The Folk Prophet

Oh if only it were that simple.

Sure what we think matters, because what we think we teach to our children (not to mention to our fellow-man). But this is not the end-all of our job.

Then how do you reconcile: "Home teaching is not just an assignment. It is a sacred calling. Home teaching is not to be undertaken casually. A home teaching call is to be accepted as if extended to you personally by the Lord Jesus Christ." -- with -- "I personally do not think that our eternal salvation hinges on whether or not we did our home teaching." Or in other words, your opinion seems to be that one could reject a calling given them personally by Christ and it would have no bearing on their potential salvation? I gotta say, I'm a bit baffled by your sense of logic on some of these matters. As to the rest of your post, I'm really not interested in hashing over the debate "what is doctrine" again. You can take it up with char713 if she is so willing.

This is a pretty severe straw man, as being "Mormon enough" isn't really what the discussion is at all.

And Christ.

Is the question fair? It presumes one can exist without the other. Can one be united in covenant while teaching false doctrine? Moreover, is not doctrine, at it's core, covenant? Can we keep covenants without knowing and understanding them?

President Ezra Taft Benson taught: “I feel impressed to speak to you about a priesthood program that has been inspired from its inception—a program that touches hearts, that changes lives, and that saves souls; a program that has the stamp of approval of our Father in Heaven; a program so vital that, if faithfully followed, it will help to spiritually renew the Church and exalt its individual members and families. ”I am speaking about priesthood home teaching. With all my heart, I pray that you will understand, by the Spirit, exactly my feelings about home teaching. “Brethren, home teaching is not just another program. It is the priesthood way of watching over the Saints and accomplishing the mission of the Church. Home teaching is not just an assignment. It is a sacred calling. ”Home teaching is not to be undertaken casually. A home teaching call is to be accepted as if extended to you personally by the Lord Jesus Christ. “The Savior Himself was a teacher. The only perfect man to walk the face of the earth was a humble, dedicated, inspired teacher who brought to His followers salvation and exaltation. ”Oh, that all the brethren of the Church would catch that vision of home teaching! “Tonight I am not teaching new doctrine, but I am reaffirming old doctrine. Quoting from section 20 of the Doctrine and Covenants, revealed to the Prophet Joseph in April of 1830, the Lord declared to the priesthood: ” 'Watch over the church always, and be with and strengthen them; “ 'And see that there is no iniquity in the church. ” 'And see that the church meet together often, and also see that all the members do their duty' (D&C 20:53-55). “ 'And visit the house of each member, exhorting them to pray vocally and in secret and attend to all family duties' (D&C 20:51). ”Brethren, that is priesthood home teaching“ (”To the Home Teachers of the Church,“ Ensign, May 1987, 48-49). I'm not sure how someone can merely claim that our lack of unity comes down to nothing more than interpretation or opinions differing when they are blatantly disregarding the teachings of prophets.

Well...to be fair, the scriptures advocate one heart, one mind, etc... How do we overcome this barrier. Honestly? Legitimately? We turn to Christ and His gospel as directed by His chosen servants and we humble ourselves. Really, I think humility is the key. The cause of disharmony is, inevitably, pride. The "doctrines", "teachings", "counsel", or whatever you want to call them are not ambiguous. Many simply choose to disregard, write-off, explain away, or otherwise wrest with principles and ideas they don't like or that have become unpopular. They choose to declare church leaders out of touch rather than humbly admitting that truth, morality, and right is not relative and does not change as society supposedly becomes more enlightened. My opinion is that there only one way to become one, and it is plain in the scriptures. John 17:11-23 11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. 12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled. 13 And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil. 16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. 18 As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world. 19 And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. It is plain to me that becoming one is not about compromise. It is about holding fast to truth and persuading others to come to and attach themselves to the same truth. The command given to be of one heart and one mind was to agree with Christ, and His gospel, not to compromise these truths so we can all just get along. However, where I struggle, is like Vort, how to hold true to gospel truths when others are (using an apparently offensive term again here) pernicious in their exclamations against them, and still maintain the command to have no dissensions. And contrary to what some believe, I think think this is a different issue than kindness. Kindness and civility are important in their own right, and we should all (yes, including, very obviously, myself) strive to improve on these things. But kind dissension is still dissension. And therein am I left somewhat confounded.

Why don't you answer omega's question and get into it with him and then your should gain some perspective on why I'm responding the way I am. At it's core, I don't disagree with you. But there are those who would use strict definitions of such things to downplay the importance of certain ideas. My point -- does it matter if (for example) home teaching is "doctrine" or not?

It strikes me that you're being intentionally obtuse in this, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Clearly the response should be to continue to minister to your future child and persuade them through the proper methods (a la D&C 121) to become LDS and to gain a testimony of doing their duty. No one is saying that someone should be forced to go on a mission unwillingly. What we are saying is that every young man should be taught that he ought to desire to go, ought to feel obligated by his duty to his priesthood to go, ought to feel compelled by his love of the Lord and willingness to do whatever has been asked of him, etc.

More from Monson on Duty: "Brethren of the Aaronic Priesthood, whether deacon, teacher, or priest, learn your duty. Brethren of the Melchizedek Priesthood, learn your duty." "The priesthood is not really so much a gift as it is a commission to serve, a privilege to lift, and an opportunity to bless the lives of others." And from George Q Cannon (in the same Monson talk): “I want to see the power of the Priesthood strengthened. … I want to see this strength and power diffused through the entire body of the Priesthood, reaching from the head down to the least and most humble deacon in the Church. Every man should seek for and enjoy the revelations of God, the light of heaven shining in his soul and giving unto him knowledge concerning his duties, concerning that portion of the work of God that devolves upon him in his Priesthood.”

I'll quote President Monson: "Do your duty, that is best. Leave unto the Lord the rest." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2005/10/do-your-duty-that-is-best?lang=eng

Fair enough. I also apologize for what I now also see could easily have been taken as rude, though I only meant for it to be a conversation point...as in -- do we really disagree or does one misunderstand/is mis-communicating.

Because we've had this discussion and it went nowhere before and it will go nowhere again, and you already know what I'll say (unless you've forgotten the discussion from...what...a month back) and I already know what you'll say. And none of it is of any use, because defining what is an is not doctrine IS NOT IMPORTANT.

I'm disinclined to have any further discussion with you if you see me as so uncivil. If you don't disagree, clarify what you meant instead of calling me condescending, and implying falsely that the way you are reading (I believe misreading) my tone and intent show that I'm somehow to blame for lack of unity. Do you realize how condescending this response is? It cuts both ways you know? Why can you and others be hurtful and rude, but it's all TFP's fault that there's conflict?

Which should be every young LDS male. What's so complicated about that?

We are?

No thank you.

pkstpaul, Why does this need to turn into personal criticism and accusation? Have you noticed that every time you post something to me it's mean? It's interesting that you can't seem to show kindness and understanding to me even though you're constantly lecturing me on these subjects.

Perhaps. But uniting in a principle as given by God through our leaders isn't the same thing. We don't have to understand or even believe fully in any given principle to support it. I don't think that when Christ commanded unity in the church he meant that we must agree on politics - just the same as he doesn't much care if we prefer Chevy or Ford. And that's about the importance that a lot of politics has in the eternal scheme of things, after all. Specifically, in 3rd Nephi, he was speaking of the disputation over the manner of baptism, right? I'm not sure taking different political stances (on most matters) really comes into play as to my concern. Politics can, of course, come into play when morality is part of it. So I accept it's complicated. Certainly though I can't understand how anyone could feel comfortable taking a stand opposite to a political issue that the church has taken a clear and decisive stand on. Which goes to show that you don't know me as well as you think you do. Hmm. Maybe you should stop pigeon-holing me into some garish caricature you've apparently imagined up. This is a different discussion, but rather to the point. Mercy and justice are not opposites. Mercy must ALWAYS work within justice, and ALWAYS defer to justice. There is no choosing between the two. God implemented the plan of salvation because it is perfectly just, and allowing for mercy was part of that. God is perfectly just -- always, even when applying mercy. And if God did not find a way to apply mercy, He would not be perfectly just, which He is and always will be. The fact that you seem to think that there is ever a choice between the two simply means you have more to learn on the matter.

Question for all: Does the fallibility of our leaders somehow justify the lack of unity? Or, rather, in spite of "mistakes" should we not be unified in following them? Is it justified, as some seem to think, to rail against them and the very idea of "follow the prophet" because of their mortal weaknesses, or does their calling, position, and authority mean that we should get in step, toe the line, they say jump we ask how high, etc., regardless of our personal feelings on any given matter?

Why not?

Did you just state casually that you can't wait for our prophets and apostles to die?

Kidding aside, perhaps it's valid to say, rather: Just agree with Christ and His mouthpieces on every discussion and we'll have unity.

I didn't say that scripture was in context. I said I pasted a generic list and not everything was going to be relative. I suppose that depends on how one defines "insults". Certainly certain appropriate communication is still "insulting" to some. There are, in fact, some who will be insulted no matter what is said because they are determined to be insulted. But the goal, imo, is not to reach agreement through compromise. The goal is to reach agreement through truth. And the only way to do this is for all to accept truth. The only way for this to happen is through Christ and the Holy Spirit.