The Folk Prophet

To be fair, I do not feel we should not consider criticism before writing it off. I'm only saying that there will, likely, be many times, if our intentions are generally right and true, that we will, after consideration, find no reason to accept it as valid. I'm sure that happened to Joseph many times. Sure...sometimes he found weaknesses in himself to correct...and sometimes he surely found no validity to the crazy stuff said about him at all. *shrug* Okay. What I have found, even on this forum, is when I say something with good intent, half the responses are thanks and agreement and the other half are angry accusations. (Of course that depends on the thread and who's posting at the time). So which one of these responses should I take as valid? Both? What I said was good and bad? Kind and unkind? I stand by my thinking. Other's responses are not the entirely of the equation by a long shot. Sure, they're worth consideration. And we should not blow them off based on un-Christian values. But people's perceptions are all over the place.

No. Not what I mean. What I am arguing is that when I am wary of my neighbors it's because I've seen horrible things in the world, not because of some movement. I think I see your point now though. We can, indeed, shield ourselves unduly. But, as with a lot of these things, it isn't black and white. And a bit difficult to even explain and fully comprehend the intricacies of it all.

Exactly. You can be both loving and tolerant. But you can also be loving and intolerant. And, moreover, you can be tolerant and not loving, but claim you love because you're tolerant. This is the counterfeit of which I speak. Tolerance is used as a tool to turn people away from right principles, of which love is the real core, by accepting things that they should not be accepting.

skalenfehl - the idea of "riches" or money specifically is a misdirect. It's not to the point. The quote, very clearly, states: "there is nothing on the face of the earth that they could ask for, that would not be given to them." Jobs. Homes. Cars...sure...but not really important. But still...sure. Family? Health? Missionary success? Everything we do, everything we touch...given to us for the mere asking. Is that not scriptural too? The clear key is living in accordance with the full guidance of the Holy Spirit in all that we do -- but that is also clearly set up by faith. Seems pretty plain to me. Just as you quoted: ...the Holy Ghost...will show unto you all things what ye should do. Isn't that the obvious meaning? "Fulness" = "all". It doesn't have to be "a thing" for the words to make sense. Let go of money and the fulness of the Holy Ghost thing. It strikes me that the point is, as is also clearly taught in the scriptures, all things are possible by faith. Right? I somewhat wonder if our interpretation of these teachings and concepts has become too figurative. I wonder if they are not more literal than we generally accept.

Lacked tact, lacked tact, lacked tact, lacked tact, lacked tact. I'm well aware that we are supposed to be kind. The question is (as you alluded to) is whether other's perception of rudeness in you qualifies you as rude or tactless or not. And I'm not saying it doesn't. I just don't know that it always does. You may be right about the religious community at large ignoring tact as a badge of honor, though you really have no idea any more than I do. I can only speak for myself. What I know is, as I've stated, sometimes I realize I have been tactless and take such responsibility. Other times, however, I have been making efforts to be kind in the way I state truth and it makes no difference. My experience (which I understand is just mine) tells me that if I am tactful or tactless makes no difference in the perception of rudeness. Therefore, the effort to be tactful is not, nor can it be, relative to other's perception, but only to my own character and who I ought to be. It's between me and God. And, more to the OP point, the concept of tact and kindness, while legitimate from a Christian's point of view, is being used as a weapon against truth to silence and suppress truth. I believe that it behooves us to stand up against this by speaking boldly without consideration of the receiver's perception, because that perception is manipulative, calculating, and conditioned to harm said truth. I also think...just to expand the discussion a bit, that Elder Oak's comments are general, but specific situations would clearly dictate other actions. There is a time and a place to forget kindness and simply defend. But generally we should always try and be kind.

You honestly assume that all your neighbor's intentions are good and righteous? You have no problem sending your children and/or loved ones to hang with anyone? Any neighborhood? Anywhere? Because...how dare we make such an assumption? Those gangsters hanging on the corner are probably good people at heart, so, sure Johnny, go play with them.

Tolerance is not a good thing, nor is it a bad thing. It is entirely neutral. Tolerance is rendered good or bad by what is being tolerated. Some things should not be tolerated. Whereas love is a good thing--always, which means using tolerance as an indication of love is replacing something good with something neutral, and perhaps applied to something bad, and it is thereby a counterfeit. It is a false equation to say that if I love my neighbor that I will strictly tolerate all their doings.

skalenfehl - I do not disagree with anything you're expressing. I do not think seeking for riches is the appropriate approach (beyond that which is righteous), but rather, the point is that riches would be a result of truly righteous living. In other words, what I really want to discuss is: Can one do this: "walk up to their privileges, and exercise faith in the name of Jesus Christ, and live in the enjoyment of the fulness of the Holy Ghost constantly day by day," and not receive this: "there is nothing on the face of the earth that they could ask for, that would not be given to them." ?? And if so, how do we reconcile it with the existence of the righteous poor?

Only if it's false. If it's true, it's decidedly, a very safe concept.

Here, freakin', Here!! :)

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong PC, that the point here is that it doesn't make much sense to imply a counterfeit to something that is not related. Like if we just throw out good gift being, say...Christmas and a counterfeit being...say...people driving too slow in the fast lane. At least throw Halloween in there or something. Or...here's another bad example: Good gift: Worshiping God. Counterfeit: Christmas. They aren't equivalent. They can be, of course, but they aren't universal, so the application fails somewhat. Some people use Christmas to worship God very well. Some use it as a counterfeit. Therefore, Christmas fails as a blanket counterfeit because it is not, universally, so. Well...that's what I read into PC's point anyhow. Maybe I'm way off. Here's mine addition to the list: Good gift: Love Counterfeit: Tolerance

I'm not so sure this is a movement as much as a natural result of the horrible things people have done to their "neighbors" over the years. I don't distrust my neighbors in the name of my family's safety because of some movement. I simply distrust others because, you know, they kidnap, molest, kill, lie, steal, preach false ideologies, and are, generally, wicked. Obviously, if I know my neighbor, and learn otherwise about them, then trust is built. Otherwise...uh...yeah...I think I'll put my family's safety first.

You inference of the seeing all things/knowing all things, etc., to my thinking, translates into a weird sounding hive-mind collective in the way you express it. It's not bad. It's just the way I read what you express. Calling it borg is only to be silly, not critical. If I have a criticism of your views, it's only that you presume things as factual that we don't know to be factual. You have a point of view...fine...and you express it as the obvious clear absolute proper view...not fine. I don't deny that your view is a possibility. I don't call it bad or evil (in spite of the borg joke...which was really more to use the emoticon than anything). I do not agree with it, however, partly because it is doing just as you say (though you cannot seem to see it) by applying mortal perception to immortality. Generally I tend towards the "we don't know" point of view on what the Celestial existence will be like, because the fact is just that. All the rest is speculative. I do find it slightly problematic to express speculative ideas as if theyr'e factual -- something I find you and traveler both guilty of in many of your debates. (And, just to be clear and fair, I'm sure I'm guilty in times past as well). I do seem to have a stronger perception of roles and individuality in the eternities than you (per my understanding of your view...which, as I said, I may well misunderstand). I do not think becoming "one" means what you think it does. I see your approach as odd. But that is not to say it is wrong. I am, as you are, only speculating. Because we really don't know. The existence of an exalted being is so far beyond our capability to grasp that any description of it falls flat to me. To be clear, I think the female role in the eternities will be to bear and raise spirit children and that the male role will be to create universes for them. I do not think both these things are equally shared duties any more than I feel the roles we have in this life are equally shared duties. I do not believe that we will be "equal" any more than we are "equal" now...not because of capability, worth, or unequal joy, but because we (the genders) will find the fullness of our joy in different ways due to the eternal nature and character of our gender. It makes no sense to me, whatsoever, (and I find it a "wacky" concept to push) that inheriting all the Father has is 100% literal. Just as if I inherit all my worldly father has, I may get his money, his house, his intelligence, his propensity to prostate problems, etc. But my sister does not become my daughter, and my mother does not become my wife. I become as my father is. I don't become my father. However, I could be entirely wrong. Maybe "all" means "all". Literally. All. And we'll all be married to everybody, be everybody's father, mother, sister, and brother, all will be women and all well be men, all create all the worlds together, all raise all spirit children created by all other exalted beings, and when one of us is communicating with their children, all the other billions upon billion of other beings exalted throughout the eons are right there with us giving the same communication. Maybe.

Also beyond the point, methinks. Unless your point is the same as JaGs, that we're all secretly rich and we just don't know it. ?? Er...or was that JaG's point. I don't know. But I may have misguided the discussion a bit by my title. The rich thing isn't really the point. The having anything we want is. Sure. Not all want to be rich. But do any of us have all that we want, be it family, friends, jobs, wealth, health, or whatever? Honor? Glory? Power? All promises made by the prophets and apostle? Do any of us have that? Moreover, and more important to me, is the discussion about living in the enjoyment of the fulness of the Holy Ghost constantly day by day. Do any of us even come close to that? I mean the fulness of it? That's quite something to consider.

So...interesting thoughts. Some questions according: A: the quote doesn't talk about becoming rich because we promise to use the richness for good. B. If one were to become rich through the means given in the quote, would one really be likely to be destroyed by it? C. If the Lord keeps us from being rich by looking out for our souls, then why the promise from Brigham? D. Does the Lord not, generally, try us, rather than protect us, to see if we will be and do as He asks?

I believe that is (you slippery lawyer you) besides the point.

Do we ever?

Hmm. Intention is only ever known by the one who intended (unless, in rare circumstances, that person admits they intended, as I did earlier. Had I not, you would not have known whether I intended it or not). Therefore, intention is really somewhat irrelevant to the point -- or, rather -- to the point, let's presume that most people who preach religion do not do so with the intention of being rude. And yet, they are constantly viewed as rude. They are constantly called out as bigoted, rude, condemning, judgmental, hateful, and intolerant. If intention is the core of it, then the religious community has nothing to change. They don't intend rudeness. Is that legitimate? That is part of the question at hand. Take me, for example. By the history I have in this forum, I may well be considered one of the ruder chaps about (I'm only assuming based on how often I seem to get accused of it). And yet, there has been only one time, in this very thread, where I was intentionally rude in order to make a point. Every other time, EVER, I have not intended to be rude, but simply to speak the truth. And yet, I do not buy for a second that I have no responsibility to change how I speak and communicate. I know I have to continually work on that. But...I also agree that there is some validity to the idea that rudeness is only in the eye of the beholder and from a certain point of view one who is not intending rudeness is not culpable. Accordingly, I believe that in many circumstances, when I have have been called out as being rude that my accuser is simply and plainly mistaken. What I have yet to discover is where that line is. When is is appropriate to back down and apologize because what one said was taken as offensive, and when is it appropriate to not back down because the truth is the truth? I'm not sure. But I disagree that there is an "always" about it. There is not "always" try to say it kindly just as there is no "never" worry about being kind. Each situation is unique and requires intelligence, thoughtfulness, and the guidance of the Spirit. When Amulek called Zeezrom a child of hell, I don't think his intention was to be kind. And yet was Amulek wrong? Should he have backed off? Zeezrom not only wasn't offended, he was converted. (For those interested, here is the exchange in the Book of Mormon between the two. See vs. 23 for the "child of hell" part). There's a real thought there. What is our objective in speaking? To never offend? NO! The objective is to bring souls to Christ. And in some cases offending is the wrong thing to do, and in some cases it may be just the right thing to do. Everyone is different. Everyone responds differently. No situation matches another. And this is where you're view on Christ's objectives differs from mine. I do not believe for a second that Christ's primary objective and motivation was to be nice*. His objective is, and always has been, our salvation. And sometimes that means harsh words, whips, destruction and death. * I can see, from a certain way of looking at it, that being "nice" was always His objective, in that true and legitimate niceness is not always a soft word, but a concern and choice for the welfare of the individual. As in, is it nicer to not yell at your kid when they are running out in traffic or is it nicer to scream your head off to save their lives?

Thank you. Now I understand that my point of view is inspired by Satan.

I think where we diverge is our understanding of Christ's intent to be kind in all cases. I do not think His running the money changers out of the temple was meant to be kind. I do not think His telling people to pluck their eyes out rather than sin was meant to be kind. I do not think kindness was the primary motivation. Truth was. And He full well knew that sometimes the truth is not kind. As you point out. Christ had perfect knowledge. Therefore, He knew that some would see his comments as rude. Therefore, He spoke rudely intentionally. He did not alter what He said to fix that perception. Agreed...most the time. But there are times and places where it is, I believe, entirely appropriate to say something that you know darned well some people will find rude. What does judging have to do with it? I'm not following your line of thinking here.

I'll grant it may be a misunderstanding. But your views are...well...I put it in another thread...somewhat borg-ish.

An interesting Brigham Young quote for discussion. "If the Latter-day Saints will walk up to their privileges, and exercise faith in the name of Jesus Christ, and live in the enjoyment of the fulness of the Holy Ghost constantly day by day, there is nothing on the face of the earth that they could ask for, that would not be given to them. The Lord is waiting to be very gracious unto this people, and to pour out upon them riches, honor, glory and power, even that they may possess all things according to the promises he has made through his Apostles and Prophets" Thoughts?

Since when? That's like saying, Good gift: Horse Counterfeit: Car I call them both good gifts. This whole natural = better trend is nonsense. Good gift: charcoal from a fire to write on the cave wall (because it's natural!) Counterfeit: Word Processor. Evil. Man made. Not natural. edit (or...maybe a better relation: Good gift: gold plates and a sharp item to scratch words in. Counterfeit: computers/word processors)

In theory, it could not be more Christlike, as it's directly quoting Him. In practice, it was rude. Intentionally. (Which is not Christlike, but was meant to make a point). And I stand by the thought. Anyone who thinks Christ was not considered rude by the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the like does not know the scriptures.

If you interpret "hanging out" in a way other than wasting time chatting about meaningless drivel, sure. Hanging out can be part of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of others. This is not what I meant by "hanging out" though. Clearly -- because we're talking about two folk hanging out in lower kingdoms, wherein they've already lost their eternal life, and hanging out won't improve that situation. Hanging out, in such a case, cannot be viewed as a means to true joy. True joy will not exist anywhere except in the highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom. Your idea of eternal life is strange. We are not Borg. Resistance is futile.