The Folk Prophet

I had a registered sex offender attending a ward I was in once. I was, frankly, astounded at the lack of Christianity, forgiveness, and love that most of the ward displayed toward this man. There is a balance to be found, of course. You wouldn't, of course, have such a man babysit for you. You would, of course, take precautions about where and when children go, etc. But when the man is at church, helping with service projects, etc., you forgive, you love, your forget, etc., It is a tough balance and one that takes great wisdom and spiritual guidance, methinks. But like I said, I was amazed at how many people just treated him as a write-off, shunned him entirely, and spent a great deal of time posting nasty things on Facebook (the devil's playground) about him. Not sure this is applicable to the OP. Just sharing thoughts.

I inserted really foul language and now I'm offended.

In this you are not alone. But not in things that are non-doctrinal. The very nature of continuing revelation allows for such. We accept, as a general rule, that if the leaders in later generations discontinue a teaching of some sort or another that there is cause for it. As I am sure you accept, this church is led by God, and what is taught is what God wills to be taught. Reasonably speaking, if something is no longer taught it is either unimportant or invalid. And there is no particular reason to argue that said teaching is important or valid against this. That, I believe, is the only "contention" we have on the matter -- that somehow disregarding this idea is mistaken because it's important, and that the disregarding of it is somehow betraying our early leaders (like how I feel about those who now try and claim that the priesthood ban was not inspired and all about prejudice). There are many, many things, I reiterate, that the early leaders taught that are not valid doctrinally, have either been disregarded, refuted, or simply updated, and there is no implication that our early leaders' mistakes render the rest of what they said or who they were less valid. I do not believe in, nor am I engaging in, disregarding a theory because it doesn't suit my personal tastes. I am not justifying anything or otherwise carrying some agenda concerning our past leaders' reliability. You are, perhaps, responding defensively because of others who have done these things -- and that is surely understandable. If you knew me better you would understand that there is, hardly, a more fierce defender in these forums of our prophets and apostles and the doctrines, teachings, and principles of this church. But to come in with any given non-doctrinal, non-taught, non-commonly-understood quote from early leaders and to proclaim such as a concrete is just as potentially harmful as throwing their quotes away because we simply disagree with them for personal, emotional reasons. Others have used early quotes from church leaders the same way you have, with the same arguments you give, to actually go so far as to promote false ideologies and principles. And it is, simply, not as black and white as you make it out to be in your honorable vigor to defend our early leaders, and to paint it as if it is black and white is not sustainable as a theory. As to this specific theory, perhaps you have read into my points of debate that I do not believe our early leaders' comments on the matter. This is incorrect. I am, I would say, more neutral on the matter. And, frankly, I feel that anyone who takes an opinion that is beyond some level of neutrality in it is, to an extent, looking beyond the mark.

Average Joe, you are using these concepts unfairly. We have been given clear direction in our times as to what sorts of teachings are to be accepted as doctrinal and which are not. And any quote given in the past that is not preached as doctrine in our current time we are not beholden to in any degree. You will not find me disagree with things that past prophets and apostles have said that are currently taught and believed in the church (even if they are not "canonized" ideas, like God once being a man or the like) but there are, without question, a myriad of ideas that were taught in the early church that are non-doctrinal, and not taught in any degree by the brethren in our days. Jesus being married squarely falls into the latter. I do not reject the idea. It has not been refuted as false by modern leaders. But it is not doctrinal by any stretch of the word.

This part of your response, incidentally, is also sort of missing the point of mine, and reading a lot into what I'm saying, so let me clarify this further as well. Mine was a basic logic response. The Book of Mormon explains what Isaiah meant when he spoke of Christ's seed. That does not mean there might not be other meaning to it, but what it DOES mean is that the Isaiah verse is not a proof text for Christ having been married and having had children.

I believe my post began with the words, "Not saying it's out of the realm of possible...", which means your translation of my post to be throwing them under the bus is, for the most part unfair. So let me state it a bit less flippantly so you don't react, hopefully, as defensively. Orson Pratt's interpretation of the matter may have been valid, but it is also quite likely that he was off course on this one, and I don't think it is valid to take the quote from him as the matter settled.

Haha. Yeah...well...thank you for the appropriate reprimand on the matter. I certainly don't consider either of them crackpot, and actually believe that most of what we consider "crackpot" from President Young is likely misunderstood, misquoted, misetc... Orson did have some "out there" theories. But due respect owed. So I apologize.

I don't read any implication in His statement that coming to a conclusion about this matter is of any importance whatsoever. I did infer such from your comment. We may, indeed, come to a unified conclusion someday when and if archaeology reveals enough of the matter. That doesn't translate to any requirement or "hope" that we need study the matter, or concern ourselves with it one whit. Other than the broad strokes (a la, it was the American continent), and a genuine curiosity, I don't consider a knowledge of where the Nephites and Lamanties actually lived important to any degree, nor do I feel compelled to seek such learning by study or faith, nor do I feel it necessary or appropriate to exhort others to do so. But perhaps I read too much into your comment. Incidentally, I have quite appreciated your other posts and insights here in this thread...lest you think I'm just being contrary.

Not saying it's out of the realm of possible...but it's also the case that Orson Pratt made practically as many crackpot statements as did Brigham Young :) and one needs take quotes from him with, perhaps, and even bigger grain of salt than BY, as per their relative status in the hiearchy. Clearly, and OBVIOUSLY, the Isaiah quote is speaking of Jesus' heirs, as in His followers, as in the explanation that is plainly given in the Book of Mormon in Mosiah 15: 10 And now I say unto you, who shall declare his generation? Behold, I say unto you, that when his soul has been made an offering for sin he shall see his seed. And now what say ye? And who shall be his seed? 11 Behold I say unto you, that whosoever has heard the words of the prophets, yea, all the holy prophets who have prophesied concerning the coming of the Lord—I say unto you, that all those who have hearkened unto their words, and believed that the Lord would redeem his people, and have looked forward to that day for a remission of their sins, I say unto you, that these are his seed, or they are the heirs of the kingdom of God. 12 For these are they whose sins he has borne; these are they for whom he has died, to redeem them from their transgressions. And now, are they not his seed?

Why?

Really? I'm curious where the King James version states that Jesus had children.

Which Bible are people getting this from?

No one is capable of discussing literature or no one cares about discussing it? Very different.

I LOVE this! https://youtu.be/YAuqdPWTGLI

I don't know about men being mistreated (obviously some men are..but as a group....?)...but as to social media....my basic opinion is that Facebook is evil and nothing good comes of it. Or at least any slight good that may come of it is so overshadowed by the evil that it should be, for all intents and purposes, shunned.

Not to take too much away from your story Capitalist_Oinker, which I believe has merit...however...I grew up without video games and my toys and action figures and whatnot still killed each other (of course that was likely more the fault of Star Wars and the like). But really, my point...boys will be boys.

Fun. Quite compelling.

Just out of curiosity, what sort of consequence would you not be able to just "deal with"?

Homosexuality and all explanations, justifications, grievances, and motivations surrounding it are perpetuation of a root lie. It is, flatly, a counterfeit of Satan. And all the twisting in the wind one wants cannot take away from this plain fact. Homosexuality stems from the natural man and therefore any engagement therein, and I mean ANY, makes one an enemy to God. When people buy into this core lie, then all the outlying descriptions of experience, thought and feeling become a half truth at best. This is how most of your posts read to me Soulsearcher. I do not doubt your sincerity or claim you are intentionally misleading. But the argument, at it's very most core, is based on falseness, and ergo, nothing that stems from this falsehood rings quite fully true. Of course, those who have bought into this cannot see it. And I do not expect you to see it. But wickedness never was happiness, and never will be. Should anyone beat a kid up for a friend mentioning the word "gay" (assuming we take your second hand report at face value)? Of course not. Does that mean if this didn't happen, all his friends and family gladly accepted his homosexuality, and that there were no ramifications of judgment or even perceived judgement whatsoever in all the world, that this kid would then be happy in it? No! Of course that doesn't justify vicious hateful behavior. And it never will. But the existence of fringe lack-of-Christianity does not diminish the value and truth of correct, righteous Christianity. It's as if you expect us to believe that without the father's violence the kid wouldn't be touching the drugs and alcohol and everything would be right in his life. As to the "experimenting" idea, you're twisting things to suit an argument. It's been fairly well concluded and accepted that marrying straight to get over the gay is a wrong-headed idea. What we as Christians, and specifically as LDS, are asking everyone, including gays, to experiment upon is righteousness. It is our contention that there is only one path to joy and happiness, and that path is to follow in the footsteps of our Savior and the words He taught and teaches through apostles and prophets. We advocate experimenting upon this -- namely by obedience -- and contend that only in doing so will one become as one should become, and be what one must be. We advocate that obedience will change people's hearts, souls, minds and very beings. We advocate that such "experimentation" will lead to joy, and all other acts, experimental or not, will lead to sorrow. I reiterate: Anything beyond the truths of Christ and His gospel is a perpetuation of a lie. This is a prime example of the only-partial-truth of your posts. This is a small part of the big story, and the fringe extremists on both sides, while perhaps adding fuel to the fire, do not typically drive the overall path of politics. What does happen is the fringe happenings are being exaggerated, blown out of proportion, used as tent poles in the political arena, and made to be seen as mainstream instead of fringe. Moreover, repeating again, homosexuality and all who sustain and support it against the honest exercise of religious liberty are standing with the devil's kingdom against God and perpetuating falsehood. The fact that some few on the side of God's kingdom are mistaken in their approach and tactics does not validate the lie of the other side or justify war against the liberties of all to worship, believe, speak, and act according to their free conscience.

Well there's yer problem. They'll do that when you try and wear them under short-shorts with a tank top. What do you consider judgment? How about... If you make sacred covenants and then do not keep them, you will lose that which has been covenanted with you in return. Too judgmental? If it's too hot in Florida then...you know...move to Alaska or something. What's really important to you anyhow? Eternal perspective. Matthew 5:29-30 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mathematically, person 1 is wrong.

But I did not include practical advice by way of, "sit down and talk to him about what you're trying to accomplish" sort of comments. This, of course, is unique to each relationship and therefor it is best to follow the Spirit and wisdom in how one approaches such things. Still, the practical advice may be what she is looking for, rather than the broad ideal. One thing I can practically recommend. This: ...is not the right course. DO NOT CAVE! :)

You can't force someone to be spiritual. How do we influence others to be spiritual? From D&C 121 Persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, love unfeigned, kindness, pure knowledge, without hypocrisy, without guile, full of charity and virtue.

Since when is guilt force? Hmm. Is it the disapproval of homosexuality or, just maybe, the use of drugs and alcohol that seems the more likely culprit?

I'm so tempted to introduce a discussion of plural marriage into this thread..but I won't... ...oh....whoops!