The Folk Prophet

The two things every patriarchal blessing is supposed to contain is lineage and a blessing to come forth in the morning of the first resurrection.

As Latter-day Saints we are asking every person who ever lived to give themselves up entirely. That being said, I simply disagree with the validity of this idea by way of an implication of anything "good" being given up.

I wish I could double-like this post.

I'd claim understatement, throw out "duh" and "no kidding" sort of sarcastic remarks, and generally point out the obviousness of this thought but, sadly, in today's blinded-by-the-mists-of-darkness world, this, for some unfathomable reason, is apparently not obvious at all.

This and the bishop as "judge in Israel" has the authority and right to determine if disciplinary action is requisite or not. But disciplinary action isn't something to be afraid of if one is ready to repent. If it's necessary then it will help in the repentance process (with sincerity and humility).

I don't find the "constitutional" talk very compelling. So what if it is or is not constitutional? The constitution doesn't define right and wrong, good and bad. If we were to find a constitutional loophole that allowed for the free massacre of a people would we simply support it because it's "constitutional"? Of course not. I am supportive of the constitution. But when the laws of the land start using the constitution to justify things that should not be justified, I'm not going to just tag along all hunky-dory because it's been declared "constitutional".

As I said. I think not.

I've always thought of it as per the "foundation of" idea. Faith is the foundation of things hoped for. Or...in other words...the reason we hope. That actually makes it fairly simple (and, of course, not simple at all), in that if you have no faith in something, how can you possibly have hope in it? Faith gives us reason to hope. If we have no faith in heaven do we hope for heaven? Of course not. Faith leads to hope. Faith in God leads us to trust that God can and will save us. Hence, we hope for salvation. No faith = no hope for salvation.

The question isn't whether anyone is being discriminated against. They are. Just as a person with no money may not walk out of a store with a loaf of bread, whereas a person with money may walk our (in exchange for said money). The person without money is being discriminated against. The "discrimination is always bad" ideology is false. The question is not, nor should it ever be, whether there is discrimination in who can and cannot marry. There is. The question is whether that discrimination is right or wrong. The -- it's discrimination so it's wrong -- argument is a simpleton's lie used to further agendas.

The implication that you believe that the beings who became sons and daughters of God are the same type of beings as became plants and cats? I think not.

Seems like what you're missing is the idea that any state we end up in after mortality is progression from where we were. At the least, we have gained our physical bodies. Another point, I think maybe missing, is that we chose a plan of justice. How could anyone legitimately content against justice? Absolute, pure, concrete fairness. I also think that the idea that most are bound to fail denies agency. The truth is that there is no reason whatsoever that every single one of God's children could not legitimately be exalted if they so chose. There was never any guarantee of failure whatsoever.

We know what Satan's "plan" entailed at the broadest level. That is to take away our agency. Traditionally this has been interpreted as taking away our choice, as most people understand agency as nothing more than free will. But this is not what agency is. Agency is choice AND accountability. And it strikes me that a proposal to take away choice might have appealed to some, but taking away accountability would have appealed to a great many. In short, what Satan may well have been trying to sell is that he, if chosen, would take away consequences and just save everyone. Sounds about like the same thing he's still trying to sell the world now, doesn't it? And it seems to appeal to the vast majority, does it not?

Was going to weigh in...but Vort and Finrock said what I would have...so the rest is re-hash. Satan's "plan" was a lie and would never exalt. There was not choice between two options to exaltation. There was a way to gain exaltation, and a way to not. The only choice we made was in whether we understood and trusted in our Father, or believed the lies that there was a better way. And that challenge is the same war we fight now. The same choices, the same challenges, the same half-truths, mingled-with-scriptures, it's-all-about-love, true-love-would-save-everybody, no-one-should-be-punished-for-who-they-are, LIES are the same that Satan has used from the beginning. He is a liar.

I would say the exact same thing about homosexuality -- except for replace theocratic with secular.

Depends on your point of view. Read this thread, for example. A doozey of a debate on the matter. (I think it really gets into it on page 9 or 10). The fact is, yes, there are quotes that imply (depending on the reading of specific words like "absolute", as in the quote from BH Roberts: "The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone.These would include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and are the only sources of absolute appeal for our doctrine.") The problem, of course, is that other quotes confirm other meanings of the word "doctrine", and also, if you're going to confide doctrine to the standard works by way of quote that is not in the standard works, then the quote itself is susceptible to being non-doctrinal.

So what? If it's consensual it's consensual. Isn't that the catch-concept of the day. Consenting adults?

Would not the best way to "nurture" those who have not faith, however, be to do so while firmly and unapologetically proclaiming truth?

Exactly. And enjoying the greater knowledge that staring at the sun will blind you, I think it wise we continue to advocate against doing so, regardless of it offending all those sun-staring folk who demand that we're just bigots trying to deprive them of their happiness.

They do have the same opportunities for happiness, through the same means that brings happiness to anyone -- the ONLY means that brings happiness to anyone -- obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Or are you implying that in the case of homosexuality wickedness is happiness?

People love to say this as if it has any meaning whatsoever -- like the criteria for good or evil, acceptable or unacceptable, destructive or beneficial, is being a human.

For what it's worth, I tend to disagree with some (just a few) of Brother Wilcox's views in this speech. Of course that isn't really on topic. But for what it's worth. Primarily the "Get me outta here!" thing. It's just not that simple. People are not cartoon caricatures.

The Satan's plan doesn't quite work in this case, because I think that we generally believe that Satan knows darned well that he is evil, deceitful, trying to destroy, maim and hurt, and if and when he justifies himself, he's intentionally lying to destroy, maim and hurt. He knows he's wrong. He just doesn't care. Of course we only presume that isn't also true of Hitler. But as most people tend to think they're honestly justified and in the right...(a la Kate Kelly)....

Generally I wouldn't reply this way...but...since JaG opened the floodgate.... Hitler!

Funny. I was going to reply to this thread (below) by saying, "Didn't Hitler genuinely believe what he said too?" and then thought...no....Reductio ad Hitlerum.

Who?