The Folk Prophet

The canonization of the King Follett discourse is not really the point. The canonization of the idea that God has a Father is. And you cannot possibly know that this doctrinal idea will never be canonized. Moreover, I'll say it again, the quote from Joseph Smith that God has a Father is not from the King Follett discourse. I could very easily see and idea like this becoming canonized. We know that there is more scripture coming at some point. I would expect further scripture would not simply be a rehash of what we already have (though there would be some of that, obviously) but that ideas only partially known now, and not really understood, would be expounded on and clarified, and it is entirely possible that such ideas could become canonized doctrine of the church. But, who knows what the future holds. 170 years of not canonizing something doesn't tell us anything. When God wants us to know something, he'll let us know.

Actually, he is your judge. That is distinctly part of what being a bishop is. D&C 107:72 "And also to be a judge in Israel..."

Unsupportable, methinks.

It used to be two spaces. Now that's considered passe. I'm not sure when it changed, but I keep up to date on such things as best I can because I write. I learned 2 spaces when I learned typing back in the 80s.

Of course, 2 Thes 2-3 is classically used by the LDS church to speak of the Great Apostasy, and the "man of sin" referred to is Satan. It has nothing to do with the temple in Jerusalem.

Not sure if this is connected to the preceding posts, but the quote about God having a Father, etc., is not from the King Follett discourse.

You're going to have to provide a source for further discussion on that (at least further discussion from me -- as I don't know what you mean).

How can you possibly know that?

Strangely argumentative. They can. Everyone was once the "true" faith, as the true faith came through Adam and Noah...so...how is this meaningful? Well...if you're sure then...it's settled. I think we are the only ones who can build a temple under proper authority, just as we are the only ones who can baptize under proper authority, and preach the word under proper authority, and do all else pertaining to God's work under proper authority. Anyone that wants to can build a temple though.

Could not the same be said of sin? That doesn't make sin good though, right?

Who is going to build the temple? Joseph Fielding Smith: "Neither will the Lord call upon those who are cut off from his people to accomplish his holy work. The temple will not be built by those who say that Joseph Smith was a fallen prophet, and who have failed to accept the fullness of the word of the Lord as it came through him. No people will be commanded and directed by revelation from the Lord to build his temple, when they know nothing of temple building and the ordinances performed in temples. The Latter-day Saints may be assured that when the time comes for the building of the house of the Lord, he will call upon his people who have remained true and have been faithful in the purposes of the Lord in bringing to pass the salvation of the living and of the dead. We may be doubly sure that the Lord did not send Elijah the prophet with the keys of the sealing ordinances which are performed, in the temple, so that the earth will not be smitten with a curse when the Redeemer shall come, and then call into favor a people who rejected the coming of Elijah and all the authority and keys he was sent to bestow, and ask them to build the temple of the Lord." and Bruce R. McConkie - "By what power and under whose authorization shall the work be done? There is only one place under the whole heavens where the keys of temple building are found. There is only one people who know how to build temples and what to do in them when they are completed. That people is the Latter-day Saints. The temple in Jerusalem will not be built by Jews who have assembled there for political purposes as at present. It will not be built by a people who know nothing whatever about the sealing ordinances and their application to the living and the dead. It will not be built by those who know nothing about Christ and his laws and the mysteries reserved for the saints. But it will be built by Jews who have come unto Christ, who once again are in the true fold of their ancient Shepherd, and who have learned anew about temples because they know that Elijah did come, not to sit in a vacant chair at some Jewish feast of the Passover, but to the Kirkland Temple on April 3, 1836, to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. The temple in Jerusalem will be built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. “They that are far off,” [Zech. 6:12-15.] they that come from an American Zion, they who have a temple in Salt Lake City will come to Jerusalem to build there another holy house in the Jerusalem portion of “the mountains of the Lord’s house." He also said: "A house of the Lord—the Lord Jesus Christ, the Messiah of the Jews—shall rise again in Jerusalem, . . . because the remnants of Judah shall accept their King, believe his gospel, and walk in his paths. A holy temple, the house of the Lord—a sacred sanctuary with its Holy of Holies where the Divine Presence, the Shekinah of old, shall once more be manifest to Israel—shall be built in Old Jerusalem. It shall be built by the Jews: Jews who believe in Christ; Jews who are converted to the truth; Jews who are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: Jews who hold again the powers andpriesthoods possessed by their ancestors. The keys and powers whereby temples are built vest in the President of the Church, the presiding high priest among the Lord’s latter-day people. These keys first conferred by angelic ministrants—Moses, Elijah, Elias, and others—upon Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery have come down in direct succession and rest upon and are exercised by the prophet of God on earth, the one who, as it were, wears the mantle of Joseph Smith. And so it is that the Jews shall build their temple, and the Jews who do it will be Mormons; they will be Jews who are the converted and baptized saints of the latter days." As to where, it can only really be speculated, as the traditional location of the temple is simple that -- tradition -- and we don't know for sure. But it can be reasonably expected that "the" temple in Jerusalem will be on the same holy site as the original temple was (presuming that the traditional location of The Dome of the Rock is where that is). However, I see no reason why that limits the potential for other temples in Jerusalem as well. Just as we now have a temple in Kansas City, it doesn't mean the New Jerusalem temple no longer needs to be built on the dedicated site.

Hmm...I wonder if Jesus would be the one who learned something from you....

As for my house, no coffee or tea, etc. ever for any reason. Period. It's my house. My rules. If you don't like it, close friend or family member, you're free to stay somewhere else.

Bureaucratic frowning upon is not a reason though. My bishop did the same thing for a while. Tried to get everyone to stop using electronic devices and use physical scriptures. Then, apparently, the stake president came down and made it policy for the youth to learn how to use electronic scriptures, and the bishop did a 180 on it. What I'm asking, though, is why would physical scriptures be better? Why should I bring physical scriptures to church? If someone prefers them, fine. No problem. But if someone prefers using electronic only, why should it be encouraged to bring and/or use paper? That may be more indicative of your skill, intelligence, and practice than proof that paper is faster. I'm not afraid. I'll put my steam engine up against John Henry.

I think it makes sense and has been a long time coming. There are so many leaders now-a-days (and likely more and more all the time) who do not have English as a native language. Heretofore they could not speak in General Conference. And if a good portion of the world has to listen to Conference translated, why should not English speakers as well, when necessary?

I call bologna on this.

My experience was very, very similar. It was when I was several years younger, but the response I got was very similar. "What are you thinking? You already know this. Come on man!" :) I didn't feel like it was a bereavement though, whereas I was doing it because my primary teachers had told me to, rather than to have a cool experience or something. But still, very similar.

Why?

Well, that's reading into it something I definitely did not mean.

Um...how did my statement (a joke on digital age vs. print) imply otherwise?

Printed ward rosters/directories are a thing of the past with the advent of LDS Tools. :) Edit: I do NOT mean the rules no longer apply.

I'm not sure how this plays into my point. Maybe I'm not understanding you well. Aren't morality and God's judgment sort of one and the same? Moreover, you had brought up the non-binary nature of accountability. Accountability requires judgment (as you point out), so isn't it natural to move on to the next step (if that's what I did)? Let's see...so what I'm trying to ask is... At what level do we lose accountability for our views? How far must we be manipulated to no longer be accountable? Certainly, I agree, that in general accountability is not binary. Not in the least. But I do wonder, particularly in the extremes of moral decay in our society, if there may not be a level where people are not accountable for their messed up ideologies.

Right...but I think when it comes to a lot of things it is not that simple. Take, for example, television and movies and the destructive effect they have had on morality over the past 40 years. Take all the folk who are raised in this society and can no longer comprehend morality. How can they? They don't understand it. They have never been taught anything but amorality. Are they accountable? What, I suppose, it comes down to is a question of how strong is the Light of Christ. Can a child raised by gay parents watching gay tv shows with gay friends supported by gay parades and news outlets have a chance at ever understanding there may, actually, be a choice in the matter? Is there, perhaps, a level of manipulation that is binary. It may not exist in a single instance, but as an overall societal paradigm, is is possible that accountability has been diminished because of this manipulation? It's an interesting question.

Which is in some ways the age-old, 'does art mimic life or does life mimic art' question.

Freedom may be taken away. Whether this is moral or not, I think, is relative. It is, in fact, the moral choice to deny freedom in some cases. Criminals, being the obvious example. Agency, on the other hand, may not be taken away. No matter what we do to another we cannot take away their agency. God denies freedoms. This is inherent in mortality. We are not completely free because we are imperfect, weak, and lacking in a great deal of intelligence. And this is even relative per the situation we are born into. Some are clearly born with more freedoms than others. God allows this. But everyone of us, kings or slaves, maintains agency. It may or may not be moral to manipulate others moods. That is a separate question from agency. To manipulate another's mood does not remove their agency. It cannot. Agency may not be taken away from us by another. Therefore the search for morality or the lack thereof in such things must be rooted in something other than agency as the guiding principle.