The Folk Prophet

If this is the point, then putting it in terms of "TFP must be ridiculously arrogant" (as in "you think too highly of yourself") isn't particularly accurate or fair. It may be, as you point out, that I am mistaken on what might qualify one for the inability to be forgiven of murder. I do not think that is required and don't read D&C 132 as proof positive that it is. (It only teaches that if one's calling and election is sure that murder can still mess it up -- not that calling and election sure is required for murder to otherwise mess things up). But even if I'm wrong, that view certainly has nothing to do with me thinking highly of myself. That being said, how could anyone know or presume who does and who does not, even in these forums, have their calling and elections sure.

I read through the thread looking for what atrocity or contention could have possibly brought on such an accusation. But there was only one post that had a "sick feeling" to it. I'll leave it to others to determine on their own which one it was.

I am a temple endowed, eternally sealed, holder of the Holy Priesthood of God with a solid witness from the Spirit of the truth of the gospel. I know where I stand.

I dunno. I can honestly say that I just don't get Twitter. I'm like the old man shaking his stick at the kids to get off his lawn with it. Stop twittering you derned fool kids!!

I think (and not that we are the one's to judge...but just as related to the discussion) that there is a distinct difference to offering the full measure of heavenly hope to one who has been, for example, raised in a broken home, involved in gangs, on drugs, and negatively influenced by a myriad of things in this life, who then does really bad things. It is different, even, for one who lives in a nice home, has good employment, good education, etc., and is drawn into perversions by various sources, etc., and does really bad things. It is decidedly something else to walk daily guided by a prophet, to be uplifted by the Lord in all that one does, to have one's enemies defeated, to be raised as king of a nation, to be given wealth beyond measure, etc., to have a firm witness and knowledge of God, His love and blessings, and then to murder someone to cover up adultery. Even then, of course, we don't judge. In the case of David, the only reason we have an expectation of his status is due to direct modern-day LDS revelation by way of scripture on the matter. And even then, such information is only meant to be used as a warning for those who have been so blessed. Beware. Even the mighty may fall if they allow themselves to give into the carnal man. As has been stated, it's related to accountability which comes from knowledge. Point being, I dare say that your offering of the full measure of heavenly hope is entirely appropriate for those you minister to.

Well now if that ain't the pot calling the kettle black? Indeed. This has become nothing more than a "nu-uh", "uh-huh", discussion. And if it isn't about the most useless argument ever to debate whether the members know the gospel better or worse than before. I say prove it. And you can say the same to me. But I'm not particularly bothered that you don't consider my contributions any more useful than I consider yours. I will say what I feel should be said you can respond or not. I will not be cowed by accusations of not engaging the evidence (which, I actually took a fair amount of time on and did the best I could in the limited time I had...if you really want to get into things, perhaps an individual thread on each topic...). I'm afraid that whether intentionally or not, your arguments suffer from "proof by verbosity" and I simply can't address each point in detail without a very great deal of time. So I'll stick to one point. Grace. You speak of my not addressing your points, and yet you have managed to completely ignore my responses to this, and instead talk about our understanding of how grace works, which you yourself point out, we don't really understand, and is expressed by different general authorities differently. I claim, factually, that the wording balance of grace and works is irrelevant. That what is important to understand, which you yourself have alluded to, is what we do. Which means works. Works = what we do. You are trying to convince me, and those alike, that there's some great new meaning in Uchtdorf's talk, and yet all you're really talking about is how people feel about grace -- which really doesn't much matter unless we actually get up and do. Yes, grace helps us do. and it has ALWAYS helped us do, whether we so understood it to or not. But it does not, nor will it ever, do for us. To imply such is equivalent to proclaiming the removal of agency. We must choose and we must act. And when we do choose and we do act, then grace assists. This is, and always has been, the truth of grace. No one can be saved, ever, without choosing and acting. No one can be changed without choosing so. Stepping up and doing is key. Obedience is key. It is the means whereby we apply the Savior's grace. The grace does not, nor will it ever, force obedience against our free will. Understanding the balance of works and grace, however, is only important, as I've said, in how we feel about it. That doesn't mean it is unimportant. But whether we feel like we have grace or not doesn't define our well being, spiritual standing, or salvation. Knowing that we're saved isn't requisite. It is not the key given, anywhere. We are saved by exercising our agency to follow Christ, and keep His commandments, whether we understand how or why that works. And if we don't exercise our agency to that end, understanding and feeling good about our state won't have any bearing either. An implication that our current understanding is somehow important implies that those of yesteryear have less potential for salvation. They do not. Theological understandings on matters like this are nice. They are not key. People caring about things does not make them important or not. So please understand my flippant, "who cares" as I meant it. I mean, simply, that it's not important and we should care less about it, not that, literally, no one actually cares. I fully understand that people care about a great deal of things. Some of them are important. Some are not. I care, for example, that our prophets and apostles are not stomped all over. I care that we do not conclude that anything they have said that we disagree with may be casually tossed aside. I care that there is a trend that could be very damaging to testimonies that derides and slanders our past leaders (even if inadvertently). It actually matters, to me, that the prophets and apostles taught truth, and I believe that we need to be very, very careful about injurious statements concerning them. I admit, I'm a bit bothered at the hostile turn your tone has taken. So I expect it's a good thing you're going to go wash your hair moving forward. If you expect me to walk away from the engagement however, you will be disappointed. I will defend against onslaughts that I feel are damaging and false, whether you are bored with it or not.

Um...who really cares what Joseph Fielding Smith's personal view on going to the moon or not was? And how, exactly, does that matter to the doctrines of the church? I think understanding Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie on the matter and in context is quite important. The clear division comes between trusting in man or trusting in God. It's not a difficult thing to see where and why the took this stand from a doctrinal and "what's really important" point of view. Elder Holland's talk is hardly proof positive that apostles today believe in it.... But, once again, that's not really, contextually, what's important about the issue. Also, there were apostles in JFS and BRM's day who believed in it. And I'd bet you dollars to donuts that there are apostles today who have the exact same stand as JFS and BRM did. I don't see this as an advancement or enlightenment issue in any way at all. The teachings about the doings are, realistically speaking, the important part. Yes. But the teachings also motivate the doing. As in, understanding what exaltation is, the nature of God, and the order of the afterlife divided into kingdoms, etc., have little to do with the doing. And yet they seem quite important to understand, as directly related to what we actually do (which church we join, etc.) and how we are motivated. So I don't entirely disagree with you on what's important. But where I do disagree is in who gets to teach and define the standards of things, whether they are important or not, and that, for the most part, any of the "old" teachings have been disavowed, with the clear and obvious exception of the reasons behind the priesthood ban. Therefore, until such teachings are official disavowed, it strikes me that an individual choosing to disavow them simply because they are not emphasized any longer is an unsupportable position. How is the Atonement and the Savior's grace provided thereby not a key/core doctrine? I'm, frankly, astounded at this thinking. Are you really under the impression that our early leaders felt they did not need the Savior to be saved? As I've explained, the words may have changed on this. The message is the same. There is NO conflict. The fact that current leaders may be helping us to understand the principle better, and even that they may emphasize such things more often, does not mean changed doctrine or that earlier prophets and apostles were wrong. Do you really believe that if that same question were asked today that the result would be any different? I was alive in the 70s, remember well the teachings, and read and study the talks from then now. I believe that this point of view is in your mind and is nothing more than an emotional reaction to something that you did not understand back then, struggled with accordingly, and now that the approach has settled more in line with the way you think about things, it resounds with you. But the facts do not support the idea that our leaders have ever taught us that we did not need the Savior's Atonement for salvation no matter what our works were. I read through the Book of Mormon 2 to 3 times a year. I have never felt that it teaches anything different than what Joseph F. Smith, Spencer W. Kimball and all the proceeding prophets, have said and taught, so I'm not really sure where this "things changed when we began reading the Book of Mormon more" comes from. I have seen no dissonance between King Benjamin and our modern day apostles, ever. I disagree with this. Obedience is HOW we are changed by the Spirit. Sadly, I also disagree with this. For the most part it strikes me that the lay church member seems to understand the gospel less than 30 years ago.

This is entirely doctrinally unimportant. Wait. Didn't you just make the point that headers are not revelation? But now, when if favors your view, the added header is suddenly inspired? The only "dismissal" of racist views in the header is a scriptural quote, which has always been a scriptural quote, which is hardly new, revolutionary revelation. Without getting into it too much, I'll simply say that I could not disagree more. When you or anyone starts claiming Spencer W. Kimball, Bruce R. McConkie and the like were full of it I'm going to step up. As to the "debate" over murder...the scriptures are plain. Any debating against that is so much spit in the wind, and there is, frankly, nothing to debate. No more so than considering whether one's adulterous parent, or con-man brother, or thief child, or rapist sister has a chance at salvation. We leave the judgement to God. As near as I can tell, not a single bit of that 5 percent (if that's even accurate -- I'd suggest .5 percent...but....) has any bearing on anything important at all. Pre-adamites? Who really cares? We don't understand Brigham Young's Adam-God Theory. And what was condemned was the interpretation of it, and primarily in response to the polygamous groups who accept the modern interpretation of it as important doctrine. The interpretation of it -- what we think Brigham meant -- has been rejected. What Brigham actually meant and believed is unknown. This isn't quite accurate. It's an oversimplification of what is a complex issue. The church disavowed those theories and condemned racism. Two different things. What was presented by the church essay on the matter ultimately boiled down do "we don't know", which ought to be the only party-line on the matter. What Brigham actually taught we still very much believe. Anyone unwilling to accept polygamy if commanded by God, cannot be exalted. Another thing we really don't understand. But for the sake of my lack of understanding on the matter, I'll acquiesce the point here.

The whole do we earn salvation or is it only by grace is nothing more than a semantic point and has no bearing on updated teachings or understanding. The fact of the matter is that we do have a set list of requirements for salvation. And the fact is that accomplishing the set list is also insufficient in and of itself. Neither of these points take away from the other. Both remain absolute truths. Whether we term the need to accomplish the set list of requirements or not "earning" isn't really important. The fact that some earlier prophets and apostles may have termed it this way does not make them wrong. It is simply a different way of describing the facts of the gospel. It is simply inaccurate, in this case, to state that teachings have been supplanted. But it is appropriate to discontinue terming things the old way for the sake of understanding and proper communication. What is not appropriate is to shut our brains down and misunderstand the reality of eternal truths that have always been taught in the gospel based on semantic changes. To state that we used to teach that we only earned salvation and now we teach that salvation is only by grace is wrong. And you will, very easily, find right alongside any teachings about "earning" salvation the plain need for the atonement, and that without the atonement we would be lost even with all we could do.

We did have a ward facebook page for gospel discussion that stayed pretty civil. But I think that's because people like me had the good sense to not post thereon. Which means it was also quite bland, albeit innocuous.

I think this pretty unlikely to happen. Like...never. There is no ability to communicate with "spirits", as in "ghosts", as in "dead people". If, and when, a dead spirit communicated with us, if it's a righteous cause then it's called an angel and it's not an ability, it's because the angel chose to communicate with us. It it's not a righteous cause then...beware.

I find chocolate as a gift offensive. "Here, make yourself fat!" Thanks for nothin'!

I question the appropriateness of an online forum for this sort of thing. But, moreover, as others have stated, they don't stay active. We had one in our ward. A few flurries of semi-activity. But, really, if it's controversial, is it really a good idea for ward members to be sparring with each other online? Not to mention, online allows for a certain level of incivility that just doesn't occur in person. If, for example, someone says something inaccurate in church, I very rarely correct them (unless I feel it's so inaccurate and harmful that something really needs to be said -- and even then I often won't because...you know, debate at church just isn't conducive to it's purpose), whereas online I probably would. Now whereas some would say that I shouldn't be any different online than in person (and there may be merit there), the simple fact of the matter is that people ARE different online. Just my thoughts on the matter, of course. Feel free to disregard if you feel so inspired and/or simply disagree.

There were some dates and or other incidental things that were "very wrong" I suppose. I question the idea that any of the headers had doctrinal ideas that were "very wrong". Please illustrate. I find the implication that the new headers revealed some new information that was previously unknown a bit far-fetched. What, specifically, in these introductions was so revolutionary? We understand the meaning of this scripture based on the plain and clear teachings of prophets and apostles, whose right it is to teach, interpret, and expound upon these things. As soon as one of them teaches that there are other true and living churches out there that the Lord is not well pleased with, I'm sure that'll catch on. Until then, all this is is your personal interpretation, which you have a right to. But don't try and pass it off as anything more than that. This is a non-sequitur. The matter is not about God's power, but rather God's word. He does what He says. He means what He says. He forgive who He forgives. That's His prerogative. Once could debate all the day long if God is powerful enough to make a rock so heavy that even He could not lift it...but it's not particularly useful. Of course I'm not particularly interested in the theological debate as to whether murderers can be forgiven or not. The take away, for me, is simple. Don't murder. Any alternative -- go ahead and murder 'cause you can repent -- philosophy I reject. I'm going with don't murder. The casting off of any older prophets and apostles we don't like thing, on the other hand...well, Vort's addressed that fairly well. But I challenge you to find a contemporary prophet or apostle who has explicitly stated that any and all forms of murder are forgivable. As has been said, accountability plays into it, and past prophets allow for this as well. The focus may have changed somewhat, but the principles haven't. I don't really understand how people can, realistically, see the past and present prophets and apostles at odds with one another. There are a few fringe issues where the clarity is a bit obscure, but for the most part, the gospel is the gospel, has been the gospel, and will be the gospel moving forward. Once again...have your personal opinions all you want. Just don't try and pass them off as accurate, doctrinal, or binding in any way.

By implication, a carefully prepared conference talk by an apostle has less potential of a misspoken point than a carefully prepared and edited book by the same? I don't follow the logic here. Clearly getting doctrinal knowledge from scriptures alone is insufficient. But why are the words of the GAs only valid over the pulpit? And is it only General Conference? What about other devotionals and/or conferences? Should we really put such restrictions on the teachings of our prophets and apostles?

How else are we to develop doctrinal understanding? From BYU professors who write books interpreting doctrine? How can you be sure that we have more light and knowledge on the matter? I don't recall any specific revelations, new scripture, or anything of the sort to indicate that our so-called light and knowledge is anything more than the current generation's mortal interpretations of things. Obviously (hopefully obviously at least) that is irrelevant to whether we should sustain, support, and follow our living prophet's an apostles. But it's a bit out there, imo, to stretch that to inferred greater enlightenment.

I'm not sure how this doesn't jibe with the scriptures that clearly teach that A) those who kill cannot be forgiven and B) those unforgiven must suffer for their own sins. Lest we be deceptive here, it should be pointed out that it was Joseph Smith who taught that David would have to pay for his own sins in hell (President Kimball quoted Joseph). You may be comfortable cavalierly casting off "many of the old apostles", but are you as comfortable with disregarding Joseph's teachings? Whereas this may or may not be true, it's one thing to assign culpability to the members at large for developing a misunderstanding of something -- it's another thing entirely to assign culpability to they who have the right, authority, and purview to interpret scripture. What does this have anything to do with anything? I believe this too...excepting, of course, in those instances where the Lord has explicitly said otherwise. I feel fairly confident that at my level of knowledge and understanding that were I to intentionally go out and murder someone that I'd be done as far as the exaltation thing goes. Of course we have been commanded to forgive all men even if they do not repent. So I'm not sure of the direct application. Whether we understand it or not, the law is the law, the rules are the rules, and God will do as He said He will do. Clearly, we are not to consider anyone (other than one God has specifically said otherwise) damned. We are not to judge. But from a perspective of our own choices and actions, I think it fairly safe to assume that if we, knowingly, go out and murder someone, we will not be forgiven of such.

Hmm. I don't recall this ever being even slightly related to why Christ condemned the Pharisees. Can you provide a source quote?

Huh?

I dunno. Personally I'm not planning on committing adultery and then murdering the husband to cover it up.

What the what?

It doesn't strike me as that complicated. Accountability relates to knowledge. If you have knowledge, then you're accountable. Clearly forgiveness for murder is related to this.

More speaking what's on my mind: My problem with Millet is not his style. I don't even think it's entirely accurate to call it a "problem". But for lack of a better word, I think that he and other "intellectual" Mormons are making an effort to redefine things that they ought not. They are making excuses for things that need no excuses made. And they are wielding the responsibility they have (in being respectable in academic circles) in moderately irresponsible ways. But, let me be clear. The only reason I have a "problem" with this sort of thing is because it is LDS scholardom. In the LDS world we believe that we are led DIRECTLY by God via inspiration, and therefore the only ones who have the right and authority to define our stand on any given issue is those who are in authority to receive said revelation. For anyone to define things beyond this, particularly in a role where they garner respect, and particularly in a role where they wield that respect to the world at large, is problematic, imo. There may be truth to this. But as described above, my dismissal of Millet (which, once more, is probably putting it too extremely. I don't "dismiss" him entirely.) is related to the organization, authority, responsibility, etc., of the church at large. I have found this to be, by and large, untrue. Teachers are the worst offenders, in many cases, of dismissing those who they consider inferior. Lest you misunderstand me concerning Millet, I'm not really down on the guy. I'd never heard of him prior to this Olsen article, and my main view of what he is and is not comes from Olsen's description and understanding of him, which may be entirely unfair. I'll give you a brief example of my "problem"... Question to Mormon scholar: Do you believe in the Lorenzo Snow couplet, "As man now is, God once was: As God now is, man may be"? The correct and obvious answer to this should be simply: Yes. Apparently though, however Millet answered it did not communicate this to Olsen. Rather, it came across, intentionally or not, as if there's a potential shift in Mormondom that will make it more palatable to Christiandom at large. But there is no shift. We believe, the same as always, that the couplet is truth. Of course this gets messy. Because who is "we"? Is there, as I've implied, a faction that is, indeed, working to downplay doctrines that are offensive to Christiandom? Are there many, perhaps a growing number, who reject the truth of the first part of the couplet? Maybe. But that only means there are those who don't believe what is plainly taught by the LDS church, from repeated traditional and contemporary sources. I have the same complaint about apologist Jeff Lindsey's response on the matter http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#man Bending over backwards to apologize for what is clear and plain. As if other Christian's views on LDS teachings have any bearing on the matter. And beyond this, I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how someone who is supposedly "intellectual" and, moreover, "educated" on LDS teachings can possibly believe these sorts of "softened" theories. It's not like the plain teaching is obscure. To dismiss it one must engage in various mental and semantic gymnastics.

I do not believe Elder Uchtdorf's talk moved us into some different understanding of grace vs. works. Nothing has changed whatsoever in this regard. We are, and always have been, saved by grace after all we can do. We are, and always have been, blessed according to an unalterable decree in heaven that such blessings are predicated upon our obedience. Faith without works has always been dead. The Lord has always been bound when we do what He says, and if we do not we have always had no promise. President Uchtdorf's talk may have clarified things for you. But the idea that he understood something better than Spencer W. Kimball is, imo, inaccurate.

I did read it PC. I'm not particularly pro scholar-as-religious-authority is all. I think, maybe, you're reading some antagonism into my posts that I'm not intending though. There shouldn't be any discomfort. There are two points of interest here. 1. There is a faction in the LDS world intent upon downplaying those things that separate us from mainstream Christianity. I do not think this faction represents the common LDS thinking, though it may be growing. I think it starts from a place of good intent but quickly gets out of hand and becomes a subtle tool of the devil. We can discuss this further if you'd like. 2. There are many "Christians" who, in the well-intentioned spirit of trying to get along, try and re-define what's being said when other Christians say that Mormons aren't Christian. They try and put it into terms of mere definition, and take all offense out of the idea. I understand this idea. I understand why they are doing this. I even appreciate it. But it has to be realistically understood that the primary motivation in a general claim that Mormons aren't Christian is more than this. It is, at it's core, more-so an implication of damnation, beware, shun-this, etc. This doesn't, per se, offend me. Clearly, were I to state that some group were not Christians (even obviously so -- as in Muslims or the like) there is implications of the same. But on the other hand, I'm not about to agree, even with these well intentioned Christians -- "You're right. We're not Christian!" As to the nuance of the string...meh. I say what I think (as I've said). If you want to discuss further, great. If not, disregard.