The Folk Prophet

I wonder about this. Would we not suppose that demonic spirits are just itching for such an invitation. When given, would we not suppose that they would, at some level, be involved? I'm not saying that the engagement is them moving the pencil. I would be dollars to donuts that it can (and probably will) be explained from a physics standpoint. But that doesn't mean said spirits are not gleefully involved at some level, and reveling in the invitation and opportunity to influence young minds. Point of interest. The LDS teaching is that a third of the hosts of heaven were cast down to earth and are the evil spirits. Depending on who you talk to (though I wonder why some make this argument...) the scripture actually says a "third part", and may not mean an actual 1/3rd percentage. I'm a traditionalist though...so we'll go with 1/3rd of all of God's spirit children. If we take all the people who ever lived -- even leaving out those who have yet to live -- and take that estimate (around 107 billion) and cut it in half to get the other third (53 bill) -- that means something like 7-8 evil spirits per person.

Unless you're claiming that it is conflating things to claim that "the church of the Lamb of God" equates to the LDS church or that "the saints of God" equates to the Latter-day Saints, then I'm not sure how the meanings of "the Kingdom of God" and "Zion" parts play into the debate. We're discussing the meaning of 1 Nephi 14:12, after all. I feel quite certain we are not beholden to the aborted Council of Fifty, implicit therein being the potential idea that it was not the Lord's intent for things to be organized that way. I'm also not sure the debate is important. But as for me, I believe the Kingdom of God and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to be one and the same. Here's Ezra T. Benson: "I bear humble witness that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the restored kingdom of God on earth today." Bruce R. McConkie: "They receive the keys of the kingdom by virtue of which they are empowered to organize, preside over, govern, and regulate the kingdom of God on earth, which is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." James E Faust: "The authority and power to direct all of the labors of the kingdom of God on earth constitute the keys of the priesthood. Those who possess them have the right to preside over and direct the affairs of the Church in their jurisdiction." Joseph Fielding Smith "We also hold the keys of the kingdom of God on earth, which kingdom is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Richard G Scott "He [Pres. Hinkley] has borne witness that he is not the head of this Church. That head is our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ the Redeemer. He guides it. He has given His life that even in our weakness, we may overcome our mistakes through repentance and obedience to His gospel. Oh, what a favored people we are to have this light, this knowledge, these opportunities for happiness on earth and throughout the eternities. May we commit to share a knowledge of this magnificent work, personally or through missionaries, with our friends and neighbors that they may join this kingdom of God on earth, and receive the consummate, eternal blessings available to them." Etc. Etc. Etc.... It is quite clear that more recent prophets and apostle "conflate" the Kingdom of God with the Church itself, regardless of any obscure statements or theories about what the Council of Fifty was or was not. As to Zion...well that's a different matter, as Zion doesn't exactly exist yet, and really refers more to a state of existence and character of a people than it does to a formal organization.

What kind of "faithful" man misses church in the name of "sin"? If he is/was truly faithful, is it not logical to presume that for whatever reason he missed church, it wasn't sinful? Would one who is truly converted to the gospel, truly loves the Lord, and is truly "faithful" and dedicated to these things just blow off church? Or are we to presume that because he made a choice to prioritize something else those two weeks that it was the wrong choice (meaning we are judging him)? As to the OP: Do spirits have lusts of the flesh? Do spirits have food or sex cravings?

Those throwing the term about are too complaining about righteousness -- that they interpret as legalism and smugness. And no one would use such a term to gently correct another -- because name calling is not gentle. Sure, I could see a friend using the term teasingly to do so. But in most cases, I believe, it is used in derogatory manner, and pretty much ironically places the accuser as the holier-than-thou ("I'm better than you because I'm not Peter Priesthood") one.

I'm sure you're familiar with the axiom, two wrongs don't make a right.

I agree. I am proud of being one who would be called such. That doesn't mean calling me such isn't offensive. :)

You forget about all the children who died before the age of 8.

From my experience, this is not what the terms are used for, generally (though, of course, I'm sure such a scenario has happened). If someone is claiming Coke is against the Word of Wisdom, they're wrong. Just, plain, wrong. My sense is the terms are more equivalent to calling someone goody two-shoes, goody-goody, puritan, or the like. Peter Priesthood is the guy who won't go to the R-rated movies with his friends. Molly Mormon is the girl who quits the ballroom dance team because the outfits are too immodest (my sister did just this). They are the ones who people judge as self-righteous because they maintain strict standards in spite of peer pressures and what's "cool". They are the ones called frigid, uptight, or prudish. Edit: Keep in mind. I graduated high-school in 1989...and other than the forums here, have not heard the terms since. So maybe the usage has changed. Based on the stand way people tend to view those who are principled, I think the usages is the same. But, regardless...even if you're right...is it Christian to name call someone who mistakenly thinks that Coke is against the Word of Wisdom? Is it not still unkind. Is it not still judgmental? Does the person's imperfection justify doing so? Methinks not so. Edit again: Alter your scenario to be the girl or boy who simply chooses the refrain from drinking Coke in the "spirit of the law" and call them Peter Priesthood/Molly Mormon and you're more on the mark, imo.

Clearly you did not go to high school in Utah Valley in the 80s.

Incidentally, my experience (which is from many, many years back) is that these terms are what the cussing, smoking, "cool" kids called the seminary going, modest, "good" kids. It had nothing to do with self-righteousness.

In my view Molly Mormon and Peter Priesthood are derogatory ways to label and judge. They amount to childish name-calling and the shaming of others in an effort to coerce them. Even if, legitimately, those we believe to be self-righteous are so, is it our place to judge them as such? Moreso, in my experience, most instances of calling others self-righteous amount to attempts to justify wickedness.

I wonder if there's anything along the lines of worrying about the accuracy of the complete thing -- of course, perhaps the original documents are all available, so that may have no bearing.

Per JaGs indication: https://deseretbook.com/p/complete-joseph-smith-translation-new-testament-thomas-wayment-32822 and https://deseretbook.com/p/new-testament-joseph-smith-translation-steven-j-hite-69547

Bigger and better than Joseph Smith's inspired translations? :)

I wonder why the church doesn't option and publish the JST in full. I understand not making it part of the official Standard Works, particularly in light of missionary efforts (I remember being proselyted by some Jehovah's Witnesses and scoffing at their version of the Bible and how they changed things to suit their doctrine, etc.) But it would still be cool to have -- particularly with the same cross-references, etc., as the Standard Works publication.

Totally off topic, but does anyone else find the usage of this phrase offensive?

Awesome! Did your ward win the brawl? Edit: More importantly, did you dance fight like in West Side Story?

I get a wee bit squeamish about the idea. Certainly the part that not all members of the LDS church qualify works for me. But I find the "loyalty" only thing a bit too broad. The scriptures are fairly clear on the way one enters into God's kingdom. And loyalty alone is not that way.

Certainly one cannot murder if they're the only one on the earth. And stealing is out. But even just looking at the other ten commandments could they not still have other gods before God? Could they not still make graven images? Could they not still take the name of the Lord in vain? Could they not still fail to keep the Sabbath day holy? Could they not still dishonor their father and mother in spirit (surely you don't believe that orphans cannot break this commandment)? Could they not still lie to themselves and to God? Could they not still covet -- even if it was only for things they didn't have access to? I find the idea that the commandments are only connected with our brothers and sisters decidedly short sighted. Edit: I meant to address adultery separately and forgot. I think in the letter of the law, obviously...more than one person is required. I think in the spirit of the law...and the teachings from Jesus (he that looketh to lust...) and the implications therein that one may still break the law of chastity in spirit despite being alone.

The everlasting covenant is not marriage. Marriage is an order of that covenant -- the highest order. The covenant is the gospel, and all the ordinances therein -- beginning with baptism. But it does lead to the question, can one reject a portion of the covenant without rejecting the whole? I'll take baptism but no thanks on the gift of the Holy Ghost....etc...? The idea that those who are righteous otherwise but choose (through distinct and conscious choice) to reject the marriage covenant will qualify for the lower levels of the Celestial kingdom has never made much sense to me.

There's a billboard in Orem or Provo (can't remember for sure) along I-15 that reads something like. THE BIBLE. INSPIRED. AUTHORITATIVE. FINAL. And when saw it the first time in good ol' happy Utah Valley, I couldn't help but think to myself: "Know your audience, people."

richard7900, Let me address this from the interaction you and I have had -- whereas I cannot speak for others fairly. So here's my perspective: You raised a question: Are friends necessary to our success? I responded to this point and this point alone, trying to legitimately address the issue -- and to point out that, like many gospel ideas, sometimes the approach is backwards -- along the lines of losing oneself to find oneself. I used the word "problem" distinctly referring to the question itself. The question, I suggest, is perhaps backward in that it starts from a premise of improving ourselves rather than from a premise of losing ourselves and being concerned with others. If any speculation was involved, it was concerning this premise. You misread this and presume I'm speculation on your personal failures. Fine...I can see that you're reading my post wrong. So I clarify. Up to this point, things are fine. I made a point -- you misread it -- I explain. Here's where things go downhill: Defensive. Chip on shoulder. "Nuh-uh, you said..." Etc. Determined that, despite my clarification, I meant it the way you read it rather than believing my clarification. Determined to be antagonistic even with my having, point-blank, told you that I was not speculating on your specific failure. At this point, communication is dead. Over. Useless. And any interest I have in actually discussing the topic at hand is gone, because all you really seem to care about is proving that you're being put upon. But let me answer this directly (though I'm sure you won't believe me.) I am not alluding to your specific failures. And yes, when I explain this, I fully expect "everyone" to believe that that it is not an attempt to speculate as to the cause of any failures you may have. It makes me (and I presume others) feel set up. You come in and say "I am rather a failure. Should I use friends to succeed?" And someone says, (as I did), we should seek friends, but be concerned with their success rather than ours (please note: this is precisely what I suggested). And you come back with, "How dare you allude to my failures!?" What!? I'm talking about success. I'm talking about the means to success. I'm talking about principles of success. I'm discussing the theories and ideas behind success. I'm talking about what success actually means and what's actually important in life. I'm addressing the topic from an eternal perspective. Ah, TFP, how interesting. Right? No, of course not. I'm just speculating on why you're a failure, whatever that means, because, frankly, I don't believe you're an end-all failure, and were I actually speculating I would speculate that you're life is fine and you're probably dealing with some sort of temporary setback that's making you feel like a failure. Uh-oh...now I did speculate on your failures. Whoops. Now I really put my foot in it. But what they hey. I've already had the reprimand. I might as well deserve it. I'm not sure why I've allowed myself to continue to be drawn into this childish argument with you. I'm repenting of it. I will not engage in this discussion any more. I do hope you understand me, but I expect not. C'est la vie.

What do you expect when your responses to everyone's advice is contentious, accusatory, and frankly rude? You come in here asking for thoughts...we give them...and you lambaste us. Yeah...that pretty much puts you on one side and "we" on the other very quickly. Anything you don't agree with is speculation and a direct attack on you? It's really sort of ridiculous. Even if some were speculating on the reasons for your failure (which is more you reading into the comments than what some have actually said), so what? Kindly correct the misunderstanding and show respect for the efforts to share helpful thoughts. Then we'd be getting somewhere. As it is, mostly, it seems you don't want to discuss anything on any terms but yours. You're determined to take offense where none was intended, and you've pretty much caused the entirety of the antagonism. Consequently, you get no further thoughts, no other philosophies, no expansion of ideas, or anything else of use to anyone. You just keep "fighting" with your back uselessly against the wall.

What? I haven't posted in this thread! :)

I think you're perhaps conflating my responses with bytor's somewhat. I have no qualms with the fact that Josh Weed is gay, by definition. I do tend to agree that it's a mistake for him to proclaim it to the world, shout it from the rooftops, so-to-speak, and self define as such as a primary variable of who he is. But I have no doubt that he is sexually attracted to people of the same sex -- the definition of "gay".