The Folk Prophet

I accept this thinking as potentially correct. But I don't believe it to be so. It will be interesting to find out in the next life, eh?

My conclusion comes from the idea of not relying upon the arm of flesh or the those who think they are wise (or, "scholars", in other words). :) Even if scholars found "proof" of the source of Masonry, showing it to be tied into something entirely separate from the temple, I wouldn't trust that. I don't really think it much matters, so it's just an opinion. The temple ceremony is as it is meant to be, regardless of the means whereby it came to be. However, as I have increased experience and knowledge in and of the temple (I am currently an ordinance worker), I am learning more and more that there is greater meaning and depth behind what is in the temple than what I ever imagined before...and I'm only brushing the surface of these meaning I'm sure. Ultimately, as there is no proof one way or the other, I choose to believe that God gave the temple ceremony to Joseph as it was meant to be, not in accordance with Joseph's preferences or learning, but in accordance with absolute, pure, and eternal truths. I do not think we'll get to the other side and find that the things given therein were merely symbolism. I know that symbolism is an important part of of it all. But that is not ALL there is to it, imo. There are, I believe, concrete things behind what is given and taught in the temple as well. And the details matter very much. I cannot see simply replacing these symbols - as if they were different in ye olden days than today. That would be akin to replacing the symbol of baptism with something else representative of being re-born. Sure, you could find something else that carried the symbolism. But I'm pretty sure Adam and Eve and their posterity were all baptized in water by immersion the same as we are. I do not believe God just used what Joseph knew to fill out the ceremony. I believe very firmly that what was given and taught to Adam and Eve via the ordinances of God is the same thing that is given and taught to us.

Not to mention that it is easily scripturally supportable that God has withheld ordinances due to race.

But can you provide sources for this? I'd say, btw, that exercising faith and being tested are equivalent.

To be fair...and perhaps this is a shameful confession...but were I put on the spot to recall what the duties of a teacher was, I'm not sure I'd come up with more than "prepare the sacrament" without looking it up myself.

Hi anatess. I agree with you. However, was wondering if you could back up the idea that we exercised faith and were tested in the pre-mortal existence. I seem to recall learning or reading or hearing something along those lines at some point in my life, but whether it was a quote from an official teaching or just a folk doctrine...that I cannot recall.

For what it's worth, I adamantly and firmly disagree with this. :)

It does not matter whether you agree. D&C 137:10 - And I also beheld that all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven.

The doctrine is clear and it is fleshed out. They will go to the celestial kingdom. It means exaltation.

Long winded? Sure. Unkind? I don't think so.

I agree that everyone should make such effort. It is the why they should make the effort that I'm concerned with.

In this case, I think, discussing you is one and the same as discussing the thread, in that you started the thread, and the thread is a "vent" (or complaint, if you prefer) about LDS culture. So discussing your attitude ties right into it all. I mean, the very nature of the original question comes down to perception. You perceive the culture a certain way. It comes down to a determination if it is a valid perception or not.

So...ugly people are doomed to a sucky life huh?

To be hot, a desire to be hot, a desire to be seen as hot, etc., is rooted in vanity. Modesty is rooted in humility. They are, at their core meaning, opposites.

At first I thought this was going to be an anti-modesty rant...and I was all riled up to respond. But I actually totally agreed with it. Very interesting.

SS is right in this case though. Children cannot sin. Pointing out that children lie is not valid. It's like pointing out that babies poop in their diapers. Children do "wrong" things all the time. That is not debatable. Everyone knows that. The point is that when children do wrong things it is NOT sin. For sin to be sin, accountability is required. No accountability -- no sin.

First, "constantly", as I'm using it, does not mean what you're inferring from it. Constantly swearing, for example, does not mean every word is a swear word, nor does it mean every sentence one says includes one. When someone constantly swears, however, it's fairly obvious even if statistically only one out of every 5 sentences actually has a curse word. Second, Autistic is irrelevant to whether it's constant. That may be the why of it. It may play into understanding why. It does not change the fact of what occurs. Third, complaint is a subset of statement, not an antonym. Pointing out that he's making statements doesn't have any bearing on whether those statements are complaints or not. In point of fact, the primary definition of "complaint" is "a statement that is....(etc)." Fourth, Pam didn't say he was complaining. She said was that he was constantly venting what doesn't work for him in the LDS world. And that, he does do. You debated the point. I disagreed. The "complaining" issue he, himself, said he constantly does. My response to him was advice related to his admission that he does so, not related to my view of what he does in this forum.

What are the other two?

You've turned a blind eye to it. He does, actually. Constantly.

The issue of whether it is valid to promote marrying outside the faith or not is not whether the marriage can be a happy one or not. Our temporal satisfaction in life is not really the point. The point is two-fold from an LDS perspective. 1. If an LDS person can be happy married to someone who is not involved in their faith then it is indicative of a problem. The LDS faith is not a casual thing that a faithful member should be so cavalier about. And eternal marriage is not something that a faithful LDS person should be cavalier about. Of course people can be happy in their marriages outside of temple marriage. But if an LDS person chooses to skip an eternal marriage in favor of other issue it is indicative of a problem. 2. As I said, temporal happiness in the marriage is not the issue. Eternal salvation is. With that as the prime criteria for who we choose to marry, we should be choosing eternal, temple marriages. Everything is secondary to this. What does love matter if you miss out on eternity? What good is getting along if exaltation is spent? How can we possibly recommend that anyone consciously make a choice that could damage these things and, possibly set a pattern that will be inherited for generations to come, potentially driving our posterity away from eternal life?

Surely you must understand that "extreme" is a relative status. When the church says "extreme groups" they mean as compared to the church and it's teachings, not as compared to society as a whole. Clearly, the church itself is an extreme group if you compare it to regular folk.

My name comes from my college band. Last Christmas my wife and I decided to record a folk album for family and friends. I grew a 'stache for the cover photo and we called the album "The Folk Prophet" In tribute to my college band. Here's the CD Disc face:

See, that's the thing. It's not about what you need. Or, rather, it should not be about what you need. You sitting next to others should have nothing to do with whether you need to be near others. It should be about you trying to fill other's needs, serve and love them, and an effort to help them feel loved so that you can be an instrument in building the kingdom and bringing others closer to Christ. Just wanting to be by oneself is understandable, surely. And there is a time and a place. Church is not that time and place. Honestly, going to church with that attitude will harvest much less to your soul that what it could. I'm not suggesting you run faster than you are able. Only that you (and all of us) continually choose to work towards a mindset of this nature. That is, perhaps, the primary way we will come to know Christ. There is a reason the 2nd greatest commandment is to love our neighbors as ourselves. It is a great part of the means whereby we learn to fulfill the 1st commandment, and the means whereby we learn to know the Savior, for only doing as He would do can we begin to understand Him.

Complaining is quite off-putting. Perhaps you should work on that. I suspect you'll say it's just who you are and you can't help or control it. Baloney. We are who we practice to be as much as anything. Rather, we will become who we practice being. You may not be able to control yourself in speech as easily, as speech with careful thought tempering it is difficult. But in writing it is fairly easy. Re-read, re-think, and edit before posting. It's not that difficult to practice character when writing. It takes a moderate amount of attention, effort, and patience -- but those are worth practicing too.

I'll grant, the doll collecting thing is a bit out there. The D&D and fantasy on the other hand is pretty average.