The Folk Prophet

Sarcasm is meant to be taken to heart. Let's take the sarcasm and ironic tones out: Me: "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." = "The prophets and apostles are not just a bunch of rich white guys in suits who don't understand. They are led by the Spirit." Your posts: "From your mouth to Gods ears....." (followed by supportive expressions of their foot-in-mouth-edness) and "You said it, not me." = (As I read it) "We think that what you're saying sacrastically is literal and we agree with it literally, in that we do think they are a bunch of white geezers who are culturally biased and not led by the spirit." How do you expect your responses to be interpreted? If you didn't mean it to be read that way, then why respond that way? Is that not what you meant? Did you not mean that you believe them to be rich white guys in suits who do not understand? Or was the whole foot-in-mouth thing sarcasm? How is this congruent with this: If someone has a smoking or drinking problem their eligibility to participate in church IS limited. Surely you don't believe that those burdened with such things should be performing priesthood ordinances. Have you seen anyone wearing a colored shirt asked to leave church, ever? No. Of course not. If you have, you witnessed a singular incident of gross abuse of authority. You're reading a holier-than-thou idea into something that isn't the case. I know a lot of colored shirt wearers that are fully active, good men. Not a single one of them has ever been kicked out of church for this. Would I, given the chance, encourage them to wear white shirts? Yes. I'd also encourage the smoker and drinker to quit smoking and drinking. I would always recommend following counsel given by our leaders. That doesn't translate to (except, obviously, in your mind) "You are not worthy to be a part of this church." According to your thinking, the entirety of the temple leads to holier-than-though thinking. I mean, how dare we make people wear all white? How dare we not let them in if they aren't worthy? I hate to break it to you, but the gospel is discriminatory. To join and participate and any level requires submission to rules of one sort or another. And the more participatory we want to be, the more obedience and submission is required. My head is not in the sand and I do not deify our leadership, and accusing me of that only shows that all you are interested in pushing your agenda rather than having real discourse. How is it that pointing out that our leaders bathroom experiences stink helping? As if that has anything to do with anything. This is just offensive. Following the counsel of our prophets and apostles is scriptural. It is not cultural. It is not putting them on a pedestal. In point of fact the scriptures clearly teach that they are not perfect. The mandate remains. We follow then in spite of their imperfections because we are commanded to do so by He who is perfect, and who promises that we will not be led astray in doing so.

Oh...yeah. I get it. The podcast Mormon Stories. I was thinking like children's books or something. Thanks. I was confused. Edit: I don't know why I missed that. It's clear in your post. I just brushed over it for some reason. Sorry.

I picked up a couple from D.I. (they were new...D.I. carries new white shirts) and they're pretty bad. They were cheap though. Of course, I can't afford really nice shirts (I'd get all mine from Jos. A Banks if possible). However, recently I have found white shirts at Costco (Kirkland brand) that are just great. They're not as cheap as the D.I. ones ($17 vs closer to $10) but still not too bad and they're just great shirts. Very high quality.

I know this is going to sound a bit argumentative...and somewhat off topic. But I'm pretty sure our first covenant is to serve God and keep His commandments: Mosiah 18:10 "Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?" Loving God is sort of a pre-requisite to the covenant to obey Him. If you don't love Him first, why covenant with Him? Right? Moreover, (and this is to exand on your point, not to be contradictory) if we love Him we are to Feed His Sheep. That's hard to do without socializing. :)

Stop buying cheap white shirts.

Snoozer, I'm not going to argue with you about plural marriage. I'm well aware of your strong sentiments concerning it. But your agenda driven selectivity in using Journal of Discourses quotes shows pretty quickly the pick-and-choose approach to pushing your ideas across. As we well know, the Journal of Discourses does not define doctrine, and there are contractions, and problematic statements that we do not understand throughout. We could go back and forth all day quoting Brigham Young to "prove" our points. I'm not interested. You're free to your view.

We have no idea. We don't know if he was excommunicated, publicly censured, or if they argued all the time. Perhaps Alma the Senior said, "If you're going to behave like this then you're not living here." We have no idea. We know he prayed for him. That's about it, I think. I'm not suggesting running people off though...not, at least, in the meaning I infer from your question. No one has run Kate Kelly off either. She is specifically, and clearly, invited to repent, invited to attend meetings, and invited to be return to God. The is exactly the point of excommunication. To allow no ravenous wolves among you. It does not mean literally. All are welcome at church. It means that we don't allow them to be numbered among us. Their names are blotted out on the register of fellow-saints. And, more importantly, I believe, we are to speak against their teachings, emphatically, without apology, strongly, and clearly. The true ravenous wolf is the philosophy being preached, after all. We do all we can to limit their influence, and to limit the damage they are causing. I'm not arguing with you, btw, if it isn't clear. I agree with your post. I'm just expounding on my thoughts.

Try arguing that with someone who believes the BOM an obvious fraud. :) I'm not going to go research it out and provide a list of evidences against the BOM...for obvious reasons. Regardless, my point is, there will always be empirical evidence (usually highly interpreted evidence, but the arrogance of man means general unwillingness to admit such) against God and truth. We live by faith in spite of that.

You mean like the empirical evidence against the veracity of the Book of Mormon? The Book of Abraham? That Joseph Smith was a fraud? Maybe that's was all allegory too. Which is the only sensible response to these things for someone who is a believer.

I don't know that I agree. Which is exactly why I brought it up. So let me explain my thinking. One lost sheep = how many lost souls? One. One ravenous wolf = how many lost souls? Perhaps many. Perhaps innumerable. If Kate Kelly, for example, went about quietly losing her testimony concerning women's ordination then she is astray. When she starts preaching, converting, appealing, protesting, etc., etc. then she becomes the ravenous wolf, and it is no longer best to err on the side of charity, but to err on the side of protecting the other sheep in the fold. When a wolf is coming after the flock you don't say, "but the wolf might be nice. I'm sure we can domesticate it." You get your pitchfork and torch out, the gun if you have one, and you go after the wolf. More to the point, and perhaps you'll expand your thought on this. You imply that we can't tell when someone is a wolf. I'm not so sure about that. Seems pretty easy to tell when principles espoused by someone, particularly publicly, are produced to harm rather than build up the kingdom. It really comes down to this thought: How many sheep are we willing to let be destroyed in order to try and save the wolf?

You're right except for the "need" part. Good luck supporting the idea that all the polygamous marriages were done out of need on everyone's part. That's a pretty big stretch. Beyond that, though, ALL temple marriages are done with leadership approval and based on worthiness. The special circumstance was that God allowed it -- rather, God commanded it.

Not only does my opinion agree with you here, but it is my belief that it will undoubtedly come to this at some point. There will come a point where we will have to draw a line in the sand. The calamities and persecution coming are going to be intense. I think it's going to get pretty bad. But I also believe that God will provide a way through the storm. That doesn't mean the storm isn't going to carry a few off in it's twisters. And we'll all be cold and wet.

It is not the starting point. The first principle of the gospel is faith. The greatest commandment is to love God. And blessings are predicated on obedience. To thine own self be true just isn't in the mix there. Matthew 10:39 - He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

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.