The Folk Prophet

If you are so determined on this, it would help if you could provide an actual link to the Joseph Fielding quote so we can see/read it in context. The quote in Moses is fairly easy to explain (see tubaloth's excellent point above as an example). But claiming that Joseph Fielding Smith also taught this is hard to deal with out of context.

Here's a few relevant excerpts from James E. Talmage's The Great Apostasy: ___ The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints proclaims the restoration of the Gospel and the re-establishment of the Church as of old, in this, the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. Such restoration and re-establishment, with the modern bestowal of the Holy Priesthood, would be unnecessary and indeed impossible had the Church of Christ continued among men with unbroken succession of Priesthood and power, since the "meridian of time." We affirm that with the passing of the so-called apostolic age the Church gradually drifted into a condition of apostasy, whereby succession in the priesthood was broken; and that the Church, as an earthly organization operating under divine direction and having authority to officiate in spiritual ordinances, ceased to exist. If therefore the Church of Christ is to be found upon the earth to-day it must have been re-established by divine authority; and the holy priesthood must have been restored to the world from which it was lost by the apostasy of the Primitive Church It is illogical to assume that the gospel was to be brought to earth by a heavenly messenger if that gospel was still extant upon the earth. Equally unreasonable is it to say that a restoration or re-establishment of the Church of Christ would be necessary or possible had the Church continued with rightful succession of priesthood and power. If the gospel had to be brought again from the heavens, the gospel must have been taken from the earth. Thus the prophecy of a restoration is proof of an apostasy general and complete.

I'm not sure John the Revelator and the Three Nephites count as to the priesthood being on the earth, however, as the implication of the priesthood being on the earth is that mortal men have it, and John the Revelator and the three Nephites are something else.

I don't know what interpretation or meaning Joseph Fielding Smith had or meant, etc., but the priesthood authority was definitely removed from the earth during the Great Apostasy.

Either way, it's FREAKING ME OUT! Stop staring at me with those googly eyes!!

For anyone who's interested in this sort of phenomena, and has Netflix (or another source to see it) check out the show Brain Games. It's amazing what our brains interpret. Kind of cool.

Here my brother (an art/lighting teacher at BYU) created an image to explain what I was saying before: As you can see, the perception is relative to the shadow/sunlight.

If by this you mean, never been to a gay bar, then yes. If you mean no friends, family members, associates, then get real.

Isn't it a bit cheating to apply a gold tone to the whole picture though? :)

The lighter color in the image is clearly a shade of very light purplish blue. But in no world anywhere is the darker color black. Now that's not to say the original dress wasn't blue and black. My personal take is that if you view the dress as being in bright sunlight then it appears a washed out blue and black, whereas if you perceive it in shadow with the sunlight behind it, then it looks white and gold. Both of those are perceptions, of course. The literal colors are easily seen (as mathematical realities in the likes of Photoshop, etc), and in no world anywhere does even the darkest spot (hex code #4e4026) equate to black! That's brown at best.

After this article, I can see how it's blue and black..however...the literal colors in the picture are not blue and black (in spite of the original color of the dress), but blue (very lightish purple blue) and brown (that appears gold because of the shimmer -- aka dark gold). But I can see how the original dress is/was blue and black. Very interesting.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/26/us/blue-black-white-gold-dress/index.html

Okay. This is wacko. I see gold and cream (a cool cream -- some purple tone to it), but when I asked my wife she said blue and black. What the what!?!

You are wrong when you say that COMPLETE observance of the Word of Wisdom (particularly according to your interpretation of it) is a REQUIREMENT to enter the temple. This is just untrue. It is not a requirement to eat healthy to enter the temple. That doesn't mean one who disregards observations of health that they should won't answer for it someday -- though we have no idea about that and it is God's business, not ours -- but it is not a requirement to enter the temple, and you saying that you see it that way makes you wrong.

This is an important principle, upon which I think we must all agree.

The difference between being under a covenant or not is irrelevant to the commandments we break. Adultery is adultery under covenant or not. Etc. What is different is the promise made, which allows for a new sin...that of breaking a promise. Therefore, someone who is under covenant to not sin and then sins is committing two sins. The sin itself, and the sin of breaking one's covenant. In that regard the overall sinning is worse. HOWEVER! The individual who does not take the covenant upon themselves and sins is also committing two sins, the sin itself, and the sin of not taking the covenant upon themselves. Likewise, the person who is excommunicated and then continues in sin may not have the sin of being under the covenant, but they do still have the sin of not working to take that covenant upon themselves again, just as the person who has not accepted the covenants in the first place is guilty. There is no way for anyone to not do as God commands and stand without accountability. There may be slight technical differences as to what sin they are accountable for, but it all equates to the same. We either choose to follow and obey or we do not. And I disagree with the idea that living outside covenants is better for anyone to get back to God. It may be necessary. That does not make it better.

To be clear, I'm more addressing the trend, and the "we know better" thing is more meant to address the trend. And, to be entirely fair, I think there is some value to parts of the trend. There are things that we word softer nowadays, including the leaders of the church, and this is a good thing. But my point, if anything, is that it oft times goes too far.

And I'm saying that excommunication is not the difference. There is NO plateau! There is toward God, or there is away from Him. Their is sin or there is repentance.

*shrug* Like I said, God doesn't seem to have a problem referring to these things as punishment, wrath, etc. So I'm not sure wherein we feel like we know better.

??? I'd phrase it that a person under covenant does not need to get re-baptized. Putting it in terms of "cannot" makes it seem like it's excommunication is a desirable thing. Having to be re-baptized, while better than staying un-baptized, is a much worse thing than not having to be re-baptized. Of course it's all relative. But what are you claiming here? That the reason for excommunication is for the re-baptism?

This is all fine and dandy...but it's merely word play. Not "calling" something punishment doesn't change what it is. God doesn't seem to have any problem referring to things as punishment (https://www.lds.org/search?q=punishment〈=eng&domains=scriptures), so I'm not sure why we're trying to get away from the word like it's mistaken or faulty somehow. Seems to me that this is merely a trend that goes right alone, hand-in-hand, with the no-one's-to-blame, we're-all-victims, offending-someone-is-the-worst-grievance, PC obfuscation that's so popular nowadays. So what's the real value in redefining these concepts as something other than punishment? So people don't feel bad? Is that, really, a valid part of repentance? Since when is not feeling bad for your sins an important step in the repentance process? It seems to me that we're twisting things. Yes, excommunication is meant to be done in love. Well, so is putting child on time out or grounding them. So now what? We're going to start claiming the putting a child on a time out or grounding them isn't punishment because it's done in love? Seriously. This makes no sense. Excommunication is not meant to be vindictive or done in anger. But it is also not man's discipline. It is God's. When we as a church excommunicate people we're not doing our will. We're doing what the scriptures command us to do. It is God's will, God's way, God's method, God's plan, and God's punishment. You can call it anything you like, but to me, stripping someone of, perhaps, the greatest gift we have from God in this life (the Gift of the Holy Ghost) is much more severe than putting a child on a timeout, grounding, or even a good spanking. Frankly, keeping the Gift of the Holy Ghost and receiving a severe lashing would be less detrimental. Telling a child you're not punishing them as you put them on time out is essentially lying. The child knows better. And so does the excommunicated. It is a punishment, whatever we name it with our nouveau politically correct phrasology.

How is is this reasonably or logical. Releasing them from their covenants makes it oki-dokie to fornicate, adulterate, steal, lie, etc? This makes no sense. Releasing someone from their covenants does not keep someone from digging a hole down. Only repentance can do that. And the consequence of sin is death - period.

I can appreciate that. I still question it as valid. I simply don't buy that one is released from the promises one made to God upon excommunication. Those promises are promises, and everyone who is excommunicated, surely, God expects to repent, return to the church, and fulfill the promises once made. I have never read anything from the church that teaches this sort of, "released", thing. But I've heard it said a lot. So that's interesting to me. I wonder where it comes from.

Then you are, obviously, wrong.

I don't deny that there is, of course, added weight having made a covenant. That added weight being the covenant, of course. My question, and concern with the idea, is two-fold: 1st what JaG pointed out -- the idea that excommunication removed our liability for having made those covenants, and 2nd: I wonder how much difference committing adultery under covenant vs. without the covenant (but with the same knowledge of good and evil) will really make as to punishment/salvation status, etc... I do not doubt that breaking covenants is serious indeed. So with lesser sins, the addition of the covenant broken seems like a bigger deal. But a murderous, adulterous, lying thief -- if the knowledge is equal -- I question that there is really much difference as to what awaits the two. I will grant that the second of these two thoughts is lesser. And there is a great deal of speculation therein. But the first point -- I stand by. A promise to God is a promise to God. Excommunication does not render that promise null and void. At least not by any understanding I've come across. Therefore I ask the question: is there any understanding other than speculation and folk-doctrine that supports this idea that excommunication is some type of mercy?