The Folk Prophet

This idea is problematic though, because whether truth seems simple to us or not depends on us, not on truth. Truth is what it is. For one it will come easy, for another, not so much. How simple do you think truth seems to someone who was raised Hindu or Muslim? But, more importantly, what you're talking about is not truth. Truth is factual. Truth never changes. What you're reading about is a bunch of conjecture based on evidence, none of which can even be described as fact. But even where evidence is strong enough to accept certain historical ideas as probably factual, they are still only tools to develop conjecture that is viewed through a pretty muddy lens. There are conjectures that support the church and there are conjectures that do not. You have to determine which conjecture you're going to listen to. But none of that is "truth". What is truth? Truth is eternal. It is things as they really are. And the only one who know these things is God. Therefore, the only means we have of ascertaining absolute truth is through God by way of the Holy Spirit. The truths you learn from the Spirit you can trust. The so-called truths you've picked up from a bunch of filtered, anti-LDS mortals are highly untrustworthy. That is why the strong suggestion you will get throughout from faithful members, even from those of us who disagree with each other on many things, is to turn to the witness of the Spirit in your quest for truth. Because truth is simple. The Book of Mormon is true or it is not. Joseph Smith was a prophet or he wasn't. The church is true or it is not. And a study of history will not give you the answers to any of these questions. You can only know the truth of these things from the Spirit.

This is somewhat harping on the same thing we've harped on before...but being shocked at Joseph Smith using a hat or the seer stone is hardly relative to his being a saint or not. I mean, are we really thinking that Joseph needing to block the light so he could better discern what he was viewing via the seerstone was related to his imperfections rather than merely being a practical method of doing what needed to be done? It simply strikes us as odd, and somehow translates to us that if he was doing something odd that it might mean he was, after all, as the anti's claim, just making it all up. Because odd people doing odd things is odd, and we, as a culture, don't respect that. Or are we talking about the Fannie Alger thing? Because if we believe that Joseph had an illicit affair, it's a lot bigger deal than just "he wasn't perfect". An illicit affair carries serious questions about his rights and authority. The only question anyone should have in this matter is whether they're going to accept the naysayer's p.o.v. that he was an adulterer, or the apologist p.o.v. that his actions were within the approved plural marriage revelation he had been given to God. Or are we talking about his so-called foray into "magic" prior to becoming a prophet? On that one, I'll grant, (if any of the sources can be taking at face value) that it could easily be stacked up as imperfection and the learning process of a fallible man. But the facts of what he did and did not actually do in this regard are so muddled and inconclusive that it's fairly easy to write these things off as unknowable rather than point-blank admission that he was making mistakes. I mean, even if he did use the stone for treasure hunting, how do we know that God was not directing him to do so? We don't. The presumption of "mistaken" here is problematic. Or are we talking about the Book of Abraham, which holds no implication of "not a saint" whatsoever? So I have to ask, what of these "shocking" issues imply that Joseph was not a saint? Because, in my opinion, the thing that clearly show he was not a saint (like his handling of money, his temper, or his sometimes inappropriate playfulness), are hardly shocking.

That doesn't seem at odds with my point at all. It seems in line with the council in heaven where God allowed Satan and Jesus (and presumably any other) to present ideas. But God still knew the beginning from the end. He wasn't considering how things should be done. He knew.

I chide you on harping on it constantly to the exclusion of practically anything else. It seems to be your gospel hobby. I perfectly well understand. The rest of your post seems to entirely (speaking of understanding) misunderstand my point, which is meant to say nothing more than, "remember". In other words: Alma 5:26 And now behold, I say unto you, my brethren, if ye have experienced a change of heart, and if ye have felt to sing the song of redeeming love, I would ask, can ye feel so now? Maybe if I'd quoted scripture upfront you'd be less inclined to nit-pick at my meaning (though I doubt it). The fact that you believe the dual beings idea is the core of our religion speaks volumes to me about who understands and who does not.

RuthiesMom -- Prior to having read all this internet material, what was your testimony based on? That the church was pretty and nice? Or did you believe because of the sure witness of the Holy Ghost to you that the church was true? If the first is true, then you still have the same process to go through as someone who is investigating the church from the outside (with the advantage of familiarity, of course). If the latter is true, then honestly, what has changed? If the Holy Spirit has told you the church is true, then the church is still true.

I'm really not sure how you can draw the conclusion that an all-knowing, all-powerful God counsels with others in the same manner that a bunch of fallible mortals who exist behind a veil of forgetfulness counsel together.

I thought about it a bit more. I'm supportive of the idea of addressing it through appropriate channels. I'm not supportive, nor do if find it useful in any regard, to emotionally react with anger, which is why I meant, I think, by "crying" over spilt milk. Anger simply does not help.

Maybe I'm not settled on this point.

The short answer is that receiving counsel from (being guided) does not equate to counselling together (trying to come up with solutions). The Lord counsels us all the time. It means He's guiding us. It doesn't mean He doesn't know the beginning from the end.

I don't disagree (how could I? Rules are rules.) But...what's done is done. No use crying over spilt milk, or so they say.

Your opinion notwithstanding (which may or may not be correct), it is just as likely that someone who has consciously chosen to not marry for eternity will, indeed, be culpable for that choice. Because it is as choice that could have been made differently. So what it really comes down to is the priority: temple marriage, or the child having their biological father back in the family. She could, of course, pursue temple marriage with another man. Given that choice, what say ye? Marry the un-willing, non-LDS biological father who is against the church, or marry a willing, LDS, righteous man. The fact that the man is the child's father biologically, doesn't compel me in the marriage debate. Concerning "take the reverse on this, saying that she should have divorced him before he divorced her b/c he is the one who broke the temple marriage", it does not even begin to correlate. Being true to a contract/covenant is a very different thing than consideration of a new contract/covenant. I would not even consider seriously dating someone who was not committed to the gospel. Period. The fact that said person was the biological parent of a child of mine does not change that. I would also not even consider leaving someone because they left the gospel after I had covenanted with them in marriage. Them breaking their covenant doesn't mean it is acceptable for me to break mine. And this: "The highest thing to accomplish on this earth is to have a united, happy family" is false. Abandoning the gospel in favor of a "united, happy" family will not gain you salvation. Only obedience to the principles and ordinances of the gospel will. I don't adamantly disagree with everything you're saying. But I do, very strongly, disagree with the idea that marrying someone you know darn well is against the church and unlikely to every support it, not to mention actually live up to the principles and ordinances of it, is wholesome and right simply because they are the parent of your child.

I gotchya. It may not be ideal, but the work is done, and in the end it won't matter whit who actually did the work as long as the proper priesthood authority was used for the ordinances. So I can understand it being an issue, sure. But my advice is to count the blessing and rejoice.

Yes. If someone is going to throw out something as extreme as this, they'd best source it. Sources please?

If someone wants to marry you outside the temple, whom will you strive to please—God or a mortal? If you insist on a temple marriage, you will be pleasing the Lord and blessing the other party. Why? Because that person will either become worthy to go to the temple—which would be a blessing—or will leave—which could also be a blessing—because neither of you should want to be unequally yoked - Ezra Taft Benson

I think it a bit unfair to say they are failures. That's like saying the missionary program is a failure based on the number of people who aren't interested, or the fact that a lot of missionaries are immature and not really great workers.

Whereas I won't try and argue that no collateral damage is "murder", certainly it's going to far to simply label it universally that way.

You're upset because you're grandma is receiving the blessings of the gospel?

I tend to tear up at tv shows and movies way too often. I think frogs are awfully cute. I really love Metallica.

Are you really incapable of understanding the difference between a terrorist style murder rampage and collateral damage?

The question states, "Do you strive...to attend your sacrament and other meetings...", so the word "strive" does allow for some flexibility. If someone has simply been inactive, it's fairly plain that the answer to this is no. But you're correct, the bishop/sp hold a level of discretion in the matter.

Um...did they change it then since my last one? 'Cause they sure asked me that.

The whole anti-church thing doesn't strike you as a red flag?

There's a big ol' huge world of difference between forgiveness and re-marriage.

Not my point. You're being argumentative for not reason. Because this is my point. Punished is in the eye-of-the-disciplined. And also part of my point. But perhaps I should have been more direct in my explanation so as not to confuse you. I'll try again: When it's viewed as punishment by the person being disciplined.

I got this far and... And not even concerning the merit or lack thereof in the post. Seriously...how many times can you say the exact same thing in response to traveler? Do you think he doesn't know your views on this yet? Repetition is fine to an extent. But the dual being preaching hobby of yours wears thing.