The Folk Prophet

From a personal perspective as an individual trying, yes...bad usage of the word. From a broad principle point of view, I stand by it.

Well I was trying to be funny a bit...but also serious. I'll highlight the words that answer the question: And, yeah, I understand that my suggestion comes across as judgmental and holier-than-thou. It is judgmental, but not holier-than-thou. It's judgmental, but not of others. I don't know their experiences. It's judgmental of the truthfulness of God's word. I believe Him. He's made a promise. He'll keep it. Therefore, I trust the failure isn't on His part. Those claiming to have put the promise to the test either simply haven't or are denying/blind to the fulfilled promise. I can't make any argument beyond my trust in God's promises to back this up. But it seems like in these cases that it's a matter of trusting the anecdotal claims of man or trusting God. I know which I choose.

But....it's @Vort. Isn't he always right? Unless he's debating with me, of course.

I think you answered your own question here.

This is the only thing on your list that has any meaning as to staying in the church or not.

Amen.

Every repetition emphasizes, underscores, reiterates, affirms, highlights, and accentuates the point.

Why? And who's "we" in the "things we do" part of this? Because I wasn't involved in what you're claiming "we" did.

Re-reading some of this thread and this popped out to me because of some thoughts I was having (independently of the thread) the other night. First I'd have to say.... who's including in "our" in such a statement? I've often wondered about this when people make statements about "we" or "our" or the like. What percentage of the church has to believe, agree, or see something a certain way before it becomes "our". And when it comes to something like the way temples are built...does "our" point of view even come into it. Or if the prophet is being "tone deaf" do we all get counted in with such statements? And if, for example, you or me or @clbent04 or whoever has a differing view because they, individual aren't "tone deaf" does it matter? I mean if @clbent04's view is right but those in charge remain "tone deaf" and keep putting up the false idol Moroni atop the temples, don't the doors of opportunity remain shut despite the few, or even the many's revelatory sensitivity? In other words...what's the point of opinions even being expressed in this thread or the argument even being made? (Yes, I'm saying this thread is a waste of time... that being said..... it's sort of mostly what we do here....) Okay...all of that wasn't the thought I had independently. Here it is. A bit of a threadjack maybe, but as arguing whether the angel Moroni statues should or should not be on temples is so very pointless that, I dunno.... But here's the thought: Specifically it's in response to the idea of "slam the door shut". And, basically, I don't think that's possible. This is the question that came to mind. Can we damn our own children? And the answer is, explicitly, plainly, clearly, and absolutely, no.* We cannot damn others. It cannot be done. Maybe the idea won't lead anywhere and no discussion will open up from it. And maybe it should have been a new thread. But it is, in my opinion, a thought actually worthy of exploration. And it can, and does, in some ways tie into the topic at hand. *Edit: I don't know why I write this way sometimes. Why did I feel the need to use 3 adjectives that mean the same thing in a row?

I’m not sure about that. The church cares deeply about it’s reputation, and they should. That’s why they have a PR staff and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I think you're saying the same thing. They church isn't looking for Satan to look positively upon them. But the church does care deeply about its reputation...but that's because the church's goal is to bring people unto Christ.

I believe that was tried. It led to the great apostasy.

It is my opinion that the depiction of the angel Moroni was an inspired and wonderful logo for the church. I believe those who think changing to the Christus as the logo means that something wrong was corrected are mistaken. The change to use Christ as the logo had a purpose, but that doesn't mean the angel Moroni as a logo was a mistake, uninspired, wrong, or otherwise flawed. I love the angel Moroni depictions.

From some of his comments and ideas.... I'm not so certain.

I watched the first...I dunno...5 episodes maybe. I really didn't care for it.

Except all the stuff that sucked. I hear the 3rd Season is dropping the ball. I haven't seen it yet.

Star Wars has totally sucked lately. I'd be excited...but Disney has proved time and again that they'll ruin it. Again...and again...and again. They are totally incompetent.

Sure. I think @askandanswer probably means the same thing I do. I think it just matters what one is meaning by "taking precedence" and/or "more relevant". My concern is the idea of taking scripture and casting it aside as if it isn't useful or relevant because of our understanding of what the prophet has said, rather than spending more time and effort pondering and seeking guidance to reconcile the scripture in question. Know what I mean?

Yeah, I still think it's a problem to pit living prophets and apostles against scripture.

What are you getting at? The Book of Mormon was explicitly written for our day. Having a living prophet is also clearly for our day. Why would we pit them one against another? I think a better approach would be to use the one to understand the other, and vice versa. Edit: sorry if I'm sounding grumpy or confrontational. I'm sore from beginning a new work out plan and I think I'm a bit out of sorts.

Right. You do realize you're talking about dirt?

What...are you worried about the ground's feelings?

The day I believe the Book of Mormon is not relevant for today is the day I've apostatized from the gospel.

I was specifically thinking of things like Captain Moroni's letter to Ammoron where he states: "Behold, I am in my anger, and also my people; ye have sought to murder us, and we have only sought to defend ourselves. But behold, if ye seek to destroy us more we will seek to destroy you; yea, and we will seek our land, the land of our first inheritance. ...etc." Was Captain Moroni angry with Ammoron, and Amalikiah before that? I think so. And I think such anger can certainly be (and was in his case) righteous. It can also be unrighteous. I totally agree on the self-defense moment though. If I ever have to kill someone I expect it will be without anger. But.... imagine two scenarios: 1. You hear a noise in the night, grab your gun, and come upon a man entering your daughter's room. He lunges towards you with a knife. You shoot. Family is kept safe. 2. You hear a noise in the night, grab your gun, and come upon a man who has just murdered your daughter.... I mean I'll leave it off there because I don't want to get too morbid...but you get the point. I hope to never kill someone in the anger that I might feel coming upon the 2nd scenario. But I also feel quite positive that if such a scenario occurred....

That's an interesting notion. But the practical effect seems the same. If you put the kingmen to death, you put the kingmen to death. Whether your anger is specifically at them or their ideas doesn't much matter. They're dead either way. I actually have no problem with how to feel righteous anger. It's the acting upon it that I'm not entirely clear on. Well, that's not really fair. I know not to kill anyone at this point. Unless...... I mean if someone comes into my home to murder and rape us all they're getting a baseball bat to the face followed by a round of my bedside 9mm. Hmm. I should get myself a shotgun. But short of that, I'm very clear that it's not appropriate to go out and start killing abortionists willy nilly

My younger bro with 10 is 44. I guess that's Gen X. My older sister (53) is definitely Gen X. The reason my two siblings have so many kids is for one reason and one reason alone. They wanted to.