The Folk Prophet

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/conf15a

I'm going this year! Been wanting to go for years. This year it worked out and my honey and I are both taking the time off and attending. Should be quite interesting.

Maybe you should ask your wife about your morning breath before you complete your conclusion on the matter.

Yep. What does "a burden" justify?

I agree. Good read. For the sake of conversation, there were 2 things he said that I disagree with (mildly). 1. We do not have the fullness of the gospel. As much as I understand what he's saying, and he clarifies what he means, I find it slightly problematic to state something contrary to what has been clearly and explicitly stated by prophets and apostles through the years. We do have the fullness of the gospel. What he's talking about is the fullness of all revelation. That is not the gospel. The gospel is the truths, covenants, and ordinances required for salvation. So he basically says we don't have the fullness of the gospel, but then says we do have -- and then describes the fullness of the gospel -- all revelation necessary for salvation. 2. the prophets were not given any revelations on the matter, so they taught what they knew and could figure out for themselves. How can he, or anyone, possibly know this? We don't know that they weren't given any revelations on the matter. I don't want to get into another "how dare you perpetuate the disavowed theories" debate. But it strikes me that claiming something like this is just as problematic as the problem trying to be avoided. We. Don't. Know. It should be left at that.

Can outcomes be separated from processes?

What do you mean, if that is in fact the numbering? I'm wounded. Wounded I tell you.

Just don't pay attention to which time you go.

I used to pay my fast offering with my tithing at church each Fast Sunday. Recently I started saving my fast offering for the Aaronic Priesthood as part of an effort to support their service offering.

Ok. After my temple assignment I now know this much: Room 1: Film A Room 2: B 3: C 4: D A is the old (Ballam) B is 1st new C 2nd new D 3rd new Rm 1 is southeast corner 2 southwest 3 northwest 4 northeast I'm not entirely sure about times, except that I was in the 4:45 session in room 1. I think they're every 45 min. ??

Whereas I agree with what's been stated in most these answers, as an intellectual exercise I would have to answer thus: If you pay your fast offering in full then you pay your fast offerings in full and that "law" has been satisfied*. If you pay your fast offering once a month, then the counsel to pay monthly has been satisfied. If you pay it yearly, the counsel to pay monthly has not been satisfied. Of course, is the counsel to pay monthly of any meaning beyond just "a way to do it". Or is it meant to be "the" way to do it. And, if you're paying up front (like Mirkwood), rather than at the end, then what difference does it make? The money's in the bishop's hand. Like I said. Just an intellectual exercise. * of course satisfying the law of fast offering is an interesting subject in and of itself, because what constitutes a fulfillment of this law? We have been consistently counselled to give generously. What number constitutes generous? Clearly this varies, and comes more from the heart and the Spirit than from sticking merely to the letter of the law (The cost of 2 meals...a pittance for some that, in my opinion, is a shameful amount to give, but a trial for others.)

But, if you take away my disease then that means I'm not a victim and that I'm accountable. My parent's were right. When I was a kid I was just...bad.

There is, of course, the seer stone that the church supposedly keeps in it's vaults somewhere.

The sword of Laban is a myth? :)

askandanswer, read through the 2nd link (http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/a-slippery-slope-that-limits-the-atonement), which is a book review of In Quiet Desperation, which directly discusses your question. I'll post an example quote: ______________ Even Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the self-identified secular-humanist atheist Jew, the Columbia University psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual in 1973, was open to the findings of science. This pro-gay activist researcher conducted a study that was published in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. Spitzer’s study population was comprised of 200 people who reported that they had changed from homosexual to heterosexual. He found that 66% of the men and 44% of the women who had participated in therapy to change their homosexual orientation had arrived at what he called “good heterosexual functioning.” Additionally, 89% of the men and 95% of the women reported that they were bothered “slightly” or “not at all” by unwanted homosexual feelings. In Spitzer’s own words, “Like most psychiatrists I thought homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that’s untrue–some people can and do change.” Spitzer concluded that the changes occurred not just in behavior, but in core features of sexual orientation as well. ... Even the lesbian activist Camille Paglia notes that the idea that an individual is born gay is “ridiculous.” She concludes that “homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.” More importantly the counsel from the Lord through his servants is clear on this matter. President Faust declared, “The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment and despair.” Elder Oaks noted that though there may be susceptibilities associated with a variety of challenges, that we are responsible for the “lifestyle we graft upon them.” Elder Packer says of homosexuality, “It is not unchangeable. It is not locked in. One does not just have to yield to it and live with it.”

It has some meaning, of course. Just not the meaning you seem to be putting upon it. The church explained why. What more is there to discuss?

And yet you are jumping to conclusions about what I mean and demanding that I am implying things that I am not. Why is this a difficult line to hold? If I say, "If we don't repent we will be damned!" and then later say, "Repentance will free us from the chains of death and hell" I am saying the same content but communicating differently. Is my position tenuous or is it your grasp of my position that is? If you don't want me to assume that you're not implying the leaders are less fearless, then why did you begins your question with, "If teachings and expressions are just as fearless as in former times what then of..." Am I honestly meant to not make of that an implication that I'm wrong in saying they are just as fearless? Is not your flat statement, "your position seems to be tenuous" the same? A critique of my position and an implication that I am mistaken? What is you objective then? As I recall, I was simply responding to a thought by JaG and sharing my thoughts as a response, not taking a position. And, frankly, I don't think it's worthy debating with you about whether said "position" is right. If I'm mistaken, big deal. If they've changed their content, that is their prerogative. Of course, using a single, isolated example of one man altering one little section of one little talk that ended up, substantially, saying the exact same thing, is hardly, in my mind evidence that the leaders, en masse, have changed their message. Your questioning of my "tenuous" position would be stronger if you were to use examples of broader rhetoric, point out the number of instances they discussed certain topics 20 years ago vs now, or the like. Then, at least, your question would hold some weight. I'd still claim that the underlying message is the same, because it is and always has been. But at least I wouldn't be responding with quite the same "are you kidding me?" tone, because the alteration of Packer's speech was utterly meaningless.

Sure you are. You're implying that the wording change has any meaning or bearing on the discussion. I do not believe it has. You're also implying (or, rather, directly saying): "If teachings and expressions are just as fearless as in former times...", making a statement within the question that the change in wording is not fearless. I also, as stated, disagree with that. If you're under the impression that I have seen no "changes" at all then you are misreading me and mistaken. What I am saying I don't believe has changed is the straightforward truths spoken in conference. Not that tone or speech styles or the like have not changed. Clearly they have. Times change. Communication methods change. But the prophets and apostles still speak the plain truth in conference. Do you disagree? I didn't say that or anything even close to it. I am not privy to all the directions the Lord is giving to the church leaders. This is just a nonsense question and the church already said exactly why the change was made. "The Monday following every General Conference, each speaker has the opportunity to make any edits necessary to clarify differences between what was written and what was delivered or to clarify the speaker's intent. President Packer has simply clarified his intent."

Apparently they're making a movie version with The Rock.

I'm not quite sure what the point here is. I remember the clamor. Substantially, the message didn't change. The core point remains fairly fully the same. Not born with it. Can overcome it. The claim by some that this was some sort of victory is actually pretty pathetic, methinks. Is a tendency somehow worse than a temptation? Seriously. Don't get it. Is using the word temptation fearful? Or are you implying that because he made the change due to "some outcry" that he was fearful. If you believe that I don't think you knew Bro. Packer very well. The man was anything but fearful. If his response was in kind to the "outcry" then it wasn't because of fear, it was because he, legitimately, felt he could clarify his meaning and communicate better with it.

http://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/local/article_c8a8b4c0-e630-11e2-a8e9-001a4bcf6878.html My favorite user comment: "If Satan is bound, doesnt that mean the Millennium has started?" Seriously. I busted a gut!

I do not believe this. Truth tastes good to the humble soul. And humble souls still abound. Truth will never taste good to the prideful, regardless of warm-fuzzy lion-saving* sentiments. (*I couldn't resist...sorry). I also do not find this to be true. I find the teachings and expressions by our church leaders are just as fearless, just as true, as they have ever been. And they are just as hated. What I find to be changed is more in press releases, websites, etc. (This with the one, small exception where the late L. Tom Perry quoted the position from mormonsandgays.org...which, as I said...well..... I sustain them to say what they need to regardless of my confusion on the matter!) When I watch General Conference, I find that although some of overall expression is with a softer tone, the words are the same as they have always been. It is other venues that seem slightly off to me. This comment seems to directly contradict some of your previous ideas. I know you confessed to that already. But still. Are you a lawyer or not? I may have slightly overstated the trauma for the sake of effect.

Likewise

You have the two versions of the film backwards. They still use the Ballam one.