The Folk Prophet

Is this the goal? Why? Seems to me that the goal should be to speak the truth as best we can. If any mutual understanding is to exist then it must only do so by those who have rejected truth in the past turning to accept it. Otherwise, by trying to set this embracing of mutual understanding as our primary goal, we face compromising truth. Something we should never do.

I see your point, but don't entirely agree. Well...I do..."less" flack...but still some. I don't think it's proper in any degree to counsel someone to go speak to their bishops to see if they can get out of keeping the commandments. The covenant of obedience is not to obey your bishop. It is to obey the word of the Lord. Seems a pretty direct covenant related to the WoW to me. Agreed. Many things commanded of the Lord are tokens, however. Pretty much all ordinances are. How is it that local leadership takes upon themselves to determine which tokens an individual must observe and which an individual must not. I mean, really...if it was a serious medical issue that only coffee seemed to alleviate, then maybe it would make sense to me. Like attending church meetings. If someone had to work every Sunday then there's some validity to perhaps "excusing" that part of of the temple questions. But if someone is just uncomfortable attending church and so they don't bother going... A bishop is going to do what a bishop is going to do. That is their prerogative. Clearly. But I do not have to agree with or support such a philosophy, or even give the bishop the benefit of the doubt -- particularly when, as I have said, I think that idea is highly damaging as a philosophical guide to be posting on a public forum. We are meant to keep the commandments, not look for justification and excuses to get out of them if they're difficult, uncomfortable, or otherwise. I also maintain that a bishop allowing someone to have a temple recommend in spite of someone's disobedience will be entirely irrelevant to that persons culpability in the matter on judgement day. Unless, of course, that bishops actions lead to the persons inability to understand and choose to obey (in which case, the bishop would stand culpable). But I cannot believe that any person who is active in this church can have ANY excuse to believe that the Word of Wisdom just does not apply to them. To me Iggy is nothing more than a random person making an outrageous claim on the internet. She pretends this huge offense and blocks me for not believing her -- it's a tactic to shame me into backing down. But I'm not ashamed. Random. Internet. Person. If one is going to make an outrageous claim on the internet and expect others to believe them, I say, PROVE IT. Are we really meant to assume that random comments on the internet are factual rather than the other way around? Someone on the forum said something so that's how I know it's true? This is the worst kind of logical fallacy and there is no support for her claim at all. I mean, really, where should the benefit of the doubt lie here? And, frankly, even if Iggy could prove it with a scanned signed exception form from her bishop, "I solemnly swear that I have given permission....." it would still be entirely inappropriate for her to be using that on a public forum to espouse disobedience and preach it to others. IF the exception is truly legitimate...I re-emphasize IF...then KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!!!

Why not? Since when do bishop's have the right to dictate which commandments we are and are not meant to obey? I mean, sure, it's their place to sign the recommend or not. Obviously no one else can challenge that. There's no reason to not challenge the very idea however, or whether the bishop should be doing such a thing. Are we soft on this because it's "just" coffee? Would you say the same if it was, say, adultery? Moreover, and more importantly, I am very much in a position to state unequivocally that a bishop granting an exception or not is irrelevant to our responsibility to God to keep our covenants. And I will not shy away from such. The fact of the matter is that if a bishop is granting a so-called exception to someone allowing them to attend the temple in spite of their unwillingness to comply with their covenants, that bishop is doing them a disservice by allowing them to believe that their obedience is not that important after all, or connected to there temple worthiness. Shame on such a bishop! If, indeed, this bishop and stake president has made such an exception look at what they've done to poor Iggy who now believe she can willy-nilly do as she wishes concerning God's commandments, wresting them according to their own interpretations, desires, and struggles, sin a little, eat drink and be merry, and if God beats me with a few stripes....etc., etc... I feel obligated to stand up against this idea, in spite of possible offense given. It may be too late for Iggy, but heaven forbid others believe the idea and start also making excuses and taking such a cavalier attitude towards their temple covenants. I am, frankly, surprised that no one else seems to be willing to stand up against this. Do we really not understand the sanctity and sacred nature of the temple covenants we make. Do we really treat them so lightly?

Good point. Thanks.

So what? Gay people are hardly valid witnesses as to the potential biases of gay people. Give me something concrete or your point of view on discussions of healing being unproductive is mere opinion. Back it up with something other than a gay person or two said so. You can't act like the debate's settled. It is not, and will not be -- cannot be. Opinions don't prove anything.

Just our of curiosity...asked by whom?

Not quite perfect responded accurately to this. I am hard pressed to understand how any "temple worthy" member can be unaware that not drinking coffee or tea is a commandment. I did not state you were a liar. You could be confused, misinformed, or otherwise off course in your thinking. Or, as I plainly stated later, your statement could be accurate and I think your leadership is mistaken. And, either way, as I also clearly stated, a covenant to obey the commandments is a covenant to obey the commandments, regardless of what a bishop or stake president says. I've never understood blocking. Doesn't bother me any. All it does is make it so others can't respond to my "offensive" posts. *shrug* If you don't want to be offended by me, don't say thinks that force me to defend truth by spewing corrupt ideas like Dahlia should go ahead and just drink coffee.

These scriptures could not be more plain. You can wrest them all you want. But they are plain. Frankly, as you clearly cannot see the plainness of this in them, it's pretty pointless to continue discussing it with you. On the upside, if either you or I are dead wrong on our understanding it won't matter a whit to our salvation as long as we have been faithful in this life. I suppose it might make a difference if at some point you determined to save said repentance for post mortality. Regardless I don't feel particularly obligated to try and convince you. Knowing you fairly well from your posts, I don't expect your philosophy is to justify sin. I do have a modicum of concern that philosophies such as yours as read by lesser minds could very well be used to justify sinning, but I have posted the plain scriptures in response, and what more can I do? And I am not interested in the least in just debating for the fun of it, as I do not find it fun. You can do that with SemSnoozer if you're so inclined.

This may not be what you meant, but I've noticed that it's a popular thing to accuse anyone preaching the commandments, obedience and repentance of judging. The commandments are the commandments. I doesn't matter what a bishop says. Covenants are covenants and we are to keep them in spite of our bishop's view on them.

I would think we would "all" know this. Apparently we "all" do not.

Though if you come to ski you get above the inversion and the mountain air is wonderful (albeit a bit thin).

Blackmarch is right. Grace doesn't contradict the law. It's not in conflict with the law. It balances the law. It works within the law. The law is the law. It's factual. It simply is. It amount to something like: If I lie to you you won't trust me any more. The goodness of God and His grace and Atonement make it possible for the law to be satisfied and for God's great mercy to come to those who choose to accept him, repent of their sins, and take up their crosses and follow Him. Mercy doesn't rob justice. Christ paid the utmost farthing for our sins. He PAID for them. That is the key. Justice is satisfied because He did this for us. In return, He makes our path plain. Come follow me. If ye love me, keep my commandments. Feed my sheep. Etc.

If you have to work with people who are difficult for whatever reason, it is as likely as not that you will have to swallow some pride at some point. Hopefully not. In which case...what's the concern? Get in and enjoy it. I've seen several situations where bishops forced people together into situations that were a major struggle. In almost every case it's hard on all concerned. So, really, all I'm suggesting is that when and if it becomes hard on you (ideally it won't be) then embrace it as a chance to practice humility. :)

I know it's not entirely what you mean...but this isn't exactly accurate. We do, indeed, need to have more than that. Acting in faith is good enough, but the reason it is good enough is because doing so will bring greater light and knowledge to us. If we are acting in faith we are constantly being given more and more, and this is imperative. If we are not moving forward, we are moving backwards. The acquisition of light and knowledge is key. It is by this means that we know our Heavenly Father, and it is through knowing Him that we become like Him. Stagnant faith will not yield this end. (Though, from a certain point of view, the term stagnant faith is an oxymoron, so....)

What you said is that he did nothing wrong. Per my understanding of the OP, he sought it out purposefully for prurient reasons. If that is the case, then he did, indeed, do something wrong. I made no comment on the need to see a bishop about it. That idea, to me, seems silly. But I also would never tell someone to not do so if they felt like they should, and it's actually a rule of the forum that we not do so. The answer to should I see my bishop is always either yes or follow the spirit. How is that relevant? I have, actually, seen it, though I did not seek it out for prurient reasons but came across it accidentally. I moved on without much thought. I have worked hard to respond to such things in that way, as my natural impulse would be to linger and enjoy. And the same remains true of bikini clad women in TV shows and movies. I look away. Were I to seek such things out with prurient intent, I would be doing something wrong. Relatively not-so-bad does not mean not bad.

^^^ these two thoughts seem in conflict, and I remain highly skeptical. Of course, I wouldn't put it past local leadership to do such a thing somewhere in the world. But one would be hard pressed to convince me that the decision was appropriate, right, or inspired in any way in our current world. Moreover, it is irrelevant to the covenants we make. My bishop giving me a temple recommend in spite of my disobedience does not mean my disobedience went away. I will still stand accountable before the Lord for the commitments I have made that I ignored, would not keep, or otherwise disregarded. I, and everyone who has gone to the temple, have made sacred covenants to obey the commandments. And where there was a time when the Word of Wisdom's "commandment" status was ambiguous, it is not ambiguous to any degree nowadays, at least not when it comes to the standard 4 (coffee, tea, alchohol, tobacco). The commitment to the Word of Wisdom is one of the key tenets that is used to determine commitment to conversion and a willingness to put ourselves aside in favor of the Lord's will. If it is, indeed, viable that certain people can (nowadays) get a free pass on this particular commandment, it throws the whole system out of whack. I simply don't buy it. No way, no how. John can only go to the temple if he is committed, worthy, willing to give up all his sins, but Bill can go to the temple in spite of not doing these things? It is indeed a different age than it was a few generations ago. I have a pipe on my shelf for decoration purposes that belonged to one of my great grandfathers. As near as I understand, he smoked it his whole life, and was a worthy member. That is non-applicable to me. Were I to smoke said pipe I would not be worthy. No getting around it.

Ha ha! I love it when virus softwares fight with each other. The meaning "malware" is a pretty broad definition. Avast is a fairly well known well used piece of software. What Bitdefender considers malware is Bitdefender's opinion. Whether that opinion is valid or not depends on YOUR idea of what malware is. Some people (and software) consider anything with any sort of ad in it malware. At any rate, I'd stick with Windows Defender and forget the rest. Just me though.

Says you.

And here's me, all these years, never knowing that my bishop or stake president could grant exceptions to keeping the commandments. Just think of all the things I could have done. Dahlia - Please don't heed this thinking and drink coffee or tea based on internet forum babble!

My point was not, necessarily, that someone can overcome homosexuality in this life. But, rather, that someone can, by turning to the Atonement through repentance and obedience, be healed from the hurt of it -- just as someone who is a quadriplegic may also be healed in their hearts and souls despite perhaps never actually gaining usage of their full bodies again in this life. As to the overcoming of homosexual or not...claiming that one cannot is every bit as invalid as claiming one can. All evidence one way or the other is entirely anecdotal and therefore invalid. If I'm not allowed to use anecdotal evidence based on people I've known to support my ideas in this regard then neither is anatess. In short, comparing homosexuality to something like Autism (or permanent paralization of some sort) may be valid in some cases, but it just as well may not be, and putting it into those terms in such an adamant way is therefore potentially harmful. In other words, stating that it isn't productive to claim we can be healed from such things is assuming a black-and-white reality that remains to be proven, and will likely never be proven. And if such thinking is universally adopted, and if homosexuality, in reality, is entirely alterable, then we put ourselves into a state of blindness and lies based on political sensitivity. Dangerous. There's way too much "from what I've seen" behind this issue going around. What we've seen is what people say and do. And what people say and do proves nothing. People, as we well know, are quite capable of corruption, sin, naivety, mental disorders, and a host of other weaknesses that keep them from being, as a whole, very good witnesses of much. And they are all generally blind to reality until they put off the natural man and come to Christ and gain truth by the only sure means of gaining pure truth and light, which means is through the Holy Spirit. So even if everyone living on the earth adamantly claimed that they knew they could not change something that ultimately accounts to nothing more than taste, is not particularly swaying as an argument.

As I read this I had the thought that maybe it means it's not a day of many word because IT IS A DAY OF ACTION!

This is my take. But it's a very, very hard thing to do. In today's world respect, love, and tolerance are in the eye of the beholder. If you've hurt someone's feelings it is always your fault, seems to be the attitude. Tough love has been all but railroaded out of town.

Whereas I agree, I would be very, very careful to not use this thinking to excuse or justify anything. It is way too easy to get into trouble. Better to be too strict than to end up making mistakes that you will surely regret deeply.

Half the reason that we have callings in the church, I believe, is to teach us humility. This looks like a great opportunity to learn some.

Wrong. They identification has been clearly stated time and time again. Coffee and tea. Any usage of these is justification and lying. Excuse yourself all you want. Please stop encouraging others to do so. You told your Branch President AND Stake President that you use coffee and tea and they let you keep your temple recommend? I don't believe you.