The Folk Prophet

Brigham Young was anything but ordinary.

Why?

Holy cow. My wife would die and then kill me if I tried to have it that cold in our bedroom at night!

So how people receive communication is as important as how it is being given. In this we agree. And yet, for holding this view, you seem to feel the need to reprove me over and over again. Why is my understanding of this judgmental but yours is benevolent? I cannot quite understand what your objective is here. What are you trying to defend against? Beating the tar out of someone? Do you believe I'm promoting such? Sure it should. If I know that my mission companion has a medical condition that keeps him from getting up on time or I know that my mission companion is simply unwilling to try and get up on time it makes a great deal of difference in how I would respond. You have a cynical view of people's motivation. Declaring repentance is not inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the second sentence, while true, doesn't support anything. By not listening to, following, and obeying ALL the teachings of God as given by His prophets, apostles, and the Holy Spirit. I'm not even sure what it is you're trying to back up. I'm trying to back up that declaring repentance is a commandment that is just as applicable today as it ever was. For some reason, that I cannot quite understand, this has turned you hostile. Certainly you aren't trying to back up the opposite -- that we shouldn't be declaring repentance. So I'm not quite sure how you think we're -- how did you put it? -- perhaps completely opposite in our view of the world.

You've lost me. Wherein did I express anything that is contrary to Thomas Monson, state, or even imply, that I know more or better, or....honestly...what are you talking about here? And I have not, nor do I, propose that we should be otherwise than compassionate and understanding. What does this have to do with maintaining that repentance can and does include the reality of change? I'm not sure how you're getting out of this thread, the links posted, anything I've said, or anywhere else that we're supposed to be mean to gay people. That is not the point at all. Rather, the point is (or at least one of the points), that the leader's call for compassion an understanding may be being misinterpreted in a way that leads to many, many instances of pampering, pandering and spoiling. Also outside the point. "You're a sinner" is a very different thing than "You can and should change." The point is not to condemn or criticize. It is an exhortation for honest, legitimate, never-ending efforts for change. Sure it matters "why". Just as it matters "why" you struggle to get up in the morning vs. why I struggle to get up in the morning. For me, it's sheer laziness. The why absolutely matters as to the change. Who are friends are. The media we partake of. The articles we read. The failures we've had in obedience to the Lord. Even the literal, physical inclinations we may have. They are all important to understand and face when it comes to dealing with any of life's problems and inclinations we may have to do and be different than that which we should be doing and being. Well this is to the point of the discussion. My feeling. Their hand has been forced. The world has become spoiled rotten, and you have to deal with a spoiled rotten child differently than you deal with one who is not. Ideally the child shouldn't be spoiled in the first place. But it is. And so you deal with that reality. Moreover, to the point, I feel that the change in tone does not, nor has it, nor will it ever mean that we should disregard the reality of change and the atonement. I feel this is an interpretation that is being placed on the tone change that is not inherent in it, and stems from the progressive ideology bleeding into the church from outside, not from the top down revelation standard that we should be listening to and following.

Perhaps your answer could have simply replied, "No I didn't mean that." Instead, you have to cut at me. Where does that leave you on the long-suffering, gentleness and patience scale? It's simple: My thinking on the matter stems from scripture. 2 Nephi 9:28 O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken notunto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. and... Psalms 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever. No matter how "learned" we are, if we are not humble, meek, obedient, etc., then we do not know the Lord, are not filled with His light and knowledge, etc. Therefore, I believe quite firmly, that as much as I know a whole lot more about electricity than Abraham did (even though I know, relatively, little about that subject), I am quite certain that a presumption that I know more than he did about God, righteousness, obedience, how to obey, faith, etc., would be arrogance. In the context of this thread, the related links, the discussion at hand, etc., you did not simply say "love" and I translated that to pandering, pampering and spoiling. One of the points here is that I am trying to make is with the thread is that, perhaps, some of our efforts to show "love" amount to these things. If you aren't getting that then maybe it's you who are speaking the different language and misunderstanding. Who cares about legitimate data behind the reasons for suicide? We'll just cry "SUICIDE!" and that's sufficient? Why bother to actually understand what's really going on, what's really causing it? Asking for supporting data is not "choosing to argue the point". It is asking for supporting data. I read the news article you posted. No supporting data sources. How did they come up with their number? And even if the numbers are entirely accurate (I'm not saying I doubt them...just pointing out that they don't source anything that I saw) -- I didn't see anything about Mormons killing themselves because they're gay and the church rejects them. I don't doubt that is the cause sometimes...but where's the backing data -- and where's the support that the true reason might not be other factors? Once again, you say, "When faced with rather staggering statistics about teen suicide among LGBT mormons, sticking to the "hard line" seems to be rather obtuse" you really need to show supporting data, for example, that A) there are "staggering" statistics for LGBT "mormons" committing suicide B) that being "mormon" is statistically related C) that the "hard line" relates to the cause D) That other factors involved (drugs, mental illness, etc) are not the real problem. Some things the article did mention: -Ninety percent of young people who complete suicide have some form of major psychiatric disorder, although the majority are not taking medication at the time they take their lives. -63 percent had contact with the criminal justice system, and half of those had referrals for substance use, abuse or possession. -Combining mental illness with drug abuse is the deadliest of combinations. "Having both of these raises the risk another level," Gray said. Now who's inferring things that the other did not say -- or even hint at? If, and when, evidence (real evidence, not a bunch of anecdotal fluff) comes to light that being gay is an un-treatable condition then maybe this stretch of my metaphor might work. But half the point of the thread, as discussed in the second of the two OP links, is that maybe, just maybe, by demanding that it was just who he was, something that could never be overcome, and that any sort of therapeutic help on the matter was "the wisdom of man", Ty was condemning himself to something that he did not actually need to.

Day 2. Several more good talks (some really good). But I must admit, overall I come away feeling somewhat disenchanted if not downright discouraged. I'd say the presentations could be split into 3 groups. Faith promoting. Faith neutral. And apostate in disguise. And I'd put a good third to half of the presentations into this last category. Add to this the clearly "progressive" tone of a lot of the questions in the question-and-answer parts, and I just felt like this supposed vestige of conservative faithful-ism is developing some serious cracks in it's foundation. This is disheartening to me in the extreme. The few solid, faith-promoting talks were great though! And several of the "neutral" talks were quite interesting. One of the most interesting had some "apostate in disguise"-ness to it though...but very, very interesting otherwise.

I'm inferring from this that you believe that speaking harshly, clearly, bluntly, or sharply cannot possibly count as loving. But that is not true. There are times when such is exactly the proper and accurate way to express honest love. Anyone who thinks President Kimball wasn't loving is clueless about him. He was so, very, loving. Even if he made mistakes in expressing that love sometimes (which is really more about interpretation and trend than it is reality), it's a pretty tough sell to imply that he said and taught the things he did because he wasn't loving. I tend to view this sort of idea that we know better than our ancestors how to be Christlike amounts to nothing but arrogance. I grant you conditioned it with "maybe", so I'm not calling you arrogant -- just the idea. Is it? I'm not so sure. I tend to feel that the loss of "tough love" has done significantly more harm than good. In fact, I have watched this whole "love them into being good"* thing take hold over the past 30 years or so, and right alongside it I've seen the world slide further and further into corruption. * The word "love" here being used facetiously, as what I really mean is pandering, pampering, and spoiling. I disagree. It is indicative, rather, of a total and complete misunderstanding of what repentance actually means, how one actually does it, and what the power of the atonement can do. Can you back this up with real, honest, statistical data? Is it really higher than it was per other popular "sins" of the past? Is it really higher in faithful LDS? Can it be distinguished from other accompanying mental disorders? Drug use? Rejection from other sources? This is an easy accusation to throw out, but without carefully controlled, valid statistics backing it, it is irresponsible. Applying this across the board to all sins, it does not ring true. What matters is that we repent. What matters is that we obey. What matters is that we change. To be fair, I believe there is some truth in what you say. I've said before, myself, that what really matters is that we try. But I don't buy for a second that really trying leads to no change at all, particularly with the power of the atonement of Christ in the mix. Perhaps it comes down to what we mean by "try" or "making the effort". Defined a certain way, I agree. Defined another, I don't. But that's decidedly different than saying "success is in trying to get up on time, not whether you actually get up on time". Moreover, not baptizing is not a sin or wrong in any regard. The commandment is to declare the word. To declare repentance.

Well, day one was okay. Nothing mind blowing. I enjoyed a few of the presentations quite a bit and was bored with others. The best was a presentation on polygamy and the worst* was a Methodist preacher who presented Biblical "evidence" that the Holy Spirit and Mother in Heaven were one and the same. My favorites tend to be those that are centered in faith. * I should, fairly, qualify this as, "least enjoyable" for me.

Anyone who thinks we've distanced ourselves or are distancing ourselves from Brigham Young has been spending too much time playing with their "progressive" buddies. As with most "progressive" theories... Hooey!!

As I really stink at communicating this sort of thing sometimes I wanted to add the same thought. My discussions are "philosophical". But the philosophy of it does not make the trial any easier, and I do sympathize.

A few points of response: 1. The bishop has the right to determine qualifications for a temple recommend, but he does not, actually determine worthiness. That is between you and the Lord and the Spirit. For example, one could (as has happened many a time) simply lie to the bishop and attend the temple "bishop approved", but this does not make them "worthy". 2. If we take the example to the extreme, it might be helpful (of course, more likely it'll just offend because for some reason people have a difficult time taking the point out of an extreme example instead of comparing it directly and literally): If one had a proclivity to rape and murder does it justify that activity or render the doer "worthy" because they "struggle" that way? I'm not saying it's an apples to apples comparison, and don't believe that point-blank, anyone who doesn't attend church is not worthy. Clearly there are reasons why people do not or cannot attend church who are worthy (which is why the only appropriate response is, indeed, go see one's bishop). But as a general rule, I'm not sure mental and emotional issues that make doing the Lord's will difficult count, because when it really comes down to it, do we not all struggle at some level with mental and emotional issues with obeying all the Lord's commandments? As a general rule, we are not victims. We choose and we act. The fact that it's hard to do is what makes it a test. If it was easy, it wouldn't test anyone.

It should be pointed out, I think, that he should be told to stop by one who has the authority to tell him to stop. As a member of the ward I would report this issue to the Stake President (if I had a good relationship with the bishop I might ask him what the stink he thinks he's doing with a smile first). If I were a counselor to the bishop I would counsel him -- but it still would not be within my purview to demand that he stop. Once more...I would go to the Stake President.

Conversely, why should someone who is fully active, serving, loving, and dedicated in all ways, but has a coffee habit be kept from the temple? Obedience is the measure of worthiness.

What does right or wrong, fallible or infallible have to do with it? Authority is authority. Obviously in extreme things you step up. If you find out your bishop is secretly murdering people and keeping their heads in his refrigerator then you call the police. We can throw out extreme "what ifs" all day long. Broadly speaking, our leaders have the authority to choose and act under their stewardships.

Or the bishop who starts allowing women to baptize or something.... :) Solid point.

Meh. They post a transcript of most of the presentations online.

Clearly, and obviously, one would be stupid not to bring a witness to the bishop's attention. But "may", is a whole world apart from, "no room for error".

That's awesome.

It's nice to apply one's own definition to something and then argue from that standpoint, isn't it? If maybe you'd accept the fact that moral agency does not, not has it ever, meant 100% free agency, then maybe we'd be able to come to some sort of understanding. Or, I suppose we could all adapt your definition and disregard what the scriptures, prophets, apostle, and church materials teach on the matter. According to the way you're defining agency, sure...we don't have agency and it's a "lie". But your definition is wrong.

Concerning something that is someone else's stewardship? No.

My answer would have been to ask how one could possibly know with no room for error that their leaders are wrong.

Can you support this with any sort of authoritative source? Or is it just your opinion? Note: I do not entirely disagree with the first part of your statement, so if by "direct" you simply mean "unkind" then I disagree with your edit in a different way, because even the judges in Israel with authority have the same mandate for love, understanding, compassion, etc., as well as the same mandate to declare repentance.

I'd say easel the same way.

I'm not sure the sustaining of leaders or not is really the key issue as to whether we follow or not. Sustaining is a different issue that is related -- but we should follow those called of God because they are called of God, the technical meaning of "sustaining" notwithstanding. And we should never "pretend" to go along with anything. We should go along - or we should not according to our agency.