The Folk Prophet

And...moreover... This...it would be easier after this life is a big pile of steaming WRONG! Everyone who wishes to come to Christ has to do the work. Those who do not have the opportunity to do the work in this life will still have to do the work, and they will only be that much further behind if they don't have the opportunity in this life. But no one can escape repentance, humility, sacrifice, and good works. The Atonement is the merciful means that Christ has given us to enable us to do this successfully. It makes it possible to actually repent. But everyone who has sinned will still need to repent. We cannot become like God without becoming like God.

First of all, being a member of the church is not what makes us culpable. Moroni 3:20-24 20 And moreover, I say unto you, that the time shall come when the knowledge of a Savior shall spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. 21 And behold, when that time cometh, none shall be found blameless before God, except it be little children, only through repentance and faith on the name of the Lord God Omnipotent. 22 And even at this time, when thou shalt have taught thy people the things which the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, even then are they found no more blameless in the sight of God, only according to the words which I have spoken unto thee. 23 And now I have spoken the words which the Lord God hath commanded me. 24 And thus saith the Lord: They shall stand as a bright testimony against this people, at the judgment day; whereof they shall be judged, every man according to his works, whether they be good, or whether they be evil. Second - wickedness never was happiness. Period. It's not - wickedness never was happiness unless you don't know any better. Righteousness is joy. The gospel brings us joy. True, real, honest, lasting joy beyond measure. So what you're really asking is, wouldn't it be better if we could wallow in the mire, trudging through evil and darkness, just a bit longer, because the sunlight and cleanliness is such a burden. It's like saying, Wouldn't it be better if none of us ever showered, brushed our teeth or shaved, because grooming is annoying? Wouldn't it be better if we can all just be obese because working out and eating right is so hard? Wouldn't it be better if we could all just be lazy and idle all the day long because earning a living is such a pain? Wouldn't it be better if we were all stupid and didn't have to think because thinking is so laborious? The answer is NO! It would not be better.

I do not doubt your sincerity. But these posts of yours (The broken recordness of it all) doesn't strike me as problematic in it's repetitiveness, but in the implied presumption that you are a lone wolf. You are not. There are thousand upon thousands, if not millions, striving to do just exactly as you are.

Traveler, I think what you're expressing here in the latest post is accurate. My only concern in your original post (as I've said) is that there seems to be an implication that we should focus less on doctrine and more on covenants, rather than the idea that we should simply focus more on covenants, without focusing any less on doctrine. I also think, perhaps (if I read you right) that it would be more clearly stated as a comparison of learning and doing. If I am reading you right, you're basically saying that we are hypocrites when we preach, teach, learn, study, etc., the doctrines but then do not actually do what we preach, teach, learn, and study about. In this point, I agree.

This certainly holds more merit than the Lilith idea. However, it definitely requires interpretation to get there. Significantly so. That's not to say I do not allow such interpretations. But they are, as we believe, only the interpretation of man. Without revelation, new clarifying scripture, etc., we do not (as LDS) give such ideas any consideration. Because, frankly, anyone could take any single word (in this case "grace") and read variable meanings into them and come up with all sorts of interesting ideas. But none of them would hold much weight. (Sadly, we do see LDS people doing this all the time too.)

It's a way of interpreting them if "interpreting" means making up random stuff and inserting it where there is no cause. :)

What? I'm referring to Mary being immaculately conceived. But...Matt 9? Just read it. Not sure what you're getting at.

I wouldn't say this if there was going to be any truly private info therein, but.... Security through obscurity. Who's going to hack a random database with some random meaningless numbers on it? :) If you use a service (you may already be well aware of this...but...) like HostGator or GoDaddy, they have the MySQL database and support PHP directly without doing much of anything. phpMyAdmin will even generate PHP code to an extent. The obvious benefit of going this route is that the support for these things is already built in to them. No installing stacks or anything. And they're quite cheap (under $10 a month usually) for the most part. Hard to beat for ease of setting up if you're not super concerned about security, and don't have a problem with the monthly cost and/or the initial set up costs (purchasing a domain name, etc.). Of course you also get server space (unlimited for some) for hosting websites, ftp, and emails...if any of that matters to you.

My point has nothing to do with Catholics and what they believe, why they believe it, or even if it's justified for them to believe it. It is simply that whereas the OP is asking from an LDS perspective, it should be noted that the concepts are not supportable via any LDS sermons, ideas, means, scriptures, etc... As the only real shared resource between the two religions is the Bible, I point out that it is non-biblical.

With all due respect to Catholics and their beliefs, neither of these ideas are Biblical.

Per bytor2112's comment: I've read several debates from supporters of John Dehlin where the primary argument seems to be that he was a "safe place" for those who question to work through their concerns. My response (internally, as I am generally pretty rigid about not getting involved on Facebook with much of anything, and particularly not controversial things) is similar to bytor2112. I cannot help but wonder where they've concluded that the Holy Spirit is not the "safe place" they should be turning to. I have no doubt that John Dehlin was a sympathetic shoulder to cry on. I'm sure Satan would also happily give them a shoulder to cry on as well. And he often, sadly, does. I am not saying (as I'm sure someone is likely to accuse me of) that a shoulder to cry on is not important. But which shoulder we cry on actually matters - a great deal. Moreover, the "safe place" idea is a blatant lie (speaking of Satan and he who is the father of such things.) Turning to the likes of John Dehlin to feel safe is laughable. They feel "safe" because they know they won't feel judged -- as if being judged is the real danger.

Where is your Database hosted? I'd probably just google how to write a very basic HTML/PHP program to query the DB and upload it to the same server. Edit: PM me if you want help with this. It should be pretty simple.

Impossible. You're implying that we can live all the doctrines and then not go about feeding the poor, clothing the naked, etc. This is invalid. If anyone is not doing this, then that individual is are not living all the doctrines. It's not rocket science. :) Morality is not a group activity. Agency would not allow it. Morality is an individual choice. By claiming that "we" need to do better, you are saying that each and every individual must do better. Whereas this is true, it is still unfair to those who are striving to doing their parts. By implication you're saying that unless we're all saved then none of us are. That is, simply, not true.

My concern, skalenfehl, is only within the context of this thread -- that there might be some greater truth or ideal out there that supplants the need for obedience to and understanding of the doctrines of the gospel. There is a strong implication throughout that doctrine is unimportant and or the wrong focus, and yet then both you and Traveler proceed to lecture doctrinally (covenants are doctrinal, feeding the hungry is doctrinal, etc.). I'm trying to understand, frankly, what is it, exactly, that's being suggested by the too-focused-on-doctrine idea. Wherein is focus on doctrine mutually exclusive to the ideas you and Traveler present? I'm not following the criticism. If I'm focused on doctrine it automatically means I must not be feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, etc.? Well that doesn't follow at all. Hence, I'm not disagreeing with you, in the slightest, as to the importance of these things (though I do think the way you're expressing the idea comes across as somewhat unfair to the many, many hard working, humble, servants in the church), but I do not see the point, or the original point made by Traveler, as persuasive commentary that we should focus less on doctrine.

Without disputing the truth of this by any means, I do think that there's a bit of a risk here in the potential implication(s) being made. King Benjamin did teach that we must feed the hungry, cloth the naked, etc., to gain salvation. But, without question, this is not the ONLY thing he taught that we must do.

^ cause. ^ effect. Note: I'm not making an argument one way or another as to the appropriateness of such an idea (that can be discussed if anyone so desires), but merely pointing out what I see as the obvious. Presenting all sides of an issue is not part of the church's objectives.

Traveler, Respectfully, this makes no sense to me. The covenants we make with God (which He specifies, not us) all amount to obedience to His commandments. The doctrine is to keep his commandments. We covenant to obey His doctrine. They cannot be separated. Moreover, covenants ARE doctrine. If you're discussing the importance of covenants, then you are discussing doctrine.

Which is a valid and interesting point. If the LDS church were to, say, give women the priesthood or declare homosexuality not a sin, how many would leave the church over it?

For what it's worth: Maybe this is the problem. I'm fairly non-political, so I don't have a strong view on the specific debate, but there sure do seem to be a lot of people out there all innocently not-even-considering such things.

Based on they way I respond to images of women, I find this idea very disturbing.

Technically, the time a member becomes accountable is in their baptismal interview, and with the covenant they make at the time of their baptism to obey the commandments.

Why are you presuming that cigarettes and drugs are absolute nos but tea and coffee are debatable? This is not debatable. That's not to say that some won't debate it. But that's, frankly, irrelevant, because debate does not define the Lord's standards. Prophets do. And where do you get the idea that three glasses of wine a year is, "what most members believe when it comes to alcohol"? You said it yourself, the prophets have declared it a law. It is. There are no exceptions to the core "don'ts" of the word of wisdom.

Nonsense. There are plenty of fish inside the church. Try a different pond.

anatess, you're over thinking this. Mordorbund (as Mordorbund is wont to do) was making snide commentary that people do back flips to explain Christ's words that seem contradictory, but won't do the same for His prophets.

No, he's saying that people are unforgiving jerks when it comes to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young.