The Folk Prophet

That is not the criteria for something being "false doctrine". And people aren't excommunicated for preaching false doctrine. They are excommunicated for continuing to preach false doctrine when they have been corrected and asked to discontinue. I removed the parts that I agreed with and addressed what I saw as questionable. It has nothing to do with misquoting. You said, "end-of-discussion does not lead to meaningful dialogue and proper conflict resolution" and I am questioning that part as valid. Do we know there was an "end-of-discussion" response to Kate Kelly? The only things we know were said to her are what she has published, and there is strong evidence of deception on her part. I'm not sure how my simple response to this is being taken as some sort of contentious attack. The questions I asked clearly fall, in my mind, to fit this definition. The pamphlets, website, profiles, comments, etc., are all meant to "induce" others to espouse the doctrine. If you don't see it that way...okay. Seems fairly obvious to me though. You seem to be under the impression that my comments were entirely and specifically addressed to you and only to you rather than a general response to the ideas being expressed on the forum. That is mistaken. I am addressing the general idea that some seem to believe that if the General Authorities didn't specifically say they prayed about it then they must not have, which is a silly idea to me. I read your post. I read that you said not to read too much into it. I thought you would understand that I was addressing the issue at large accordingly. You are making it personal and thereby reading all my responses as a direct attack against you. Re-read it as expressions of general philosophy instead and maybe you can come away from it with a bit less emotional strife. I addressed this in my response to Funky. Hopefully we'll have an interesting and healthy discussion concerning the matter and learn and grow from it instead of taking everything personally. Time will tell. I'm not going after you. I am responding to comments, thoughts and ideas. The fact that we do not agree on everything doesn't mean I'm out to get you. I meant no offense. If you cannot deal with the dialogue I cannot help it. These are philosophical debates, not personal. Why don't you stick to refuting my ideas, thoughts, interpretations, and logic. Addressing me as "crude" and "contentious" and generating a list of my imperfections is personal. An implication that the fact that I disagree with you means I'm not showing you respect is creating contention where none exists. Pointing out that "other members" feel the same to gang up against me and put me in my place is a low blow.

How is it a red-herring? The fact that there are example after example in the scriptures that show us that murmuring against the prophets is a bad idea is entirely relevant. A strong desire to ignore those examples because they hurt "the cause" does not make it a red-herring. And the fact that not every time the prophet was asked to pray was evil doesn't mean the other examples are red-herrings. There is a distinct difference between asking for something in humility, and faith and clamoring as a "fold", rising up against the prophet and the word of God, politicking for change based on the popular (or what one desires to become popular) opinion. Scriptural examples of both are available. Look at Numbers 16:3. Here's there request: "And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?" Sound familiar? One might easily replace it with the Ordain Women "questions": "And they gathered themselves together against President Monson and against The Twelve, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the women are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the women of the Lord?" The Lord's response to the question (vs 32-33): "And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation." Then in vs 41 "But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the Lord." may as well be: "But on the morrow...the congregation of the church murmured against President Monson and against the Twelve, saying, Ye have excommunicated the people of the Lord." Here's the Lord's response (vs 45 and 49): "Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment." "Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah." This is in no way a red-herring. This is a DIRECT ensample of our day. Even the example given by Urstadt works. The "fold" just asked questions. "Wherefore have ye brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? for there is no bread, neither is there any water; and our soul loatheth this light bread." They're just asking. What could be wrong with that? The Lord's response: "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much people of Israel died." It wasn't until the people humbled themselves and admitted they were wrong that the request for a prayer on their behalf became even moderately appropriate. And even then the Lord didn't do what they asked (take away the serpents). He had Moses make the brass serpent, and the Israelites, not liking the answer that the prophet gave them refused to look. How much more applicable could these scriptural examples possibly be? I don't see red-herring.

My though in response to this: D&C 58 26 For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward. 27 Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness; 28 For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward. 29 But he that doeth not anything until he is commanded, and receiveth a commandment with doubtful heart, and keepeth it with slothfulness, the same is damned.

The obvious implication, to me, is that the false doctrine is that women should be ordained, which Kate Kelly very clearly taught. We have no idea what sort of dialogue, meaningful or otherwise, that was had with Kelly. Really. So the six "discussion" tracts are not for proselytizing? The media coverage is not for proselytizing? The profiles themselves (and the site that hosts them) is not for proselytizing? So wait...let's break this down. We believe that the church is led by revelation. We believe that revelation comes from sincere inquiry through prayer. But we believe our leaders are NOT sincerely praying? To me it is a question so ridiculous that it simply doesn't need to be answered. It is petulant and childish? Did they pray about it? Duh. Of course they did, are, and do. They cannot lead this church without revelation and they KNOW IT. The very idea that they aren't constantly on their knees, daily, hourly, and persistently in their hearts striving to know and do the will of God is so ludicrous that I can hardly believe the question is being asked. The question is very obviously meant as a politicking attack against an answer that is not liked. Did you miss that in most of those instances the "fold" was iniquitous, and the result was death, destruction, famine, plague, reprimand, and extermination? Particularly with the Israelites. Hardly a prime example of a faithful, righteous fold who trusted their prophet and the Lord. (See my post above on Numbers Chapter 16).

Wait. So questions can have implications beyond, "We're just asking"...?

I'll add my thoughts to this. I agree with the second half. I don't agree with the "safe-side" part of OW's prior efforts. The moment they put up a website and recruited they were on dangerous grounds. Asking questions is fine. Subtly turning your questions into preaching under the guise of "we're just asking" is not. Publicly asking questions as a political movement is not. I'll use Zeezrom as an example. He asked questions. That was his method. In response Amulek called him a child of hell and a liar, because he knew that the agenda behind the questions was crafty evil. Using questions to push an agenda may be a subtle work around in an, "I'm not apostatizing" way, but leading people away from gospel truths is leading people away, whatever the method be. If question asking is the method it is not justification against apostasy.

Um.....

There is absolutely nothing that categorically leads to the conclusion that the world is created from older worlds. That's a stretch and a half to me. I don't see the world as a jigsaw puzzle. We aren't play-doughed together. :)

$40 an hour to do some weeding?!!?!??!?!?!!?!?!?

I was doing some study last night and came across Numbers Chapter 16. Here's the chapter heading as a summary: Korah, Dathan, Abiram, and 250 leaders rebel and seek priestly offices—The earth swallows the three rebels and their families—Fire from the Lord consumes the 250 rebels—Israel murmurs against Moses and Aaron for slaying the people—The Lord sends a plague, from which 14,700 die. Reminded me of what's going on with Ordain Women and puts into perspective how much mercy they are actually being shown. No earth swallowing or plagues (yet).

I would also escalate the issue and raise a serious stink about it. The answer you were given was total baloney. There are plenty of good songs out there that are great to dance to without having inappropriate messages, etc. I'd find out who the stake president in that stake is and write them an email directly. This isn't the military. Chain of command is fine, and all, but just tell the man in charge, in this case. My guess is that will do the trick just fine.

Haha. Has this actually happened? :)

Did it every strike you that perhaps this is by design of the Lord to try faith in our times?

The problem is that "Only men can be ordained, women cannot" is a decidedly "clear answer" but for some unfathomably reason there remains a persistence that no clear answers are given.

I was reading in D&C 86 last night concerning the wheat and the tares and was struck by the following: 4 But behold, in the last days, even now while the Lord is beginning to bring forth the word, and the blade is springing up and is yet tender— 5 Behold, verily I say unto you, the angels are crying unto the Lord day and night, who are ready and waiting to be sent forth to reap down the fields; 6 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also. 7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned. If the angels had their way... A scary thought. Those who are fighting against the principles of the church have angles just itching to come and destroy them. Yeah...I'm not sure we're anywhere near separating the wheat from the tares yet. Except in extreme examples, I think there's a whole lot of tares just growing in the wheat, thinking they're just fine 'cause, "Hey, I have a temple recommend. I'm not excommunicated." They're deceiving themselves. When the wheat and the tares are actually separated it's going to be a very, very sad day.

*shrug* Dunno for sure. I'm not that educated on the sociological ideas behind these things. If I recall from things I've read or learned, when society was dangerous, required physical prowess for survival and protection, it naturally falls to the dominant physical sex to lead and protect. Only when society advances enough that we aren't all homesteading, farming, hunting, and building for our own survival does equality in the sexes from a physical standpoint become less meaningful. I would dare say that other invalid views of superiority (being smarter, etc...) simply stemmed from the physical superiority in a world where physical superiority mattered so much more. Like I said, I don't know for sure though.

You missed a few about Aaron and his sons that pertain to the (obviously) Aaronic priesthood. :)

According to the all-knowing wikipedia - only 2 have been re-baptized.

I also think there's some relativity to it. Pouty lips and big eyes can be attractive. But when you see the original pic and then the photoshopped version added pouty lips and larger eyes it looks fake and overdone. If the original model had pouty lips and big eyes in the first place it would not necessarily come across that way.

I think that all separation, wheat and chaff style, will be done by the individual being separated. We remove ourselves from God, not the other way around, right?

I don't know that it should be viewed in such black and white terms as worse/better - good/bad. To say that Kate Kelly's excommunication was bad is incomplete. To say that it was good is also incomplete. It is good and bad. It is tragic for her. It is bound to cause troubles. It is also good though. It draws a line, sets the standard, protects the church and it's doctrine, and hopefully, if she humbles herself, will lead her back to the fold someday. That's just off the top of my head. There are certainly other good and bad things to it. So it is with better/worse. Will it be worse for some? Yes. Is it overall, universally going to be worse? No. In some ways it will be better. There will be those driven away from the church because of it and there will be those who are protected from being driven away. We all react differently to different things. It's way to complicated to view as an overreaching improvement or setback. Moreover, and more importantly, the forces of evil will continue to gather. In that regard, things WILL get worse...pretty much continually until the second coming. Standing for truth and right will, inevitably, in many instances make things worse. Failure to stand for truth and right won't help though.

The equal but with different roles approach only works if those being addressed view the differences as equal. Making an extreme point of this, if you take a slave and their master and tell them they are equal but with different roles is doesn't really work. That is why the different roles model doesn't sit well with some feminists, I think. Some women see that as perfect reasonable because they view the different role they are meant to play as equal. Others see it more akin to a slave/master setup (though, perhaps less extreme -- though by the way some of them talk it seems they may view it that extremely in cases). You can tell the slave his/her role is just as important as the masters all day long and it's still going to seem unfair. In my mind that means those who struggle have one of two options in resolving it (without losing their salvation). 1. Come to terms and be at peace with a "lesser" role. 2. Adjust their view and learn to see more value in their role.

Surely you've read enough of my posts to know how conservative I am and understand that I agree with this. I find it perplexing that you've interpreted me as unsupportive of this. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive because I take pride in my support of the church (yeah, I know, pride's a sin) but it feels like I've been purposefully misunderstood after clarifying what I meant. For anyone out there reading this and thinking I meant don't bother getting set apart because it isn't important -- I DIDN'T MEAN THAT. Get set apart. It's extremely important.

Except those who require keys, who literally cannot do their calling without it, the above agrees with my view.

You are reading way to much into what I said. I don't want to fight over it. You're right. I'm wrong. Let's move on.