The Folk Prophet

I honestly don't know how to respond to you two. If you both hate the General Authorities so much, think they're uninspired, foolish, old, culturally biased men, then what are you doing here? Is your objective just to tear the church down and start an uprising? If you have no sense that these men are lead by God then move on. I have no interest in arguing with people who just don't believe. Your belief is your own business. I'm not going to argue with you on it. As for me, I believe the General Authorities are led by the Spirit. Neither one of you seem capable of understanding sarcasm. And mrmarklin, my cultural bias is irrelevant. We're talking about whether you believe the General Authorities to be culturally biased. Your bringing up my cultural bias is a nice dig. Way to go. Not really relevant though. So, go ahead. Pierce your ears and other body parts, wear your pink and blue shirts to church, get tatoos, go into debt, don't store any food, down all the addictive substances you want, and don't do your hometeaching. Who's stopping you?

You know, I can't find any quote on this. Can you source it? The primary principle that the church has had on debt since 1975-ish has been as indicated in One For the Money: "With the exception of buying a home, paying for education, or making other vital investments, avoid debt and the resulting finance charges." I'm wondering if there's some context missing in what Pres. Benson actually said.

The required revelation to bring a second wife in (particularly by the first wife) thing is a strange idea. That's they way they do it in some of the break-away LDS sects, but that was never an official part of how it worked. Yes, a revelation that the principle was true might have be in good order. Beyond that, it's like any other marriage, where the parties must be willing. Revelation that they're the "right one" may be all fine and dandy. But certainly not necessary to the righteous enactment of "the principle" as they called it. I know I'm addressing more than you meant. Just sharing my thoughts on it though, by way of discussion.

Hi Urstadt, I will aggressively defend what I see as attacks on the church. For that I don't apologize. What I do apologize for is harsh tone and unkindness. I know I am abrasive to some. I'm working on it. I do not consider criticism of the church useful critical thinking for the same reason that I do not consider sports team leadership useful as a comparison. This is God's church. It is led by Him. The spirit guides His leaders. The organization and the directives concerning it are not based on someone's be-your-best-business-self best-seller. God leads this church. It is His work, and His work will move forward. As Joseph Smith said, "The Standard of Truth has been erected; no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear; till the purposes of God shall be accomplished, and the Great Jehovah shall say the work is done." Concerning "exploring" and "dialogically relating to others", is an aggressive differing of opinions not a valid outcome? Seems to me that's as legitimate a part of the process as any.

??? Explain, please?

Technically the authorities have also advised not putting off the family for school and stuff anyhow...so.... :)

Could be. Best not to judge. Whether she understands or not, I agree with your last sentence.

Except for the theoretical suggestion behind, "and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him." But here's the thing. The ravenous wolves are ALSO lost sheep. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

FWIW, I also HUGELY regret my student loan debt, along with any other prophetic counsel I decided to disregard.

Well this is a different issue entirely. One does not follow the other, not has it ever been suggested or taught otherwise. "Keep the commandments" does not translate to "hate everybody who doesn't". That's a basic and obvious thing that is clearly and often taught (in spite of the fact that many are oblivious to it) but in no way has any bearing on whether we should or should not follow the prophet's counsel.

But certainly not as a condition related to her excommunication.

Thought a discussion might be interesting on this. I was studying scriptures and came across: Matt 7:15"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." Which led me to: Alma 5:59-60"59 For what shepherd is there among you having many sheep doth not watch over them, that the wolves enter not and devour his flock? And behold, if a wolf enter his flock doth he not drive him out? Yea, and at the last, if he can, he will destroy him. 60 And now I say unto you that the good shepherd doth call after you; and if you will hearken unto his voice he will bring you into his fold, and ye are his sheep; and he commandeth you that ye suffer no ravenous wolf to enter among you, that ye may not be destroyed." and Acts 20:28-30"28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them." And in light of the whole excommunication thing going on it got me to thinking. So thought I'd pose the question: Who are the ravenous wolves? Contrast this with: Luke 15:4-6 "4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? 5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. 6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost." We hear a lot about lost sheep, but I cannot but help wonder if more often than not, those we are treating as lost sheep are instead ravenous wolves.

Haha. Yeah...it's like having more kids to clean the house (though I can testify from my childhood that it doesn't work out that way.) The problem is that the ideal behind plural marriage is to make lots of babies -- which also implies stay-at-home moms. Financially speaking, it really doesn't work.

I seriously doubt that is what the bishop said. That's what the OP chose to hear.

Possible. But not logically convincing. Doesn't quite stand up as a rock solid "ergo".

Right. Cultural bias. They aren't led by the spirit or anything. Just a bunch of rich white guys in suits who don't understand.

I have to wonder, which particular bit of advice given over the pulpit to the church at large are you suggesting we ignore? And since when to you presume that our prophets and apostles broadcasts are "musings" that will lead members astray and drive them to become holier-than thou? This opinion seems highly cynical. Do you not believe that they put great thought, effort, and prayer into the messages they deliver? Do you suppose they take their responsibility and influence so lightly?

I have to ask again. Why? Why is this clear in your mind? What makes you so confident in your understanding of the eternities that this sort of thing is so unlikely to be reality? Do you relegate all things you don't understand to "certainly allegorical"? What about Jesus's miracles? The water to wine? The walking on water? The raising of the dead? Just because it is not something our puny mortal minds can comprehend does not in any way argue for the fact that it must therefore be allegorical.

Nonsense. The Israelites needed no advise about social media. Look, you can view it how you want. The scriptures are pretty straight forward. Ignore the prophet's and apostle's words at our peril. And we all have the right to personal inspiration and the spirit justifies. If the spirit tells someone to wear multiple earrings and never wear a white shirt then they best follow. That is true of commandments as well (example: Nephi and Laban). That does not and should not translate to a general preaching that we should blow off prophetic advise as "whatever, I'll think about it...if I agree I'll follow...maybe... But if I happen to disagree then I can ignore it because it's not a commandment" sort of talk.

There is this trend going around that if it's not "doctrine" then it isn't important -- that it's only for consideration. I reject that. It does not need to be gospel doctrine to be important. Following the counsel of the prophet is, as I've stated, not a recommendation. I'll re-post this scripture: D&C 21:4 "Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;" Somehow this has been relegated to: thou shalt give heed unto all his commandments, but his other words may be picked and chosen from according to thy will. I'm not buying. "...all his words and commandments..." It's one thing to talk about some chatty advice that an apostle or prophet may give as not that important and just his opinion. It's another thing entirely to take what is prophetic advice, officially and clearly directed tot he church at large, albeit only advice, and disregard it. It may well not be "gospel doctrine", as you say. But it is still the voice of the Lord. And I, for one, plan on following advice from the Lord as if it is gospel doctrine. Failure to heed to such advise will bring the promised peril D&C 124:45 again: "...if they will not hearken to my voice, nor unto the voice of these men whom I have appointed, they shall not be blest..." D&C 21:6 "For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory." That's a promise I want! I want to be "blest" and have the powers of darkness disperse from before me. It the mists of darkness in these latter days this promise is so important. And it comes by faithfully following all the "advice" and counsel of our prophets and apostles, as well as the "gospel doctrine" they command.

And 93.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot. Where'd you pull yours from?

If the biblical record was all we were dealing with, sure...I can see your logic. But it is not. We have other scripture that we know was not tampered with, and we have modern day, living, prophet words affirming the same. There is no choice between the two. You either accept God and His words or you put your trust in the arm of flesh. I'm not saying or arguing that everything in the scriptures is factual rather than allegorical. But with the story of Adam, whereas there may be allegorical elements, the reality of Adam being the literal first man and the father of the human race can simply not be ascribed as such without denying Gods prophets.

Except we, unquestionably, preach of and believe in a literal Adam. The amount of material in support of this is so overwhelming that even a suggestion of otherwise is... well...I don't want to insult. Do some research.

Where on earth did you come up with this idea?

Here's my solution: http://thesaurus.com/ Who needs to remember words anymore? Or spelling? Or memorize scriptures...or memorize anything. The Inter-web does all the thinking for us nowadays!