salvation. Your political interpretations will not be considered valid. In the ensuing conversation, be advised that at the first mention of either diversity or reconciliation my ability to hear ceases.

Toward the end of the postings there seemed to be an onslaught of offerings describing the various associations with social groups to enhance the quality of life for the disadvantaged. They ran the gamut from battered women, addicts, and the homeless, to drunks, wife beaters and the rest of the detritus of society. I make no argument that these people don’t need help but I find it unseemly that anyone would proffer this assistance as evidence of caring and love for humanity. It is a normal part of our obedience to Him. To “do unto the least of these” should be a standard, not an isolated circumstance subject to praise. As an example, in our twenty four years of marriage my spouse has been active in service in all five of the communities in which we have lived. In Houma, LA, Colorado Springs, CO, and Milwaukee, WI, she wrestled drunks at the local detox. Once we moved to Las Vegas, she found Hospice work more to her liking. She continues to serve in assistance to the aged to this day here in the Ozarks. I have never heard her offer this information as a validation of either faith or belief. I am thrilled by the evidence that my brothers and sisters are willing to share their time and talents in the assistance of these folks. I am certain that it does not go unnoticed by God and He is the only witness required. I don’t remember who said it but it is still true; virtue is its own reward.

Last, but definitely not least, is the issue of banning posts and persons from the center place board. This seems to be a highly arbitrary procedure. The copy I worked from provided the deleted posts and persons. I came to one inescapable conclusion; the more orthodox your belief, the more likely you are to be banned. I find this abridgement of liberty reprehensible. I happen to know personally those good and faithful individuals who were banned. I know them to be honest and straightforward. The monitors of the board were unimpressed and banned them anyway. At the same time, I witnessed specious accusations and criticism fall like rain with no interference from the administrators of the board. I saw attacks on Richard Price and Arthur Hawley in clear text contrary to the alleged rules of behavior. This sounds more like a procedure in some tinhorn third world dictatorship than a Christian endeavor. At the conclusion, when the heat became too oppressive, they deleted the entirety of the board. Typical, if you destroy the evidence, then it didn’t happen. Now you know why I don’t post. They would never post the first one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it looks like the desk is about cleaned up. Don’t worry, I’m sure something else will fall on it and require our mutual attention. Meanwhile, please pray for Craig and others. They all need the help which only God can offer.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

I find it very revealing that a number of individuals who have posted (and still may post) on the CP board, AND have responded to some items on this blog, are suddenly extremely silent on this blog. Obviously they do not agree with the comments and responses regarding the CP board.

It has always marveled me that when we say we "love one another" that certain parties apparently believe that is only necessary if certain individuals feel exactly like they do.

Don't question the actions of the JCRB, don't question the actions of the CP board members. Spew forth flowery love messages to those that blindly follow, and seek to vilify anyone who disagrees, who questions, who seeks the truth. Apparently that last group are not worthy of being loved, believed or accepted as part of the CofC/JCRB combine that is determined to reconcile the apostate organization with the new kid on the block - the JCRB, approve the ordinations and baptisms of those who were in polygamous relationships in the last few years in Africa (and, yes, try to fix the situation well after the ordinances were performed), consider forming stakes and districts under the umbrella of the CofC, and ask their beloved Wallace B. Smith, who gave up (resigned?) his office of Prophet AND named a succeessor, to name a NEW prophet for the JCRB.

Yeah, right! The JCRB has said all along they were not a new church; that they would not form a new church; and yet, even before they form a new church they want Wallace B. Smith to appoint a new prophet. Huh? Just what is this new prophet to be prophet of? The JCRB says they have no authority to tell ANY Restoration Branch what to do - so why are they asking a "fallen" prophet to name a new prophet for their organization? Did I miss something here? Yes, I apparently did, and I still cannot figure out what it was.

Maybe next they'll ask the new prophet-designate to beseech God to bring them a revelation confirming their preemptive actions, after they have called new Seventy, High Priests and who knows what.

Everett Spencer

Book of Mormon Warrior said...

Yes, it does seem the CP has become the launching point for the "Reconciliation Commitee" and anyone in opposition is shown the door.
I need to figure out if the Branch out here supports the sending of respresentatives to Wally. I can't believe this is even considered an option, much less that it was approved to move forward by the JCRB. He's made clear he is in support of the apostasy, introducing some of the main heresies personally.
What times we live in, eh?

Anonymous said...

It has been made known to me by some Restoration individuals not yet supporting the JCRB that they would welcome a new prophet designated by Wallace B. Smith. They think that because the past appointment (plural?) was (were) not a revelation that it didn't count and Wallace is the only one that God will use to appoint a prophet.

I tend to disagree with this train of thought and reasoning. I do believe that the Vessey appointment was through revelation but then I am not familiar with the COC revelations in general since 156. I think that Wallace is probably done as prophet revelator and giver of wisdom for me and my house.

What do others conclude or reason on this subject?

Book of Mormon Warrior said...

Who are the options? Are there any Smith boys in the Restoration that would be willing to take up the mantle?

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that their are those that would be in proper line to be designated as prophet and revelator. The willingness of each of those individuals would, I hope, depend on the call the one individual receives from Our Heavenly Father.

Regardless of who is used for the calling forth of the prophet the calling must come from God himself at a time of His choosing. Perhaps there are those that are just tired of waiting around and want to form a church on man's time. After all some think it is embarrassing to proclaim to be a Christian and not have a formal church to expound about and attend in a physical manner. I do not count myself as one ashamed of Jesus Christ or His timing.

I will continue to meet in homes, beaches, woods, rentals and small individual congregations with thanksgiving until I am directed to do otherwise from Him that made me. Once I was able to shed the prideful nature that engulfed (1995) me as a result of not meeting in a church building I was able to recognize and enjoy the blessing He had always delivered to our family.

Questions: If Wallace Smith brings forth the calling of a new prophet, when can that prophet be ordained and take his place? Specifically can a new prophet take his place while Wallace Smith is still living? How many times can a prophet name a new prophet in his lifetime?

Adrienne