The Folk Prophet

If you took it personally and thereby read insult into it I apologize, but my comment was theoretical and broad. It was not attacking anyone. I'm walking away because I am not interested in contention and frustration. I'm here to give and get insight in a peaceful manner. When I get personally attacked in response to something I say, I plan on walking away, not because I'm hurt, but because I don't want to be involved in those those sorts of conversations. They happen when people start taking things personally. Anatess is carrying my position quite well, however.

I don't think you came across that way...not blatantly, or more than the average Joe. Our responses are meant as reminders to us all to keep these things at bay, as it is a natural thing to do. Everyone has likely wondered the same things at some point or another. It sort of depends on what you mean by "the veil". Even that term is used in various ways. In some usages it means the division between the physical and the spirit world. In that sense, of course, spirits of the dead are on the other side of the veil. In another sense, however, it refers to our memories of the pre-existence and God and our understanding and knowledge of him. This is not restored immediately upon death, but will be when we are brought to judgment. (See https://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/veil?lang=eng to get what I mean by different usages of the word.) Also read Alma 11:42-45 Here's Neal A. Maxwell on it: “Sometimes in the Church we speak imprecisely … as if individuals who die go immediately to the celestial kingdom and are at once in the full presence of God. We tend to overlook the reality that the spirit world and paradise are part, really, of the second estate. The work of the Lord, so far as the second estate is concerned, is completed before the Judgment and the Resurrection. … “The veil of forgetfulness of the first estate apparently will not be suddenly, automatically, and totally removed at the time of our temporal death. This veil, a condition of our entire second estate, is associated with and is part of our time of mortal trial, testing, proving, and overcoming by faith—and thus will continue in some key respects into the spirit world. … “Thus, if not on this side of the veil, then in the spirit world to come, the gospel will be preached to all, including all transgressors, rebels, and rejectors of prophets, along with all those billions who died without a knowledge of the gospel (D&C 138)”

Just for pondering as we discuss - from The Family -- A Proclamation to the World: "Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets."

Okay...so what about the myriad of conference talks/comments speaking about how evil is getting worse and worse and that it would continue to do so until the end. Particularly in the 70s there was a lot of this. I"m not just trying to debate. I think it moderately un-provable. But I am quite curious how anyone cannot see that the world is getting more and more wicked by the year. Moreover...per "we just have the internet now" -- seems to drive the point, not diminish it. The means whereby the wickedness is driven is irrelevant, except in that it is driven with greater and greater ease. The internet, and like mediums, allows for the wickedness to spread. Media, in general, has significantly spread wickedness, and brought it to a common place level of acceptance in the world. Sure, society has also driven good things. And I suspect this is what MoE sees. And there is some validity to it. Certain levels of respect for life, liberty, etc., are higher than they have been historically. This has been driven by the media as well. So not all is evil. But, like I said, I think a lot of this is a facade driven by pride and arrogance rather than true compassion and love. Not all...of course. There are a great many good people in the world. But the wickedness, in general, is quite obviously (to me) increasing as the world stumbles along closer and closer to the end.

*sigh* Attacking me really assists the conversation along well. I'm done.

I'm having a hard time equating the number of men who visited brothels in ye olden day with the number of men addicted to porn in our day. Of course I don't have stats on the matter. But I think the idea that things are getting worse and worse is A. Obvious and B. Prophecy. You may not see the obvious. But you must believe the prophecies, surely.

Really? There's the same amount of porn as there was in the 1800s?

I think the so-called more good in the world is by-and-large a facade.

Well, there is the whole, specific, "These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus" thing from D&C 76.

How? Are we worried about holiday celebration becoming worship? Seems that most people worry about just the opposite (at least for religious holidays). But the fact of the matter is that celebrating something and worshiping it are very, very different. Celebrate the stink out of Joseph's birthday if one wants to. Why not? Slippery slope to praying to Joseph Smith? Uh...I don't think so.

So as unchangable as the idea that the family is the central unit of the gospel, that parents are divinely mandated to raise their children in righteousness, etc., etc...?

I hold no opinion on who had the opportunity/knowledge to repent. I only hold the opinion that if they did have such opportunity and knowledge and ignored it, then the time they had was past. I'd quote BOM sources in support, but I assume you're quite familiar with the teaching of Alma and Amulek on the matter.

But could not one ex cathedra change another, in theory? And, FYI, I disagree that established LDS doctrine as core as the Proclamation to the Family can change. In point of fact, nothing in the Proclamation to the Family was new (which is why, I think, it was not canonized or added to the 2013 scriptures). But your point remains in general. New revelation can, indeed, change certain things, clarify understanding, etc. Perhaps with ex cathedra that is not so...???

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I'm pretty sure that my position is exactly the opposite of that.

Based on what anatess is saying (I trust her Catholic knowledge, as I have none myself) it seems more akin to official declarations and the like. So when the first presidency signs something (like...the Proclamation to the Family...???) then perhaps it is more like Ex Cathedra.

There's a mistake in this thinking. He/She who consciously procrastinates the day of his/her repentance will not be able to after this life. This life is the time to prepare. The only who will be given the opportunity to "repent" after this life are those who did not have the opportunity to do so in this life.

Isn't that still.... ......never mind.

We know God can work through those who are not righteous. The Book of Mormon has prophets declaring to the wicked that if they do not repent that He will send the Laminates to slay them. There are a many scriptures that allude to or directly speak of this. We can write them off as not literal, or we can take it to mean what it seems to clearly teach. God uses all things, wicked and righteous, to bring about His purposes. That being said, I'm not sure we can hold modern sensibilities of right and wrong over Columbus's head...nor can we fairly hold him morally accountable for every action that happened "under his watch".

Here's another thought to ponder: Have you ever committed a sin that you know someone else has never committed? After having fully repented of said sin, would you have it so that you can never have what that other person has because they never committed the sin. I'll use myself as an example. As a child (and I don't mean under 8...I mean young teenager years) I stole money from my siblings piggy banks. My older sister never did this (and I know she did not). Having fully repented of this, I can stand with my Sister in all regards equal to her. I can serve in the church, have blessings from the Lord, and be saved and exalted, just as she can. This is the miracle of the Atonement. This is the miracle of repentance. My sins are washed clean as if they never existed. Without the Atonement, full justice would reign. That would mean that because of my sins, I could never have the same as my sister had, having done what she did not. Is this the way you would prefer things? Of course not. As pointed out -- it isn't fair. None of us will deserve salvation. NONE OF US. We are saved only though His grace and mercy. But...He has also established the path which upon we must tread to qualify for that mercy. His path and His way are repentance, baptism, and pressing forward with steadfastness (which I take to mean obedience and continued repentance when we falter). All all must tread that path, no matter when they enter it.

Why would this bother you? The only possible reason would be because you don't really believe that God will be fair and just. Do you? If you believe God will be fair and just, then believe it! Stop worrying about what others are doing and worry about yourself and your own standing with God. Or are you looking for an excuse to sin? Hopefully not that. But really, what do other's sins have to do with our salvation, unless we're comparing ourselves and regretting the fact that we aren't allowed to sin. No one will be held guiltless who is guilty. Those who turn their noses up at righteousness will regret it. We don't judge, because we don't know -- it's between them and God. But in principle, we do know, because the scriptures are very clear on it. The reason we use deepest Africa or China as examples is because of the likelihood that they have never heard of the gospel of Christ. Those who have heard it and reject it will be accountable. That being said -- take a look at this mortal life as an example. Let's say someone found the gospel at an older age. Let's say they even had knowledge of the gospel their whole lives, but they ignored it because they wanted to indulge in other things, but then had some sort of moving experience that brought them into the fold and they became faithful and true members the rest of their lives. Now another who was raised in the gospel will be that much further along in their gospel knowlege, their relationship with Christ, their understanding, their influence on family and friends, their opportunities for service, etc., etc. But would it be in any regard valid to deny the first the gospel because of this? "No...you can't be baptized because you spent the first half of your life golfing, drinking, and sleeping around!" Really? So how is it different after this life? Where'd you get the idea that not very many will go to the other kingdoms? My understanding is and always has been that those who truly accept Christ will be in the minority. Can you support this with anything but your own thoughts? Any scriptures that teach this? Prophetic talks? Etc? Frankly though, if the worst of the worst could, indeed, turn their lives around, accept Christ, and repent of what they have done, then HALLELUJAH!! What greater cause for joy could there be than that?!! How selfish of us to regret this potential. Your understanding of things is askew here. We have the veil in order to be tested. That veil remains in spirit prison (where those who have not accepted the gospel will be). It would make no sense for the veil to be lifted prior to our choosing to accept Christ or not. That is not the test and not how it will work. When we stand before Christ on that day, and the veil is removed, and we remember all, it will be too late. That time of probation is past. The scriptures are also quite clear on this. Really, you need to stop applying your mortal perspective to the justice of God. We simply do not have the perspective. God does. So trust Him. And meanwhile, you know the law. So keep it. Else wise you will be accountable.

I'm just saying that I'm not so sure that when you hit your thumb with a hammer that you learn something from it that it has anything to do with the Holy Ghost or the Light of Christ.

Er...per my previous post...what I meant was...what yjacket said.

I would say that Satan's attack is more toward trying to get the world to think that they need to get rid of the differences between men and women.

*shrug* This is beyond revealed knowledge, I think. The scriptures teach that the Holy Ghost teaches us truth. I'm not sure they teach us that truth cannot come by any other means. In point of fact, I believe that we are here on this earth to learn truth by experience as much as by being given it from God. Experience seems to teach quite well. (Edit: Though, as we have both noted, it is insufficient for complete truth).

When we stand before our Maker on the day of judgement, somehow I don't expect that the question we will be asked will be, "Why did you praise, honor, and sustain my prophets?" Rather, I expect the possibility of the opposite, should we fail to do so.