The Folk Prophet

This is one of the things that bugs me a bit about the Harry Potter books (though not enough to dislike them). There is a bit of elitism being taught. In spite of her attempt to have the good guys treat muggles well, there's still a distinct us/them feeling there. There is, perhaps, a dangerous implication there for impressionable kids reading. Part of what's exciting is the idea of being special, being better, etc. Kids (and many adults, including myself) click with that idea. We like to be special. HP preaches that special is key. Harry is the most special. Hence, he is the protagonist. If there is something dangerous about the HP books, it's not the witch/wizard/devil thing. It's this (maybe).

But he doesn't want us to change our views on an eternal truth.* The point being, I'm not so sure that conservative and liberal (classical meanings) can be so black and white. But certainly, it is possible to be conservative and LDS. But perhaps not 100% conservative. *edit: unless those views are wrong, of course. :)

Unless one believes that, truly, God never changes, and the conservative values one holds are those "eternal" truths. Which pretty much, in my mind, sums up the conservative nature of LDS thinking. Yes...some take it too far and resist ANY change. But the great majority of conservative LDS folk accept changes that are not eternal in nature fairly well.

Also, the "we can't control others" idea isn't relevant to a discussion of whether something is appropriate. It's also not entirely true. We can't ultimately control others. We can influence them. At the very least, everyone saying "no problem" to an idea influences others who read this thread. At least having a few that say, "problem" may cause some to re-think the appropriateness. Moreover, we do have direct influence over some, and less direct influence over others, by way of exhortation, teaching, and most importantly, example. I would submit that the mother (or father...if he knits) who sits and knits in church is, indeed, setting a pretty poor example for others, not the least of which is their own offspring. To Bini's point, yes, we can't really control others directly, and holding disdain for those who are doing things we consider inappropriate is likely the greater sin. Yes. But it's not entirely true that we have no influence and should just mind our own business.

I would wager that most people would call it common sense to keep the knitting out of church. But then again, common sense is altogether uncommon as we march ever onward towards the end of it all. So maybe I'm wrong here. Regardless, majority rule doesn't define right and wrong, so the point is meaningless.

Why not? Why shouldn't we show the same respect and reverence at church as we do at the temple? There's a whole other thread complaining about irreverence at church. Hmm...maybe we're getting to the root of it all. Do we really have so little respect for church that we consider it nothing more than math class?

Here here!!

Apparently, per the ideas presented here, we ought to immediately allow such activities in the temple as well. I think this is the point. Church is being treated like a casual conversation. I suppose that's the real crux of the matter. How important is church? How much respect should it be shown?

I entirely disagree with the opinions that you need to tell your future wife. If you've overcome, you've overcome. If you haven't, then you need to share it. But if it is truly behind you, and the spirit has confirmed to you that you are clean, then it is behind you. But that is not a decision that needs to be made now. When you are considering engagement, then it will be time to make the decision of what to share and what not to. And, as with all things, follow the Spirit. It will guide you in what to do when the time is right.

Why would one feel the need to share all past long-repented-of sins? If it's been truly repented of it, the Lord's forgotten about it. Seems like we ought to let go too.

I forgave Lost...sort of, upon my most recent watch through. There's some value there. But that doesn't diminish my disappointment in the way that the writers gave their fans the finger by ignoring the core appeal of the show as to it's so-called resolution.

For your consideration: I propose that the irreverence in Sacrament Mtngs is significantly less of a problem in our journey to Zion than the nit-picky, judgmental, holier-than-thou, criticism that ensues therefrom.

In order to discuss, this statement needs to be agreed upon. I'm not sure that's going to be possible. Edit To be more clear: I think what I'm thinking more is that -- what if change IS the tradition to which you are conservative?

Neither of these things are entirely fair. I've lived in the so-called Mormon Belt my whole life and I have experienced every type of ward, from reverent to irreverent/formal to casual. I cannot use that to claim there are no irreverent wards outside of the Mormon belt...except of course my mission, where the reverence in some branches was problematic (though, to be fair, those in the Mormon belt should know better, whereas the small branches in the Philippines -- not always the case)...but I would dare wager there are bad wards as to the reverence thing outside the Mormon belt too. The fact is, people are people. And people are both good and evil all over. edit: Case in point

I've lost so much respect for J.K. Rowling since the last book came out -- starting with the fact that the last book pretty well showed that she had no idea what she was doing. Before that, I still had high hopes there was some beautiful grand plan that would bring it all together and give it a some amazing meaning. But no...Harry beats Voldemort the same way he did in the first book. Sheer, dumb, luck. And then of course she decided it would be a good idea to out Dumbledore. Of course she already performed character assassination on him in book 7. Of course the HP Book 7 let down was nothing compared to the finale of Lost.

I despise knee bouncing!!

Visions of Glory makes me laugh. That anyone takes it seriously or in any way useful? Astounding.

But... Google. Who needs memorization anymore?

This describes accountability. Agency is accountability. You are an agent unto yourself -- representing yourself -- and thereby accountable for your own choices and actions.

Politically speaking, this is a very conservative thing to say.

You're not understanding me, I think. I'm simply saying that using the concept of free agency to dictate how we vote for something -- using it to justify legalization of something -- is invalid. The concept of free agency does not, in any way, indicate that we should have legal freedoms. Nor does it imply that we shouldn't. It is unrelated. You stated that you would vote to legalize marijuana because "individual liberty (which is how we manifest free agency) is more important than most other issues." I'm saying that is not how we manifest free agency. If it were, it would mean that those in oppressive societies have less agency than those in free countries. This is entirely false. Being legally restricted has no bearing on our agency. Those with greater legal restrictions still have free agency in full measure. I also entirely disagree with the idea that individual liberty is more important than most other issues...but that's a different point entirely. Even were I to agree with that concept, individual liberty is not a manifestation of free agency, and saying it is implies that you do not understand what agency is. It implies that you believe that agency equates to liberty. It does not. So I'm attempting to clarify the matter for you. Agency is not liberty. Agency is accountability (which does require some liberty...but not full liberty). It is accountable for the choices we do make...and does not mean we have the ability to make any choice we want. Moreover, having a law against something does not take away choice or accountability. It can increase temporal accountability, yes...but what's wrong with that? Another way to look at agency is that it's the exact same concept as stewardship. We know that we do not all have the same stewardships given to us. Some have greater stewardships than others for a number of reasons -- political freedoms being one potential reason -- and we are accountable before God based on those stewardships. That pretty much describes agency to a T. Those who have less are not accountable for that which they do not have. But they are still just as accountable, in every way, for that which they do have. This plays into every level of life, including political freedoms. Yes.

The things about Joseph Smith, as per my perception, that people leave the church over have absolutely nothing to do with his imperfections. They are things that he did under guidance and direction from our Heavenly Father that people have problems with.

None of this is known. Speculation all. Not saying I disagree, per se. But I'm not so sure anything about the way God and time work can be said as if definitively understood like this.

I'm not sure "one whit" is accurate. He obviously cares at some level for some people -- according to their stewardship.

Not to be too obstinate on the matter, but it's not a matter of opinion. :) Liberty and/or freedom is distinctly a different thing than agency or "free" agency. The one is partial component of the other (we must be, at some level, free to choose to have agency), but complete freedom is not agency and complete agency is not freedom. Prisoners, slaves, those in bondage, etc. all have agency, completely and fully. But their liberty/freedom is limited. We all have our freedoms limited in some regards. Our agency is, conversely, not limited unless we have managed to son-of-perdition ourselves out of it. Until then, we are free to choose eternal life or eternal death.