The Folk Prophet

Yes. And we celebrate Christmas too. A protestant holiday. Clearly, and obviously, the view was that there were certain hymns, holidays, and practices, that were acceptable and didn't relate us too closely to other religions, and certain hymns, holidays, and practices did. What is so hard to understand about that?

An entirely pointless response. First. So what? That doesn't mean they can't be overcome and/or done away with. Secondly. Says who? Doing away with them is certainly a subset of overcoming them. They can too be viewed as the same thing. I'll rephrase for clarity: None of these teachings or scriptures say that the thorn cannot be entirely done away with, or that glorying in one's infirmities means that they should not still try and do away with them with all their might. You have nothing concrete to support that they can, in each and every case, only be removed upon death. Sorry. Your views on this are your own. I accept, obviously, that some thorns may stay with us through this life. But that any and all thorns do?

It's document-ably true. Or not. Who cares? You are very antagonistic.

Why isn't this in our hymn book?

None of these teachings or scriptures say that the thorn cannot every be removed, or that glorying in one's infirmities means that they should not still try and overcome them with all their might.

*shrug* Maybe. I can see a ward choir singing it at Christmas time in Sacrament meeting without problem. Depends on the bishop's p.o.v. I suppose. Is there an actual policy against Latin in sacrament meeting? Hmm.... Not the best choice for a hymn though...probably, because it's too Catholic. That's less of a deal now, but there was a time when the LDS church worked quite hard to separate themselves from anything that seemed too Catholic (and any other Christian denomination). Some of those things remain cultural, and some remain standards of good practice. Who knows where a song like Ave Maria falls into that.

I'm sorry. I don't see this as "spin". In fact, calling it "spin" is the distortion. I don't deny it's carefully worded. I don't think mentioning every wife and every age is necessary or else it's "spin". Frankly, the idea that it needs to is ridiculous. It's pretty straightforward. It's not negative. But it's not particularly positive either. As I said, the "before her 15th birthday" thing doesn't really work for me as an effort to portray Joseph in a better light. Calling it spin implies it's somehow better to marry a 15 yr old than a 14 yr old. I'm not seeing it. Calling it a spun projection seems to me more critical than fair.

The church has no responsibility to full disclosure. The question isn't whether they've disclosed everything. It's whether they are consciously hiding things.

How are any of those spin? Are you suggesting that many details are known that the church is hiding? Are you suggesting that all the later reminiscences are reliable? Are you suggesting that all the women left records? How on earth do you read "spin" from "we don't know everything"? Sheesh. At least RMGuy's one can legitimately be called spin. I hate to tell you this, but there ARE big wide open holes in the complete story. They aren't leaving them. They exist. They're reality. Pretending like we have the complete story (as the anti crown like to do) is the spin. We don't. Oh...no...now my reply has spin too! Combing over an article with a fine toothed comb is called good editing, is good practice, and a genuine way to reliability. Of course it was combed over. Throwing any old willy-nilly garbage into it would be irresponsible.

^ this. Determined to criticize is determined to criticize. I'd drop it.

I am, not to put to fine a point on it, a Photoshop Guru. (I couldn't find a Guru emoticon, so here's a pirate instead ) After Effects, on the other hand, I've never used in my life.

Well that's just silly, and ridiculously nit-picky. Why say it that way? Because it's less detailed. Several months before 15 gives a more accurate picture. Just "14" is less accurate. "Late into here 14th year", or "14 and around 9 or 10 months", would be an odd way to say it. Something akin to "almost 15" is clear and accurate. When I get asked how old I am a few months before a birthday, I'll generally say, "almost __". But, of course, we get to call it "spin" to smear the church just a wee bit more, so -- yeah, always helpful. Heaven forbid we look for ways to build up the kingdom instead. Really though? Marrying an almost 15-year-old is less potentially offensive than marrying a 14 year old? What if the youngest he'd married had actually been 15? Would that make it all hunky-dory with the anti crowd? Interesting. I suppose those who are looking for criticism of the church will find it in anything they do. "Spin" is in the eye of the beholder, apparently. Still...I can accept that this is "spin" if we want to call it that (though I would point out, that calling it "spin" is spin itself). But, okay. It's spin. Accurate and detailed spin. But spin.

This issue, like most, is not a black-and-white, you-are-or-you-aren't, everybody's-the-same issue. The liberal view has tried very hard to paint it that way to push their agenda. But it simply is not so. The jury may be out on it in some cases, but there is no question whatsoever, in my thinking, that choice can and does play a huge role in many, if not most, cases. In other words, there may be some who are just wired that way. But that doesn't mean that everyone who is gay is just wired that way. Anecdotaly, I personally know someone who intentionally opted to be gay because they couldn't get dates with women. It's all fine and dandy to accept the idea that perhaps some are faced with an inborn challenge that they may never overcome. It's quite something else to teach the entire world that you either are or you aren't, you have not choice, and if you are in that state then there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. Even if that is true for some, it is certainly not true for all. It's something else again entirely to mandate by government stipulation that professionally helping someone overcome homosexuality is illegal. Seriously...it's like the entire world has turned their brains off concerning it. The gay community said, "We're born this way" and without a further thought everyone just bought into that, hook, line and sinker. Must be a fact, no exceptions, no variations, you are or you aren't, etc. What aspect of life, motivation, drive, and taste is ever that simple? From a doctrinal point of view, if one truly has no choice in the matter, then one is not accountable. Agency requires choice. No agency = no accountability. So if, as the left would have us believe, no one has a choice in their feelings, then I acquiesce -- they are not accountable, there is no evil in it, and the only choice they have is to not act on it. But that's quite a mindless conclusion. Everyone who ever faces any level of sexual attraction for someone of the same sex has no say in the matter concerning their feelings? A bit of a stretch, methinks. I'd go so far as to argue that if there are those who have no choice, it is far and in-between, and quite rare. For the most part, choice plays a primary role in who we are, and who we become. Having no ability to control one's feelings would be, I believe, quite the disability. And I stand by my previous general statement that children tend to have this inability, but normally as we mature we learn to control our feelings. It's one of the primary indications that we are maturing, in fact. Someone who continues through their lives to have absolutely no control over how they feel about things is in a fairly sad state. Frankly, sex drive in and of itself is fully controllable (with time, practice, patience, effort, crossing oneself, etc., etc.). It's more of our modern, sex-is-a-right, we're-just-animals-at-the-core-of-it, we-can't-control-ourselves, that has pushed so hard, particularly since the sexual revolution, that we have no choice or ability to control these things. (To be clear: I'm not talking about physical arousal -- which having been a teenage boy, I know full well is sometimes out of our control. I'm speaking of thought processes and emotional drive). I cannot state this clearly enough: No choice is Satan's lie. He would have us believe this about all aspects of our humanity. This is what the war in heaven was over. God's plan was choice. Pure and simple. Satan wanted to remove our agency. And he is still striving to do just that. By convincing us that we have no choice, he wins that battle. We remove our own agency as soon as we accept that we have not choice in ANY given matter. We are not just animals. We can control ourselves at every level. If we cannot, it is because of some disorder. I do not doubt that there are those with disorders who are thereby incapable of controlling themselves. But by and large, this is a result of an agenda that has been taught to us through a myriad of sources, blinding us to the reality of life, that God actually did give us the ability to choose. Exceptions exist, of course. And when they do, those who do not have choice have no accountability because they have no agency in the matter. This is true of young children. This is true of those mentally or emotionally disabled. And it would hold true for someone who had a sexual disorder that did not allow them to choose. But these exceptions do not influence the principles of truth that we should embrace. The fact that some are incapable of physical movement does not justify laziness in the rest of us. The fact that some are incapable of learning does not justify giving up on study when it gets hard. The fact that some are homicidal sociopaths does not justify teaching that we cannot control our tempers. And the potential, jury's-still-out, fact that some may have no control over their sexual orientation does not justify a broad teaching that we all have no control over our own sexual feelings.

Such as?

Context: http://lds.net/forums/topic/55528-pastors-being-sued-for-refusing-to-marry-a-same-sex-couple-in-their-chapel/?p=794477 http://lds.net/forums/topic/55528-pastors-being-sued-for-refusing-to-marry-a-same-sex-couple-in-their-chapel/?p=794478

Technically I don't think that anyone has outright said that gays can change. But it's been very strongly implied.

I'd say...irrelevant. The amount of evil in the world is not a percentage issue. 100 evil people is more than 10 evil people, even if both are 100% . I'd say it's directly and linked to the family. As families become devalued, evil increases. But, to be clear, my meaning was related to sin, not necessarily living quality. When I say corruption is increasing (or "accelerating" (a word that apparently confused Andenex :))), I meant sin. Simply put, religion is faltering. Sinful activity is increasing. Families are falling apart. Etc.

Well, as JaG was quoting me with the first statement, I'm pretty sure that I didn't mean that I love that sin and corruption are accelerating. I meant that the world's getting worse and worse. that sin and corruption are more and more rampant and acceptable, and that it is obviously so.

How do you know what others have or have not endured?

Andennex - I think it's a huge (and somewhat odd) leap to read "rejoicing" into the corruption is accelerating idea. Where do you draw that from it? The interpretation from the first (I think it is accelerating) to the second (I love that it's accelerating) is a bit bewildering as a logical construct. The first does not mean the second.

The two are not mutually exclusive. We can always overcome the natural man. We should always try and change the natural man.

Why does this path read so similar to gays and their path to acceptance and popularity? Hmm... TV. How we love thee.

I suppose that depends on what one means by explicit. I liked the Benson video better.

Nah, nerds have been admired for years before that. Ever since they took over cooperate America.

*sigh of relief* I'm always so nervous when I post something about Catholicism that anatess is going to come in and tear me a new one for my stupidity. :)