The Folk Prophet

What does this even mean? What, specific, teaching concerning "sex" has changed since Kimball's tenure? You're putting this into such all-or-nothing, black-and-white terms. Believing that the prophets were not guilty of major mistakes and sins is not the same as believing the prophets were perfect, nor is it living in a vacuum.

^ this. Judgement isn't going to be like going to court in mortality. We will all be perfectly conscious of our guilt and every knee shall bow, etc... I somewhat wonder if "judgment" is more of a formality or even a priesthood ordinance of sorts. There will be no debate, no appeals, no clamoring, etc. We will be who we are and it will be obvious to all -- spoken from the rooftops, so to speak. There will be no consideration. It will not be necessary. The formality of who judges who is more related, methinks, to the priesthood/patriarchal order. We will all stand as "judges" to those who came under our stewardship in this regard. As Joseph was the one who had these keys to that order restored, he stands at the head of this dispensation. But he also had those keys restored unto him by others who will preside over him in the "judgment" process.

Steadfast -- or Immovable. They kind of go hand in hand and sort of mean the same...so... Can it be a phrase? Steadfast and Immovable.

I know this is a total derailment but...I've always thought this quote was so much garbage. First of all, that is, decidedly, NOT the definition of insanity. Second. Repetition is how we improve. Of course we expect different results from it. Because the more we do any given thing, the more we are comfortable with it, the more muscle memory we have (if it is physical). The more we understand and grow and learn. Of course we expect different results through repetition. Duh.

Kimball got it wrong on sex? What on earth?! I don't think so. I'll ignore the Brigham/race thing because people generally tend to be way to stubborn and crippled by politically correct trends to see the bigger picture and to allow a reasonable discussion around it. But Joseph did not get it wrong on polygamy. If you believe that then you are either sorely uneducated on the actual history of it or you are turning a blind eye to something because it bothers you. Basically any principles you struggle with you're default to, "The prophet must have been wrong." Is there any chance that you're the one who's wrong? It is an impossible stretch, in my view, to resolve shaken faith by accepting that the things one sees as problems ARE actually problems but the church is true anyhow. This is logically incongruent. The only viable resolution is to come to terms with these things by a belief that they are within the scope of righteous prophet/seer/revelator behavior and thinking. You're right in saying that the Spirit is the key here. But when the Spirit has witnessed to us that the church is true, that Joseph was a prophet, and that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, it behooves us to the accept that there are viable and reasonable explanations for these men's actions and teachings that would not place them strictly outside qualifying as prophets, seers and revelators. When something seems out of the ordinary, then God is doing "questionable" thing? Wouldn't it make more sense, knowing of God's perfect love, mercy, justice, knowledge, and power, that if something seems questionable to us that it means that we're someone knowledgeable, un-loving, un-merciful, un-just, etc.? Viewpoints such as this strike me as fairly small-minded -- mortal ideology based in a culturally twisted blind existence trying to explain God's works and ways.

I'd suggest that developing a perception of Mormons based on debates you've presented in an online forum is an invalid method.

Interesting example of things that are directly contrasting to the principles and standards of the church, and yet used somehow to try and support the idea that we can be...let's see, how might we put it...serving God and mammon.

Hmm. Has the Lord ever forced you or anyone you know to keep any commandments? Isn't it obvious that we may choose for ourselves in spite of His commandments? So why is is difficult to understand that the Lord might actually have said this obvious truth?

Forgive my lack of understanding of basic economics. But it seems to me that "the supply is down" = "shortages" regardless of the price.

I like this! Shut up and listen to the Lord. :)

Holy freakin' long post batman! :)

Or...another way to put it: Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. D&C 121:43-44

I don't disagree. I'm fairly certain, however (and this was the joke I was trying to make) that I would say things I would have to later repent of. Even worse if I had a son come out as gay. I'm a sinner, just like we all are.

I am proudly a sheep. Maybe you missed it...but I was continuing a list by Backroads that started with, "Some things that creep up in religiously liberal Mormon conversation:" I was not painting anyone any given way at all.

Heheh. I always go with the (probably mistaken) approach that as long as I include myself it's okay. All mankind is stupid = okay. Everybody's stupid but me = ....well....

No. But I would likely tell him that it was a filthy and despicable act. Of course to many saying the one equates to the other.

Don't follow the prophet if you disagree It's okay to use social pressure to try and change church doctrines and policies Don't worry about wearing a white shirt to church even if you've been directly asked to by your local leadership Local leadership is inherently flawed and may be generally disregarded in anything you dislike Porn isn't that big of a deal Homosexual families are just as beautiful and capable of loving as hetero Joseph Smith (although a prophet) was actually a womanizer and a con man. Polygamy was just a big mistake that the church will surely correct some day. ...and on and on and on it goes... Heck, pretty much anything that used to be prescribed only to antis can now be openly declared my the liberal "faithful" Mormon.

Interestingly enough (well...maybe not) I very, very much "get" the attraction of it, and am still condemnatory rather than compassionate.

Let's see. If I were applying Merriam-Webster to the matter I'd go with: 4 : not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation> 5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms As I think I've said, if this is only socially or politically, then so be it. If it in any way bleeds into doctrinally, then there's trouble. I have yet to see it not bleed into the doctrine, however (from my, admittedly, limited perspective).

Actually, I'm not sure I am entirely prepared in my own thinking concerning the matter to really get into it. But the sense I get from the Book of Mormon is that there may well be a whole lot more cast into outer darkness than we like to believe. The principles I'm referring to are the ones that state otherwise -- that it will be exceedingly rare, that only those who have literally seen Christ qualify, etc... As I said, I'm not in a position to back that up. But I'll dig into the debate if you'd like. As long as it's with the clear understanding that the position I hold on the matter is one of the least secure I've ever held.

The OP's question may have been about being politically liberal (Democrat). And I have no issue with that. I know several excellent Mormon faithful stalwarts who are politically Democrats. But being a liberal Mormon is another thing entirely to my thinking. And it's not about being classically liberal and a Mormon. If we go that way with it, I agree with you. But being a liberal Mormon has a pretty distinct meaning I think.

You've lost me.

Really my contention is over what may or may not qualify someone, and what those so-called "gospel principles" are that keep getting mentioned. Yeah...I know the quotes. I'm not sure they're doctrinal. I say we simply leave placement of kingdoms (or lack thereof) entirely to God and don't give "comfort" that is potentially false. We simply have no idea where God will place any given person who has apostatized from the gospel. Leave it to Him. Our job is merely to do our best to help bring them back to the fold. But...I'll also admit that I may be picking a debate based on ideas that aren't directly correlated to the intentions of your and other's posts. And I'm arguing something that is more theoretical than practical. So... Probably not particularly useful in the end. Sorry.

Indeed. I don't think the OP's question referred to the classical sense of the word.

When it moves into judgement is when we start saying someone is or is not a candidate. That's between them and God. I do have issues with the typical view of what this all means based on teachings in the Book of Mormon...so I'll grant a bias. But saying someone is or is not a candidate is not our place.