The Folk Prophet

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!

Uh...you do realize that discernment and judgment are synonyms.

Yes, he would. No sealing takes place, ever, without the approval of the the one holding the keys of the sealing power. That permission can be delegated, but the prophet must approve.

It seems you answered the questions in your first two paragraphs in your third paragraph.

I concede. It does refer to the key holding again in vs. 64. I missed that in my previous point.

You're presuming a straight-up lack of desire on both sides. What if the husband, as would be the case eventually once a generation passed or so and the cultural shock of it was settled a bit, actually wanted to take a second wife?

It would be a sorely mistaken misunderstanding of a teaching yes. But that doesn't mean that the mistaken understanding is rooted in pride. My contention is that is someone believes the false quote as noted in the FAIR link to be a true statement, it doesn't automatically translate to pride.

Yeah..I've heard it read that way. It's connecting the previous 2 verses (59-60) to the law of Sarah portion. I'm just not entirely sure they're connected. D&C 132 jumps around, subject-wise, all over the place. I'm not sure there is a compelling reason to attach the two ideas. It also seems odd to me. If two points combine -- a man marry a selfish woman and, polygamy is an eternal law that brings greater blessings when obeyed -- then it seems unfair to cheat said righteous man out of said blessings because of said selfish wife. On the other hand...it seems as fair as anything else in life........ *shrug* I suppose if they re-instigate it that certain standards will also be set that define proper polygamy practice.

Sorry. My lawyer rested the case.

I don't disagree with your overall thought. All generations had righteous souls foreordained to that time. What I don't agree with is the idea that if we understood an ancestor to be less righteous that it makes us prideful, whether that was in the pre-existence or not. If someone was less stalwart then they were less stalwart. It has nothing to do with pride.

I dunno. It could be read that way. From a certain perspective it sort of says she has to give permission, but if she doesn't she's a sinner and the approval is no longer required.

Really? "Ties and white shirts are recommended" does not mean "should be worn"? You think reading it that way is bias, huh? O...kay.....

That is not what I am talking about, and not what Traveler is talking about. What Traveler seems to be saying, if I read it correctly, is the simple idea that judging righteously requires the spirit. And, rightly said, the spirit may speak any truth required to us. As the spirit directs, so are we justified. Therefore, the more in tune with the spirit we are, the more capable we are of righteous judgment. If the spirit whispers to us, "That is a bad man...stay away." I think it fair to assume that the man is, indeed, a bad man. Without the spirit, regardless of the outward appearance, we run the severe risk of being wrong on our judgments. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue. What am I sure of, however, is that the discussion has nothing to do with whether women ever held the priesthood.