The Folk Prophet

Which part of "recommended" are you not understanding? Clearly you're reading the handbook according to your personal bias against white shirts. The intent seems clear. Wear white shirts and ties unless there is a good reason not to -- good reasons being things like " taking into account their financial circumstances and maturity in the Church." I have to ask, what is your good reason against them? Why is the wearing of a white shirt and tie a problem? Can you give a good, righteous reason? If it's not snotty or rebellious, then what is your point? Our point is clear, and right in line with the handbook. White shirts and ties SHOULD be worn (but they don't have to be if there is good reason).

...riiiiigt.....

I have an interesting perspective on the return of plural marriage in that, personally, I do not want to have to live it. I mean, being a guy, it's surely less painful of an idea than for a girl, but I'm not interested in a second (or third or fourth or holy crap...) wife. And I really hate the idea of the difficulty and trauma it would bring to my wife. However, from a certain perspective it's return would mean a clear line in the sand. I'm not a big fan of jack-mormonism. Get on the train or get off. Something like the return of polygamy would force people to choose their side. I like that, in theory.

Sometimes. I guess the point is, (sort of the point...not really, because I think it unlikely anyhow) that if a government were of the mind to -- or rather, if the right lawyer wanted to push it on the wrong government -- that an argument could clearly be made that man and wife sealings are marriages, and therefore discriminatory against those poor, poor gay folk. I'm not saying it's reasonable. I'm saying that I wonder if it's close enough for the evil world to take a shot at the church with.

Remaining true to oneself is not a gospel principle. And yet there is clear evidence of dishonesty driven by agenda. This is not a constitutional or legal issue in any way. The comparison makes no sense. Of course she has the legal right to it. And no one is throwing her in jail, beheading her, or proposing such should be done. And no one should ever revere fighting against God and His kingdom. Ever. This is false. The tools, gifts, and blessings she needed to stay afloat are already gone. The gift of the Holy Ghost is contingent on righteousness and obedience. You don't just get these things by virtue of membership. As with all covenants, If you don't keep up your end, you have no promise. Where? Seriously? Since when does excommunication keep her from going to church, keep her from counseling with her bishop? Keep her from praying? Keep her from reading scriptures? Nothing she needs for repentance has been taken from her. She has access to all the counselling, guidance, and mercy that she is willing to receive. She is unwilling! That is on her. You really think comparing a sports organization to the church is valid? Or that what some random analyst thinks defines truth and right? It is NOT your place to say if it was too harsh. This is the stewardship and prerogative of others. How can it be considered too harsh when she continued to openly rebel? Refusal to meet conditions, Refusal to humble herself. Refusal to accept doctrine and guidance. Refusal to even attend the counsel with a phone call. As the thread title states, what did she expect?! Uh....what? Wait...so you're interpreting, "Now this was a great trial to those that did stand fast in the faith" as it being a trial because they did not think it was fair that those who were blotted out got blotted out? You think the " persecution which was heaped upon them" that caused them to bear with much patience was from the church?

Well that just isn't true. It's called celestial "marriage" and is very different than just a sealing. Even if it isn't a legal marriage due to the law of the land, there is no question that the sealing of man and wife is a marriage. This is fairly easily supported in D&C 131 and 132, as in: "meaning the new and everlasting covenant of marriage" and "And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant,", etc...

Check your JST. " Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment."

I don't think it's about action or about whether the directive is imperative or recommended. Attitude is what determines rebellion - at least in terms of the gospel. A rebellious attitude is the sin...the rest is meaningless. White shirt, blue shirt...whatever.

How, exactly, do you define rebellion if not "you're not authoritative, and I don' wanna, and I don' haveta, and I'm not gonna" doesn't qualify? :)

In spite of the incredible trauma of it, I would obey, though I expect I would fail miserably. The fact that I was even able to get one wife is a miracle beyond description.

Let me restate since there seems to be misunderstanding. No one is, or should be, saying that everything said at general conference is doctrine or that how many earrings one wears is doctrinal. What I am saying, now re-saying that maybe it might get through, is that it IS doctrinal that we should follow the counsel of our leaders, particularly our prophet.

That is interesting. I hadn't picked up on it. I wonder if the inference might not be that she has not been heretofore.

It's right at the start, but here's the applicable quote, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong JAG), for those who don't have the time to read the entire thing. Awesome talk btw. "For nearly six thousand years, God has held you in reserve to make your appearance in the final days before the Second Coming of the Lord. Every previous gospel dispensation has drifted into apostasy, but ours will not. True, there will be some individuals who will fall away; but the kingdom of God will remain intact to welcome the return of its head—even Jesus Christ. While our generation will be comparable in wickedness to the days of Noah, when the Lord cleansed the earth by flood, there is a major difference this time. It is that God has saved for the final inning some of his strongest children, who will help bear off the Kingdom triumphantly. And that is where you come in, for you are the generation that must be prepared to meet your God."

If she legitimately and openly disassociated herself and disavowed their activity she could. I don't think the excommunications are over though. This will rattle her followers up more. Someone else will step up...maybe several. The missionary style "tracts" will also press forward. Unfortunately, I expect, they will become more vocal, not less. It will lead to further excommunications.

I feel bad for her. I truly think she just doesn't understand. I believe she has honest and good intent. She's merely deceived and blinded by the wisdom of men (or...uh...women, in this case). I actually really respect that in her statement she plead with others not to leave because of this. It's too bad her views (and others supporting her) are misguided because her passion and good will could be put to positive use instead. It is sad.

I'm fairly sure that length of earrings was never read over the pulpit. It is, however, in the sister missionary guidelines. https://missionary.lds.org/dress-grooming/sister/guidelines/?lang=eng Earrings should not hang longer than approximately one inch below the earlobe. Do not wear more than one earring in each ear. Necklaces and rings should also be simple and conservative. Tattoos, nose rings, other body piercings, or toe rings are not acceptable. This clearly does not apply to the whole church though. I'd say applying generally it is a looking-beyond-the-mark issue.

Why? What's motivating you here?

I'm certainly not advocating fellow members telling other's they are sinning because they have double piercings. But following the counsel of the prophets is a commandment. I quote D&C 1:14 and vs 38 and D&C 21;4-6 and D&C 112:20 That's just some of the scriptures that say this. There are more. I could also give hundreds of conference talk quotes on it too...of course you don't seem to accept those as "doctrine"...just people's opinions...so.....

It is a prophet's opinion and/or suggestion. Not just some guy off the street's. We are constantly taught to follow the prophet -- a principle that is, decidedly, doctrine -- and that going against the living prophet's counsel will surely bring us to ruin.

I must re-ask the same thing I did in the other thread. Why does it need to be absolute doctrine to faithfully follow the counsel given in general conference?

To be clear, there are plenty of comments throughout the years at the pulpit, etc., that indicate we were, indeed, saved for the last days. What is being rejected by the church is that it was specifically because we were more righteous. I think that's an interesting topic. The church has also disavowed that blacks did not have the priesthood due to lack of righteousness in the pre-existence. However -- they have not disavowed the idea (I believe) that our pre-existent choices are related to our stations in life. Just that it is not related to the black race not having the priesthood. There are quotes that indicate our choices in the pre-existence do affect our lives here though. “During the ages in which we dwelt in the pre-mortal state we not only developed our various characteristics and showed our worthiness and ability, or the lack of it, but we were also where such progress could be observed. It is reasonable to believe that there was a Church organization there. The heavenly beings were living in a perfectly arranged society. Every person knew his place. Priesthood, without any question, had been conferred and the leaders were chosen to officiate. Ordinances pertaining to that pre-existence were required and the love of God prevailed. Under such conditions it was natural for our Father to discern and choose those who were most worthy and evaluate the talents of each individual. He knew not only what each of us could do, but what each of us would do when put to the test and when responsibility was given us. Then, when the time came for our habitation on mortal earth, all things were prepared and the servants of the Lord chosen and ordained to their respective missions” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 50–51). and “From this revelation [Abraham 3:23], we may infer two things: first, that there were among those spirits [in premortal life] different degrees of intelligence, varying grades of achievement, retarded and advanced spiritual attainment; second, that there were no national distinctions among those spirits such as Americans, Europeans, Asiatics, Australians, etc. Such ‘bounds of habitation’ would have to be ‘determined’ when the spirits entered their earthly existence or second estate. …“Now if none of these spirits were permitted to enter mortality until they all were good and great and had become leaders, then the diversity of conditions among the children of men as we see them today would certainly seem to indicate discrimination and injustice. … “… Our place in this world would then be determined by our own advancement or condition in the pre-mortal state, just as our place in our future existence will be determined by what we do here in mortality. “When, therefore, the Creator said to Abraham, and to others of his attainment, ‘You I will make my rulers,’ there could exist no feeling of envy or jealousy among the million other spirits, for those who were ‘good and great’ were but receiving their just reward” (David O. McKay, Home Memories of President David O. McKay, 228–30). I wonder what the church's current doctrinal stand on these is.

That is not what I said.

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormon_urban_legends_or_folklore/Bow_to_those_living_in_Pres_Hinckley's_time

Is rebellion fine? I guess if one is rebelling against evil. I'm not sure rebelling against the church and/or the authorities of the church qualifies as "fine" though.

Authoritative evidence of what? Moreover, why is authoritative evidence required to follow the counsel of an apostle?