The Folk Prophet

Don't lump us all in with one or two people's views.

The reconciliation is simple. 3 is false.

Interesting. I was ill this Sunday and so haven't been able to ask around much. I've only spoken to 6 people. I'm curious. Is the question being asked as in prior to the essays, or at all in the past. All 6 of those who I have spoken to were already aware of these things prior to the essays, but they have almost all also said that they only found out about them within the past several years.

You mean like this picture from lds.org?

Whereas I agree with the point your making, I wanted to add that the law of the harvest still applies, even if we can't help it. If you walk off the edge of a cliff you fall to your death regardless of whether it was your fault or not. I point this out in support of the idea of getting help. We must deal with the issues of life in practical ways, and realistically face the challenges we have. Get help. Use medicine if appropriate. And accept that we may, indeed, have challenges that others may not have in spite of our righteousness or God's love for us.

I'm not suggesting that feeling should be subtracted from the equation as to the end choices we make. But as an intellectual process, it's fairly easy to remove feelings from a justification standpoint. The Lord, very clearly, counts feelings in the equation. But those feelings are a means of His communicating with us. He also teaches us very plainly, D&C 11:14 And then shall ye know, or by this shall you know, all things whatsoever you desire of me, which are pertaining unto things of righteousness, in faith believing in me that you shall receive. 3 Nephi 18:20 And whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, which is right, believing that ye shall receive, behold it shall be given unto you. The Lord cares about our desires. But He always qualifies it by that "which is right". It's not hard to separate feelings from the equation. Just take them out and is it still acceptable? In the case of breaking a sealing with an ex, yes, obviously, still acceptable (if approved by those in proper authority). In the case of many things, however, that many people feel VERY strongly about, no. Still not acceptable, no matter how strongly anyone feels. Feelings do not justify behavior. But they can be useful in guiding our choices if we are struggling to hear and do the will of the Lord. So, I'm with you. A wife's feelings can matter, absolutely, as a valid reason for this sort of thing. But, just for the sake of argument, let's say the policy was strictly 'no' on breaking said sealing. And let's say, for example, the teachings of the church were that breaking sealings was wrong. Would the justification still remain because of the wife's strong feelings? No. The feelings don't change the matter. As it is, it seems to me that the issue of breaking a sealing is a semi-neutral thing, and that the church (and the Lord) allows it because of feelings and because of His love and concern for us. But there also seems to be an indication that the preference is towards maintaining sealings (for which there must be a reason) wherever possible. But the feelings of the individuals involved do matter because that stability of emotion, and the strength of new marriages and families, outweighs (in some cases) the preference to maintain sealings.

It sounds to me like you need to seek immediate professional help.

This is presuming sealings will actually have to be "canceled". My understanding (which, of course, is only supposition, because no one knows for sure) is that they will not be any more than all the people who are baptized will need to be unbaptized. The only reason to cancel a sealing is so that another may take place. And that is only necessary for women. And do not misunderstand me either (hopefully you haven't) as being in any way critical of your husband's choice and that process. As I said before. I think it's great. I simply don't buy (from an intellectual point of view) that "feelings" are a good reason to pursue things necessarily, and am looking at the potential whys beyond simple "feeling" like one should. Clearly, if that "feeling" is inspiration, then it is a good idea...but that makes the reason God's will, rather than feeling (the feeling is only the communication of God's will), and what better reason is there than that? None. I certainly don't discount anyone's potential to receive such inspiration and act on it. Short of that, I'm still not sure I'm seeing a logical, valid reason behind why this is an important thing to pursue for men. But that is generally and widely applied as a theory of curiosity -- not by way of accusation or criticism in any regard.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against cancelling the sealing. I think it's great. If the church approves it, awesome. I'm just interested in discussing it from an intellectual standpoint -- personal feelings aside.

Reality isn't relative. This sums up a lot of what's wrong with the world today.

I'd be okay with it for my wife, but I'd trade it for one free kiss from the female celebrity of my choice.

Because... That's why.

We're not talking about generic "worst" time. OP is only speaking of corruption? Can you apply the same by replacing the word "worst" with the "most corrupt"? Examples of corruption don't work unless they're as widespread as the corruption in our day. But your post does make me think. As in the Dicken's quote: can it not be the best of times and the worst of times? Or, more appropriate to the question at hand: Can it not be the most righteous and the most wicked of times?

Why would you think that God wants you to have faith in the words of a random teenager?

I really like Tuesdays.

Sinners are not justified. Only the repentant.

I gotta say though, the word exalted in the church has a distinct meaning, and using it otherwise can cause confusion. So, in my opinion, it's problematic to refer to exalted states other than exaltation in the Celestial kingdom. Because exaltation has such a distinct meaning, it makes sense to me to choose a different word if referring to some other place where we are, relatively, exalted.

Halloween is great if you make it great. And that is not (as Connie alluded to) about costumes and candy, but about family, tradition, and purpose.

Interesting. What would taking the kingdoms "literally" literally mean? I'm not sure we know enough about them to take them literally, figuratively, or any other way.

I'm not sure I'd accept a rare quote and/or rare philosophy as doctrinally sound. The clarification for what is and is not doctrine is that what we preach is common and easy to discover. Point being, I'm not saying that Joseph F. Smith was wrong, by any means (I wouldn't dare), but that we can't necessarily accept this quote as factual, doctrine. In point of fact, eternal progress, literally, has been clarified to mean the expansion of worlds, works, and seed. This privilege is clearly and specifically reserved for those who are given eternal lives (which means the same thing), as in exaltation. So whatever Joseph F. Smith meant by their ability to eternally progress, it was not that.

Didn't I point out a page back that you were arguing semantics?

Okay...I Photoshoped the background. Sue me.

Hahahahaha HA!!! Speaking of Mormon Paranoia Syndrome.

O....kay.....

How can you be labeled apostate for bringing up the church essays on lds.org?