The Folk Prophet

It has not been expanded. It was ALWAYS expanded. It has always included relations of any sorts.

I feel quite strongly that many LDS artists/musicians/authors are practicing priestcraft. I won't name names though, as A) I'm sure some of them I think are would be others favorites and B) I don't really know what's in their hearts and so my "judgment" may be mistaken.

Because the priesthood ordinance is not a covenant to always remember the Savior, keep His commandments, and take His name upon us (or stand as a witness for Him) in exchange for having the Spirit to be with you. The baptismal covenant is this. The sacrament covenant is EXACTLY the same covenant as the baptismal one. That is why it's linked.

How can God's will trump individual agency? God's will IS individual agency.

Best post ever!

Well, of course he is. And, of course, sharing it with the press. He makes his living on publicity and notoriety. Once it is denied, he'll likely come up with another scheme for staying in the public eye as much as possible.

It's true. There are a lot of things that I cannot prove didn't happen. And we all know that is the key to a good scholarly understanding of history. If this were what was happening then there might be a leg to stand on. These conclusions are being, and have consistently been, drawn not from patterns of behavior, but rather from tertiary source hearsay (at best) mostly by haters of the church, the disenfranchised, and your basic -- dare I accuse them of it? -- it might be condescending -- anti-Mormons.

I feel positive we've been over this before -- but there is a HUGE difference between accepting that Joseph wasn't a saint (something I feel confident we all accept (depending, of course, on the interpretation of the word -- as from a certain very literal (LDS) usage of the word, he was a saint...but I digress...)) and claiming that he was guilty of sexual misconduct. The first requires no defense. It is truth as supported by Joseph himself, and scriptural revelation. The second is unfounded libel, plain and simple. And that we will defend against.

Seems to me (without looking into it at all) that being in the world but not of the world is pretty straight forward. Being in the world is literal. We are. Simple. But, of course, there are extremists who would entirely shut themselves from the world, never interact with others, etc. I think there's a time and a place for that, but generally speaking, you have a job, you go to school, you go out to eat, you go to movies and theater, etc. Not of the world, of course, is also fairly plain to me. Don't go to bad movies just because the world makes them and advocates their normalcy. Don't work a job where you are exposed to things you shouldn't be (as far as you can help it, and within reason). Don't join in with the way other students act, behave, and think just because it is trendy. Don't waste your money on going out to eat when you can't afford it, etc. And, above all, be Christ-like and bring the gospel the world, standing for Him at all times and in all places.

I am not. You're saying that I am is condescending though.

Ah...the, "You're offensive so I win the argument," tactic. A classic. Kind of the go-to for the liberal crowd though. So no originality points.

Condescension is in the eye of the beholder. Of course, I find nothing reasonable about your and duff's discussion, approach, tactics, or accusations. So....

This is entirely irrelevant to a bishop having the right to declare someone exempt from keeping the commandments.

We aren't putting limits on God's ways. But God has made promises, decrees, and has established orders, and has declared himself an unchanging God. He has clearly specified in multiple upon multiple ways how his church is established in the latter days, and a lay-member coming in and correcting the presidency and quorum of the twelve is not it. He has also established his pattern for revelation based on stewardship, and we have no right to revelation outside our stewardships. That is God's word.

There's something mistaken in this sort of thinking. The very idea that God leads the church but then would inspire a member that the church is wrong...there's a problem in that. I'd suggest that if someone is receiving "revelation" that the church is in the wrong that they ought to reconsider the source of that revelation. A bishop does not have any right to exempt someone from commandments.

Quick correction. The law of tithing and the law of consecration are separate laws. One is not a subset of the other. But your point remains.

I think this is putting it very kindly.

If the shoe doesn't fit then why are you wearing it? I do not doubt your sincerity. I doubt your motivation, you goal, and your intent. But for the sake of argument, I will answer: -You don't consider the priesthood ban terrible? This was already addressed by several others and I let their answers stand. But no, I do not. -Or that people were killed to atone for their own sins? This question is based on a false premise and so is hard to answer legitimately. You are implying within it (at least) two things that are false. 1. That the church is responsible for said killings. And, 2. The principle of blood atonement is known, understood, and based on that understanding, is wrong. Both of these premises are false, which means I cannot legitimately answer yes or no. What I can say is that I do not believe that the church supported any murder in the early days of the church. But what I can also say is that IF (all caps for emphasis) the church DID happen to support any such murders, and such actions were taken because the church leaders directed said action, then I would take it in the same vein as Nephi being commanded to kill Laban. However, all that IF is meaningless, because the church did not support or condone any murders or other illegal killings in its early days. -Or horrible that some of the early prophets took other mens wives? If you think this is horrible it only shows that you do not have the historical education to understand the situations. -You think it was their duty to hand over their wives, and that was the right decision? The only example I know of where a man was commanded to hand over his wife was Heber C. Kimball, and upon agreeing to do so, he was told it had only been a test, and he was then sealed to his wife. The other instances of polyandry were never forced and were likely eternal sealings only (there is no evidence of concurrent sexual relations with different husbands in mortality to whom said wives were jointly "married".) -You don't think it would have been better not to follow that prophetic call? I do not, and have plainly stated my view. It is never the wrong choice to follow the prophet.

Any comment they disagree with is easy enough to write off as "just their opinion" with their thesis. Plus, you know, not canonized, so not doctrinal, etc. It's really quite a clever tactic. Only one problem. See my signature line about prophets. The word "inconcievable" gets used wrong. The improbability drive gets set to max. Brains explode. Dogs and cats living together. Mass hysteria!

If said ideas are intended to criticize or otherwise impair the church, then yes. If said ideas are half-truths at best and presented with a clearly hostile intent, then yes.

Because the question is based on lies.

Ha ha. I've never heard that "duty" before.

You've exposed your hand and shown yourself to be nothing more than a run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon with this one.

He says as he discredits their authority, inspiration, power, and right to lead the church.

When speaking as the prophet from the pulpit and giving direction to the church, yes. Which terrible consequences would those be? If you're referring to the extremists who, in disregard to prophetic counsel, went out and murdered people based on some such proposed theory, or those who tried to justify straight up adultery, also disregarding the prophet, then you need to look back at the "disregarded the prophet" part of these examples. There have never been terrible consequences to obeying a prophet. Ever.