The Folk Prophet

Was gonna say the same thing as LitPara. The Lord prepares whom he plans to call.

David B. Haight had this to say: At times I wonder if you fully comprehend the far-reaching, eternal significance of temple marriage. If you really understand, you will never settle for less. Marriage is a divine ordinance, not to be performed by a justice of the peace or to be taken lightly; but, “… ordained of God unto man.” (D&C 49:15.) ...and I have to wonder the same thing. If we really, truly understood the amazing gift that temple marriage was, these questions would not be under consideration, I think. We are spoiled, it seems, by the ease of temple marriage, forgetting the sacrifices that have been made in the past, and are sometimes made now, and forgetting the time of darkness before the restoration when these blessings for so long were unavailable. From my perspective, to have access to the phenomenal blessing that is a temple marriage and to consider either doing a civil wedding before hand (when not required by law), or to do a fakey afterwards to please family and friends, sort of undermines the sacred and meaningful nature of what a temple wedding is. It is my opinion that the policy regarding waiting a year is partially to underline this point.

Just to clarify...this is inaccurate. Their freedom is blocked. Their agency remains intact.

For the record, I do not believe pressure from others is a good or a bad thing in and of itself. Good pressure is good. Bad is bad. When I feel pressured to to the right thing by anything, it is good. If I feel pressured to do the wrong thing it's not good. The term "peer pressure" is generally understood to mean friends pressuring each other to do wrong. When I was a teenager my friends and I never cussed. If any of us had, the others would have taken them to task for it. Was that "peer pressure"? I suppose it could be termed that. But I have a hard time seeing that as a bad thing. My friends helped keep me in line and I helped keep them in line. We are all the better for it. Edit: I should clarify for the sake of this thread that what I'm saying is not that all pressure to do right is good. There is a time and a place where such pressure can be a bad thing. I, clearly, do not share the same opinion with everyone here as to when that line is crossed. But...there it is.

Except he's not actually talking about "peer pressure". He's talking about the natural pressure from parents, fellow Saints, leaders, etc., that is part of being in an organization that believes in morality, choice, obedience, etc. Really, it's like saying, "If you weren't going to arrest me, officer, then I wouldn't have lied about stealing. So it's your fault, Mr. policeman, that I lied." Or, more literally, "If parents didn't hold their children to such high expectations then their children wouldn't lie -- so it's the parents fault." Etc. Is our conclusion to be then that we should not hold people to high expectations in the gospel? That seems to be the point that so many are trying to make. I've essentially been labeled a monster for having any expectation that people actually, you know, keep the commandments. How dare I?!?

Where there's yer problem.

This is off the mark of reality by a fair amount. I accept nothing but truth, yes. That is very different than expecting perfection in people. It is a completely different issue to maintain that the principle that home teaching is a sacred calling that each of us should strive to fulfill than it is to call people failures for not getting 100% home teaching in every month. I have never called someone a failure for not being perfect and I never will do. If you can show me where I have ever done so I will gladly acquiesce, admit that I'm the horrible person you accuse me of being, and step away from the discussion forever. This is clearly a case where you have determined in your own mind that I am the enemy somehow, and so everything I say gets tainted with your interpretation. But it's not reality. I cannot state this strongly enough. Please refrain from bringing my wife into your complaints against me. It is highly inappropriate, and there is little that could offend me more.

I have no doubt that many parents will be held accountable for their kid's failures.

I feel compelled to quote D&C section 4: 1 Now behold, a marvelous work is about to come forth among the children of men. 2 Therefore, O ye that embark in the service of God, see that ye serve him with all your heart, might, mind and strength, that ye may stand blameless before God at the last day. 3 Therefore, if ye have desires to serve God ye are calledto the work; 4 For behold the field is white already to harvest; and lo, he that thrusteth in his sickle with his might, the same layeth up in store that he perisheth not, but bringeth salvation to his soul; 5 And faith, hope, charity and love, with an eye single to the glory of God, qualify him for the work. 6 Remember faith, virtue, knowledge, temperance,patience, brotherly kindness, godliness, charity, humility,diligence. 7 Ask, and ye shall receive; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. Amen.

Apparently the answer to the question I raised is, "The Folk Prophet is the cause of all lack of unity in the church." Who knew it was my fault that Zion hasn't come yet?

Trying to be a good guy but end up being a bad guy? According to some, that pretty much defines my existence. Fortunately, good and bad are not defined by people's opinions.

For someone who has never said a kind word to me in the entire history of our communication, you've got some gall calling me out. FYI, it's not my expectation that we be obedient. It is Christ's.

Duplicate

Whatever man. You asked for the first time or original source of when going on a mission became a priesthood duty as declared by our prophet. That was it. 1974. Whether it makes sense to you or not, prior to that time no prophet had every declared bluntly or otherwise that every young man was called to serve. Since that time, every prophet has declared, clearly and plainly, just that: Ezra T. Benson: “The Lord wants every young man to serve a full-time mission. Currently, only a fifth of the eligible young men in the Church are serving full-time missions. This is not pleasing to the Lord. We can do better. We must do better. Not only should a mission be regarded as a priesthood duty, but every young man should look forward to this experience with great joy and anticipation. What a privilege—what a sacred privilege—to serve the Lord full time for two years with all your heart, might, mind, and strength. "You can do nothing more important. School can wait. Scholarships can be deferred. Occupational goals can be postponed. Yes, even temple marriage should wait until after a young man has served an honorable full-time mission for the Lord.” (Ensign, May 1986, pp. 44–45). Howard W. Hunter: “Earlier prophets have taught that every able, worthy young man should serve a full-time mission. I emphasize this need today” (Howard W. Hunter, “Follow the Son of God”, Ensign, Nov. 1994, 87). Gordon B. Hinkley: “I throw out a challenge to every young man within this vast congregation tonight. Prepare yourself now to be worthy to serve the Lord as a full-time missionary. He has said, ‘If ye are prepared ye shall not fear’ (D&C 38:30). Prepare to consecrate two years of your lives to this sacred service. That will in effect constitute a tithe on the first twenty years of your lives” (Conference Report, Sept.–Oct. 1995, 70; or Ensign, Nov. 1995, 51–52). Thomas S. Monson “I repeat what prophets have long taught—that every worthy, able young man should prepare to serve a mission. Missionary service is a priesthood duty—an obligation the Lord expects of us who have been given so very much. Young men, I admonish you to prepare for service as a missionary. Keep yourselves clean and pure and worthy to represent the Lord” (President Thomas S. Monson, As We Meet Together Again, October 2010). You can interpret things or understand things however you want. That's your business. But the plain start of the prophets declaring missions a duty for every young man was 1974 by Spencer W. Kimball.

Duplicate

As had been clearly stated, it was not a duty then. No one can honestly claim that someone did not do their duty when such a duty was not yet assigned. Stating such is entirely disingenuous.

“The question has been often asked, Is the mission program one of compulsion? And the answer, of course, is no. Everyone is given his free agency. The question is asked: Should every young man fill a mission? And the answer of the Church is yes, and the answer of the Lord is yes. Enlarging this answer we say: Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord” (Spencer W. Kimball, “Planning for a Full and Abundant Life”, Ensign, May 1974, 86).

If you're not going to actually read the thread and just throw accusations at me for random descriptive words I use to playfully describe generic theoretical for-examples, then I'm not sure there's much value in going back and forth with you on the matter or to take your reprimand too seriously.

Teach people true principles and let them govern themselves.

I'm not sure how comparing levels of good holds much bearing on whether we should or should not act a certain way. Certainly failing to do one's home teaching doesn't equal not paying one's tithing. Certainly not paying one's tithing doesn't equal adultery. Certainly adultery doesn't equal going on a murder spree. It seems to me that each thing we are asked to do (or to not do) stands on it's own, to be fulfilled, or to not be fulfilled. I don't advocate causing grief in one's marriage because the spouse isn't doing his or her duty. But I would also think that at any level that falls short of what we should be doing that we would strive to support, sustain, encourage, exhort, and otherwise kindly pressure our loved ones to step up to the plate. Whether home teaching is doctrine or not isn't really important. That we have been asked to do it as a distinct and clear part of our priesthood duty is plain. And I think, in the end, ignoring one's priesthood duty may well be a bit more serious than some of us would like to contemplate or admit.

I'm putting words in the mouth of the 18 year old boys claiming the Spirit's prompted them because...insert excuse. Perhaps unjustly in some, minor, very, very far and few between cases. Where we differ, it seems to me, is in the talents and gifts of the Spirit someone has having any bearing on whether one should serve a mission or not. How is this a problem? "You should go on a mission." "The Spirit told me not to." "I don't believe you." "Tough. I'm doing what the Spirit directs anyway." "Okay. Your life." Here's another way we fundamentally disagree. Our duty is our duty unless we are distinctly directed otherwise. Not having a direct revelation that we should go is a dereliction of duty. No I would not say, and I honestly cannot imagine who would think the basically good kid who's undecided about a mission is worse than the hoodlum smoking a joint on the street corner. It comes across based on how large the chip is on one's shoulder about missions it seems.

How can we know how and what we do when we disagree if we don't know the doctrines of Christ that direct us on how and what to do?

Disagree. If it were that simple then this would also be the clear and direct counsel of our leaders. I can see what you're saying as an ideal. But if I were to simply willingly dump all my assets to take care of the poor, where would it leave me as far as the rest of my life and my ability to serve and do God's will? Certainly to feed the hungry and clothe the naked is a part of the gospel and part of becoming Zion. To imply that it's the end-all of it and the core path to getting there is an oversimplification.

No. You said that Siths and Pharisees deal in absolutes. Clearly Christ also dealt in absolutes. Clearly many others beyond the wicked, fictional Sith and the wicked, historical Pharisee deal in absolutes too, including many good men, and including Christ himself. Including Hitler and including Captain Moroni. Including Korihor and including all of the Nephis. I am simply pointing out that your effort to vilify "absolutes" as if they're only utilized by the wicked is malarkey. My point is that there is a war going on, and there are lines drawn, and we either join one side or we join the other. My point is that absolutes are at the core of the war, and which absolute we stand behind defines which side we have chosen. As to the promptings of the Spirit and following it...guess what...that's also an absolute! (Oh wicked despicable absolute!! *fist shake*) If the Spirit says to do something, then it's right. Period. I'm not sure you'll find any LDS person who disagrees with that. But using "I don't feel like going on a mission" to mean "the Spirit prompted me" is nonsense, plain and simple. And I believe it's been stated on here, and I tend to agree, that the Spirit isn't about to dissuade a healthy, young, capable male from going on a mission. The idea's sort of laughable, actually. Since when does intellectually easy or hard have anything to do with morality whatsoever? I don't recall any scripture, teaching, or otherwise that sets up the intellectual easy way as mistaken? There is one correct path and one incorrect path. The correct path is ALWAYS obedience. The incorrect path is ALWAYS disobedience. And discernment never allows for disobedience, and the Lord never can, never will, and never has justified disobedience. Ever. It is to be understood, of course, that obedience is to the Lord, and not to the letter of any given law. Hence, if the Lord commands (by the Spirit or otherwise) then obey and you are justified, because it is obedience even if the letter of the law states otherwise. (As we see in examples of Nephi slaying Laban and the like). And, of course the Lord forgives disobedience upon repentance, which some people seem to conflate with justification of such. Can one repent of disobedience? Of course. Can one humble oneself and change? Yes. Can one be in good standing with the Lord in spite of past mistakes? Yes - of course. Does any of that justify disobedience? No. Why can people not understand that having a temple recommend is not the end all of righteousness? This seems so obvious, and yet so unclear to so many. There are literally hundreds (if not thousands) of sins one could list that would not cause someone to lose their temple recommend. Does that justify any of them? Can the Lord accept any of those sins? Does one have no need of repentance for them because they have a temple recommend? Of course not going on a mission, in and of itself, is not a sin. Obviously, and clearly, there are valid reasons to not go. The sins involved in not going are related to the reasons why one isn't going. I'm fairly sure no one would think twice about someone for not going on a mission if they were unable to due to health, military obligation, etc. And, in point of fact, you are correct that no one should judge another for going or not going. But what you're conflating is the counsel and exhortation to prepare and go with judgment for not going. Some do judge others for not going. And we should, even if we're correct in our assumptions about the reasons for not going being a mistake, forgive instead. But we should also continue to exhort and counsel. I honestly cannot fathom why anyone would have a problem with others rigidly refusing to watch any movie rated R by the MPAA. The straw man is the whole -- men who fail to go on missions aren't "Mormon enough" -- thing. We did not say that, nor anything like unto it, and to infer that it was said, or was implied in any way is false. Whether that falsehood was intentional or not was not part of my accusation. I have no idea if you are intentionally dishonest. I would presume (and sincerely hope) not.

Well that's an easy trick. It "sounds" that way. What a great way to get out of ever having anyone tell you what you should or should not do with your life, what is or is not right or wrong, or what matter of men ye ought to be. That may suit many people's sense of "leave me alone", "none of your business", "it's my own life", etc., but it certainly isn't in line with the mandate to exhort, preach, and declare repentance to this generation. Regardless, you can apply any interpretation to anything you want said by anyone. That doesn't legitimize the straw man.