The Folk Prophet

Hmm. Do genetic predispositions justify wrong behavior? I certainly know of no doctrine that supports that idea. It seems to me that the commandments are the same for all. The only way a predisposition to a character trait would justify anything is if it were strong enough that the person literally had no choice in the matter. That's a pretty serious thing. Someone who is incapable of controlling their behavior has no agency. No agency means no accountability. But, really. NO control? Lock that person up! Scary. My genetic predisposition inclines me to irresponsibility. Does that mean I'm less accountable when I don't do my hometeaching? Hardly. Regardless of my disposition I am capable of choice, and I can do what I have been commanded to do, and be what I have been commanded to be. Lest we forget: Mosiah 3:19 The natural man is an enemy to God unless he putteth off the natural man. The natural man justifies sin theory doesn't work.

*shrug* the thread record stands. Anyone may go back and read any comment made by you (or me) at any time and judge for themselves. As if this has anything to do with your comments. Like I said, the record stands for itself. Change your tune on missionary duty, the character of Joseph Smith and other leaders, the church's supposed poor training methods for local leaders, the roll of bishops as counselors beyond merely the "spiritual", the naive, uninformed state of the general membership of the church, and a myriad of other issues, (and we'll throw in calling all women "catty" just for good measure) and I'll apologize. Otherwise, I'm afraid we're at odds.

As to this specific thread, I'm not saying his view that Jesus would attend a gay wedding fits into the contrary-to-the-church idea. I am simply explaining the history behind my online relationship with him and how it plays into my reaction to his comments. If someone states that Jesus will save someone in their sins then they are flat out wrong. If he didn't mean it that way, then perhaps he should have responded right up front with, "I didn't mean it that way" rather than "you are not the arbitrator of truth". You can speculate that Jesus would or would not attend an event all you want. But if you state, even through implication, that Jesus would just forgive everybody there, then I'm going to point out the inaccuracy. Really? Me: There's more than one? Omega: Sure Old Testament Jesus or New Testament Jesus Obviously no one thought (at least I never did) that he literally meant there were two separate beings that were both named Jesus. What was being inferred however, and debated against, was the clear idea that Jesus changed from one sort of being into another.

The potential "blind eye" towards omega's so-called "point" had nothing to do with being overly obsessed with trying to make a case, and everything to do with a moderately long history of his contrary comments against the church on pretty much every subject that every arises in the forums here. This isn't a case of a stranger coming in and making an innocent comment and then being jumped on without cause. I know where he stands, and he knows where I do.

Let's not forget about Jesus of the Book of Mormon and Doctrine & Covenants also.

I was thinking on this just a bit, and I have to say, I think there's a problem with it. Is not the entire point of coming to earth to test us and see if we will judge righteously? Is not the choice between good and evil -- a.k.a. judging, the key point of the fall? I know that's a bit different sort of judgement than an accusatory sort of thing. But it applies, does it not? Which people we'll be friends with. Who we will marry? (What weddings we'll attend?) How and when we interact with others? Etc., etc. Are not these all demanding our choice and our judgement, and part of the test of life? Are we not left, in many ways, to determine these things on our own, based on our own good wills and intents, based on our own desires to serve God and to do His will? Are we to be directed in everything? (Obviously, per scripture, the answer is no). Well then, we must judge.

I judge many beings to be stupid. Doesn't mean I don't love them unconditionally. My Golden Retriever comes to mind. Stupid? Yes. Loved. Oh my goodness yes!

So back to this "within our stewardship" point -- who defines that? I mean the church hierarchy has a clear "stewardship" line, and we don't have the right to, say, receive revelation for the ward if we aren't the bishop, for example. But ultimately, a stewardship is a responsibility given to man to watch over...something that ultimately belongs to God. So is not the responsibility given to us all to watch over our fellow man, to mourn with them, to serve them, and to lead them back to God? Is not our neighbor well within each of our stewardships?

You don't think you can have an opinion of someone that they're smart and still love them unconditionally?

It opens the question though as to what our stewardship is and how "judging" applies thereto.

I generally find that the most judgmental people I interact with are those who judge others for judging -- speaking of ironic.

http://www.sixteensmallstones.org/go-and-sin-no-more-misinterpreting-jesus-and-the-woman-taken-in-adultery/

I think we all agree on this. And, frankly, the implication that those who would choose not to attend must not want to build bridges and must want to create further divides is typical of the liberal-Mormon acumen, but it doesn't really hold water. The question and debate is not about the value of souls or the need to reach out and save them. The question and debate is concerning the method of doing so.

I would disagree with a few things. 1. The Jews in the OT were incapable of making the distinctions between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law and that we're somehow smarter than they were. 2. The implication that he OT people had no obligation to help the sinner overcome their sins. 3. That the OT law was any more unforgiving as the current law. The application of the law was different. The consequence for disobedience (eternally speaking) was and is the same. But none of this has anything to do with my point (speaking of reading things into others statements), which is that God cannot tolerate sin, and that He will destroy the sinner, not condone them. Any implication that we should or shouldn't attend a gay wedding ourselves based on this is you reading things into my comment. I am merely saying that it is not, in any way, a foregone conclusion that Jesus would attend like some seem to be implying. Not in the least. As to the "driving a wedge" thing, you say potato... I say the wedge between me and another may well be a significantly lesser thing than the wedge driven between them and their potential salvation created by the "support" of those who supposedly love them but then act in complacency when it comes to actually standing up for the truth.

If you are claiming now that you did not say that Jesus would go to a gay wedding and merely love and forgive them, then I do believe that is what one might call backpedaling. Let's follow the conversation: TFP: Sometimes I think people forget that Christ is the very same being who utterly destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah...and yet some seem so confident He would happily attend a gay wedding? omega...: Depends on which Jesus your talking about....... TFP: There's more than one? omega...: Sure Old Testament Jesus or New Testament Jesus Pam: Old or new. It is the same Jesus. omega...: Old Testament Jesus would bring down fire and brimstone and burn them all. New Testament Jesus would love and forgive. Now...let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you didn't mean (as you now claim) that contrary to my point that Jesus being the same being as He who rained down fire and brimstone on Sodom for sodomy, would instead merely forgive, and this is why Jesus would obviously (according to some) attend a gay wedding. If this was not your meaning, then what, exactly, was your point in arguing that there are two different Jesus's and that New Testament Jesus would "love and forgive"? What was your point in saying NT Jesus would love and forgive if it wasn't to imply that this forgiveness and love is what would lead Jesus to attend the wedding? Wasn't that the whole argument you were making? And if not, then what, exactly, is your point?

I didn't work through the tone, per se. What I did (little by little through the years) was become more obedient, submissive, etc. It was, very literally, the wicked taking the truth hard.

The debate is that he's trying to imply that God somehow changed, was wrathful in ye olden days and then in the NT changed and became all about hugs and forgiveness. God has always been about forgiveness (according to our repentance) and has always been about wrath (according to our disobedience). And that is the same now as it was in the OT as it was in the NT. Those blatantly and openly involved in a ceremony that flouts the commandments of God are certainly not repenting, certainly not humbling themselves, certainly not obeying, certainly not seeking God's forgiveness, nor anything like unto it. The claim he is trying to make is that God would forgive unrepentant sinners. He would not. To claim He would is false doctrine -- scriptural false doctrine, repeated again and again throughout the standard works.

I do know that because I actually read the scriptures. God cannot save (forgive) anyone in their sins. The standard to be forgiven is clearly set forth in the scriptures again and again. Christ cannot and will not forgive unrepentant sinners, and to say that He would just forgive them because he loves them is false doctrine. Despite your churlish phrasing, I "arbitrate" nothing. The scriptures are clear. Alma 11:34 And Zeezrom said again: Shall he save his people in their sins? And Amulek answered and said unto him: I say unto you he shall not, for it is impossible for him to deny his word. And then, of course, D&C 1:31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; and vs. 32 Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven; And here's D&C 64:7 but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death. And Alma 12:34 Therefore, whosoever repenteth, and hardeneth not his heart, he shall have claim on mercy through mine Only Begotten Son, unto a remission of his sins; and these shall enter into my rest. Ezek 18:20-22 20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. 21 But if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all my statutes, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall surely live, he shall not die. 22 All his transgressions that he hath committed, they shall not be mentioned unto him: in his righteousness that he hath done he shall live. Mosiah 26:30 Yea, and as often as my people repent will I forgive them their trespasses against me. D&C 58:42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more. Etc., etc., etc... (emphases mine)

I felt like adding a snarky comment along the lines of, "But what if the egg is from an ape and science has successfully learned to blend ape and humans in the fertility process...then who do you seal the resultant child to?" but since the snarkiness would be an inside joke of sorts based on another thread, I decided not to. Then I decided to post that I'd decided not to and sneak the snarkiness in anyway via this clever not-a-question question.

I recall many, many years back when I was less stalwart in some ways, that certain brethren in the 12 used to rub me wrong. Their tone just bugged me. I never let it get to me, because I was still a believer, etc., but I just thought that some of them could work on their "tone". Nowadays, those same brethren are my very favorite to listen to when conference rolls around. The difference is not a change in the brethren's tone. Eye of the beholder.

Is not preaching love, repentance, faith, sorrow for sin, mourn with those who mourn, etc., etc., telling people how to feel? Seems to me that telling people what they should feel it well within the scope of right behavior.

Of course with adoption, the child knows neither parent is really his/hers...but that's encouraged. I'm not sure the child knowing the parent isn't "really" their parent has anything to do with the discouragement. I think it's more related to the biological process of mixing genes without the marital bond. It's not exactly adultery (obviously), and hence no discipline, etc., but that's the only legitimate reason I can think for it to be strongly discouraged. And, frankly, that's the idea behind it that doesn't sit comfortably with me. I can't say I fully understand this. But...that's my thought on that one. Now simple surrogacy....not sure there. But perhaps something akin.

What, do you not get wikipedia in your part of the world? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Widow_(Natalia_Romanova) (hehe...just noticed Latter Days Guy beat me to it. But he didn't include the snarky question...so....)

I don't think this has anything to do with agency. Punishment for sin is part of agency. Punishment for sin does not force anyone to do anything. If Jesus had proclaimed the woman beyond forgiveness it would not have forced her to come unto him. And, indeed, had she committed the unpardonable sin, it would have been unpardonable. But bringing someone to trial (even against their will) has nothing to do with agency at all. That's akin to a child claiming his agency is being taken away because his parents are making him clean his room. (Something, sadly, a lot of parents believe in the modern parenting age.("I can't force my child to do something. That's taking away their agency!") <-- rubbish!) Jesus not condemning her was more about the Jewish law and tradition to stone those caught in adultery. But even as an analogy to eternal condemnation, He wasn't going to condemn her at that time because it wasn't judgement day. Implicit, and obvious, to the doctrines of Christ is the clear fact that if she did not repent (sin no more) then she would be condemned.

And, incidentally, this ^^ is blatant false doctrine.