The Folk Prophet

While I know there have been talks distinguishing "sin" as separate from "transgression", I personally find it unhelpful. To my thinking, they are one and the same. A sin is a transgression, a transgression is a sin. Both are disobedience to the commandments of God. I don't see the difference. Edit: Which puts me into the rare situation of disagreeing with a statement by a prophet (Joseph Fielding Smith as snoozer quotes). Adam disobeyed God. What else is there to possibly call that other than sin? Of course I'm only disagreeing in the defining of a word...so...hopefully I'm not on the road to apostasy.

Or, another way to put it, pride --- *bum bum bum* -- Beware of Pride - from a Prophet's mouth. :) Edit: What a great article by President Benson!

It should be pointed out that the "Samuel Principle" is not referring to the witch situation, but to the demand for a king by the Israelites. Principle is an open word as to specific meaning I guess. I accept that it is, indeed, a "principle" in spite of what I was trying to say. What I meant was, it is not a standard that occurs every time we ask for something we shouldn't. God can and does sometimes give us those things, but it is not a guarantee...knock three times and the boogeyman appears... Once again, it's not about whether angels can appear to evil people or not. It's about how the Lord operates...how HE has defined that He will operate, (it's not me defining it), and it is NOT through witches. Ever. Granted, that is my perspective on it...which may be inaccurate. But that's my read. I just can't see an angel being sent to a witch to communicate a message from the Lord to the witch to pass on to a sinful person. That is utter nonsense to me.

+1 Not to mention, not every youth is blessed to have wise adults to teach them and guide them. Do we just throw out modest dress because youth are supposed to have been taught well by their parents to handle such things properly? Of course not. Additionally, even amongst those who are taught well we are not all the same, and we do not all react the same to sexually alluring things. We have different psyches, different maturity, different libidos, different wisdom, etc., etc. Even if omegaseamaster75's claimed perfect control over these things is accurate, it does not universally mean that women need not bother covering up. And moreover, the fact that we have to learn to deal with those who will flaunt their skin at us, does not justify righteous women who know better flaunting their skin at us. In short, one person's weakness does not justify another's "am I my brother's keeper?" attitude in any regard.

Yes. But not through necromancers, wizards, witches, or sorcerers. God simply does not work through these. When angels visit, they just visit. They do not visit via mediums, seance, oiji boards, crystal balls, and the like. It has nothing to do with whether Samuel would have visited Saul or not. Clearly that is within the realm of God's methods. It has to do with how he visited. If there is a scriptural example of God doing it this way, this is the only one. And based on the fact that God has condemned all such methods again and again, it is entirely inconsistent, to my thinking, that God would have done it this way. That's my take on it.

Possibly. I do not think so because the idea that God will give us what we want if we keep asking is not a true principle. If it were, I'd be a lot richer than I am. The story of the 116 pages was to teach a lesson, not to establish a principle. But really, it belies the concept that God works through an established order. Going through a spiritual medium is not God's order. It's as simple as that to me.

The next secion of Gospel Principles: https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-41-the-postmortal-spirit-world?lang=eng Where Is the Postmortal Spirit World? Latter-day prophets have said that the spirits of those who have died are not far from us. President Ezra Taft Benson said: “Sometimes the veil between this life and the life beyond becomes very thin. Our loved ones who have passed on are not far from us” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1971, 18; or Ensign, June 1971, 33). President Brigham Young taught that the postmortal spirit world is on the earth, around us (see Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young [1997], 279).

I simply consider the idea beyond rational belief.

Hehe. I thought about making the same joke...but then thought...no...to immature... But the picture makes it work!!

I'm not sure it's so much suggesting as allowing for. However, it strikes me that there is too much in the way of conflict with the Lord's known method of communicating with us to make this reasonable. Still, as the Bible Dictionary rightly implies, we don't know for sure, and as you rightly imply, we shouldn't be too hung up on bible wording.

Does not seem to be suggesting to me. Apparently it can be read differently by different people. (Surprise, surprise...you mean mankind can read the same Bible and have different interpretations from the meaning?!? Shocking!!) The issue is easily resolved in my mind in the idea: "It is beyond rational belief that such persons could at any period in ancient or modern times, invoke the spirits of departed servants or handmaidens of the Lord." So I start from what I know to be true of the Gospel, and work from there. Therefore, it was not Samuel. It's not complicated. Clearly the verses you indicate either suffer from a translation issue (likely) a change made by some translator somewhere (likely) or they are simply implying that they are from the perspective of Saul who believed he was talking to Samuel (likely). What they do not indicate is that God's prophet came when a necromancer called (ridiculously unlikely). It's less about an official interpretation and more about the obvious conflict with known truths if it is interpreted as Samuel actually showed up.

Or Love your Neighbor becomes an excuse to hang out with people and situations where we should not be.

https://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/1-samuel-16-31-king-davids-call-to-lead-israel?lang=eng Can One Possessed of an Evil Spirit Compel a Dead Prophet to Speak? “The Witch of Endor, … instead of being a prophetess of the Lord, was a woman who practiced necromancy; that is, communication or pretended communication with the spirits of the dead; but she was led by a familiar spirit. In other words, she was a spiritual medium, similar to those modern professors of the art, who claim to be under the control of some departed notable, and through him or her to be able to communicate with the dead. It should be observed that in the seance with the king of Israel, Saul did not see Samuel or anybody but the medium or witch. She declared that she saw an old man coming up and that he was covered with a mantle. It was she who told Saul what Samuel was purported to have said. Saul ‘perceived that it was Samuel’ through what the witch stated to him. The conversation that ensued between Samuel and Saul was conducted through the medium. All of this could have taken placed entirely without the presence of the prophet Samuel. The woman, under the influence of her familiar spirit, could have given to Saul the message supposed to have come from Samuel, in the same way that messages from the dead are pretended to be given to the living by spiritual mediums of the latter days, who, as in the case under consideration, perform their work at night or under cover of darkness. “It is beyond rational belief that such persons could at any period in ancient or modern times, invoke the spirits of departed servants or handmaidens of the Lord. They are not at the beck and call of witches, wizards, diviners, or necromancers. Pitiable indeed would be the condition of spirits in paradise if they were under any such control. They would not be at rest, nor be able to enjoy that liberty from the troubles and labors of earthly life which is essential to their happiness, but be in a condition of bondage, subject to the will and whims of persons who know not God and whose lives and aims are of the earth, earthy.” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:107–8.) Can Familiar Spirits Prophesy the Future? “It has been suggested that in this instance the Lord sent Samuel in the spirit to communicate with Saul, that he might know of his impending doom; but this view does not seem to harmonize with the statements of the case, made in the scripture which gives the particulars. If the Lord desired to impart this information to Saul, why did he not respond when Saul enquired of him through the legitimate channels of divine communication? Saul had tried them all and failed to obtain an answer. Why should the Lord ignore the means he himself established, and send Samuel, a prophet, to reveal himself to Saul through a forbidden source? Why should he employ one who had a familiar spirit for this purpose, a medium which he had positively condemned by his own law? “‘But,’ it is argued, ‘the prediction uttered by the spirit which was manifested on that occasion was literally fulfilled. Israel was delivered into the hand of the Philistines, and Saul and his three sons and his armor bearer and the men of his staff were all slain. It was therefore a true prophecy.’ Admitting that as perfectly correct, the position taken in this article is not in the least weakened. If the witches, wizards, necromancers and familiar spirits, placed under the ban of the law, did not sometimes foretell the truth there would have been no need to warn the people against consulting them. If the devil never told the truth he would not be able to deceive mankind by his falsehoods. The powers of darkness would never prevail without the use of some light. A little truth mixed with plausible error is one of the means by which they lead mankind astray. There is nothing, then, in the history of the interview between Saul and the woman of Endor which, rationally or doctrinally, establishes the opinion that she was a prophetess of the Lord or that Samuel actually appeared on that occasion.” (Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:108–9.)

Interesting. I didn't read it that way. I read it more like, "I've already blogged my anti-church stuff, already missed out on those years of blessings, already hurt family and friends, and that can never change...but I'm moving forward now". Kind of like, hey, I cut my hand off, now I'm living the rest of my life without a hand. Or like the idea of having a tattoo...you can repent, go back, be better, etc...but the tattoo is there for life (pending, of course, expensive and painful removal....) Being stupid and making stupid choices has consequences, even if we repent. In the end it will be washed away and we'll be made clean, pure and perfect through the atonement. But in mortality you get stuck with the consequence of your actions. I wonder if he meant it my way or yours.

It's both, in my opinion. God is our Father. He is a God of love, compassion, and mercy. But He is also a God of justice and cannot tolerate sin. Anyone who does not fear the wrath of God is a fool. But anyone who does not know that God loves his children is missing the complete picture as well. Frankly, I think the fear of God is missing a bit in the church nowadays. We need to be more fearful of Him.

One of Satan's strongest tools has always been half-truths. This article put some of them (related to intellectualism) in terms of Trojan Horses. Church teachings usually explain these as "looking beyond the mark." Some other Trojan Horses that are popular in today's climate: Overemphasis on loving your neighbor Overemphasis on tolerance Overemphasis on equality These are other true principles of the gospel that get overemphasized (I'm sure there are more) and are ultimately used to drive people away from the gospel. Just as with the other things he listed, these truths are twisted and mixed with false principles and conclusions to confuse and muddle plain truths. Not really (from my point of view). Being smart has never been a gospel principle. Certainly being smart about some things at the exclusion of others is not. The gospel is laid out pretty clearly. It's not confusing if we actually listen to the teaching of our leaders. Each of these Trojan horse problems are based in self-serving ideas. It's putting what we want above what we're being taught. Take for example personal revelation. The way we are to use personal revelation has been clearly laid out. The authority, directives, and order of God in guiding His church has been plainly defined. No one who ever stands up and says they have personal revelation that contradicts the church's teaching is in the right way. EVER. The only reason it's hard to see in the moment is because people choose to ignore what they don't like in the gospel teachings. They throw off plain direction with terms like "blind obedience" and "sheep" so they can ignore what they don't like. Look at Ordain Women. They use the example of Emma and the Word of Wisdom to support their approach, completely ignoring the mountains of teachings contrary to what they are doing, and even ignoring that the Emma/WOW example is insufficient support, in that A. Joseph was already bothered himself by the smoking and messes, and B. Emma complained privately to her husband about cleaning. She did not agitate for change in gospel principles, raise the issue publicly, hold protests, demand change, or anything like unto it. And every time (EVERY time) someone came in claiming they knew the direction the church should go, what happened? They were censured, and if they did not acquiesce, they were excommunicated. Staying true to the right way as defined in God's church is not difficult if we humble ourselves. It's when we let pride creep in that we begin to go astray.

That and it keeps things more interesting. I think it's cool of the church to do many for us.

I want them to make 10 of them. At least 4 in 3D.

Just read this article and found it highly fascinating and quite insightful: http://www.millennialstar.org/the-mormon-intellectuals-trojan-horses/ Not sure how much discussion it will generate, but, from my perspective at least, it's fairly spot on. For those who don't wish to read through it, the Trojan horses it lists that intellectuals use to undermine the church are: Overemphasizing the importance of personal revelation. Overemphasizing the importance of “thus saith the Lord”. Overemphasizing the importance of church history. Overemphasizing the fallibility of prophets. As I've seen a significant amount of just these issues, constantly repeated even here in this forum, I thought there might be some interesting discussion (or debate) to come of it.

Thank you. As an Amercian that fills my heart with joy. Not insulting at all.

Some examples of people influencing others for bad...we'll just go with the Book of Mormon... Laman and Lemuel King Nephi Nehor Amlici The Sons of Mosiah (pre-repentance) Amalakiah Korihor Isabel Corianton Amalakiah The Daughter of Jared That's just off the top of my head. And the list of those who influenced others for good is even longer, of course. I cannot fathom how this very obvious concept can be viewed as despicable and degrading. What we do influences others -- and that includes how we dress. Moreover, it makes no sense to me that if a woman purposefully dresses to make herself more sexually alluring to men that it somehow plays no role in actually causing the men to be allured. Even if the intent of dressing that way is not to be alluring (I'm just wearing short-shorts because it's hot), one would have to be pretty dense to not realize that it is still highly alluring to many men for a woman to do so. The rest of the argument against this teaching is based in nonsense logic -- it has nothing to do with rape (non-sequitur if ever there was one), nothing to do with men's ability to choose, and nothing to do with other's responsibility.

Is there a source for this information? I didn't see anything about it in the article...

The quotes I posted were to this make this point as well. They elicited a *head slap*. Still not quite sure why.

Uh...what?

*splutter* *choke* *cough* Excuse me? Communism is perfect? How...? What...? I..... Nevermind...