The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12210 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
-
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I mentioned that in my post and why that was.
So you did.
When I said I don't care apparently I really meant it.
I hadn't, clearly, read your post.
Ah well. The embarrassments never end.
- zil2 and Carborendum
-
1
-
1
-
Multiple sources say the number of the beast was possibly 616.
I don't care. But I'm just sayin'.
-
18 minutes ago, old said:
If the LDS point of view is correct then again . . . say we join another religion? Is the LDS going to in abstensia excommunicate? I've never heard of such a thing. Maybe so; okay great. excommunicate in abstensia. IF the LDS point of view is correct, then why the bother about it. We'll die; we'll go to Spirit Prison. Yeap, I was wrong, LDS Church is right. Lord I truly am sorry. I should have paid attention better to the signs; please forgive me. No, there is no forgiveness for what you did; your Temple marriage is annulled, you have no celestial promise, you are banned to a lower kingdom forever? I did what I had to do at the time because I believed it was the only action I could take to help those who I have charge over to have a belief in God and in Christ; and Lord I truly am sorry. Nope, you and your family are now doomed to the Terrestial Kingdom forever.
Really, that's the LDS viewpoint? Cool.
You claimed to have been a 30+ year member and yet seem to have a very tenuous grasp of some pretty basic doctrines. Maybe someone else will explain this to you in detail...but it wearies me and I think I'm done. Best of luck.
-
7 minutes ago, old said:
No need to get touchy here.
I'm not touchy. If you're going to site examples to make a point research them first or know what you're talking about.
It was war time. They First Presidency couldn't review the matter at the time. It's a non issue and a non point. And anyhow, amen to the priesthood of any man who exercises unrighteous dominion in that way. If some Stake President excommunicates me unjustly I'll just keep attending, keep serving, etc., etc. I'll be in just fine standing before God. If I abandon the church and my covenants....not so much.
11 minutes ago, old said:I would have let the Bishop call the cops on my wife, haul me before a court.
Can you clarify something for me. Why on earth would the bishop need to call the cops on your wife?
You keep claiming that the bishop had to continually threaten your wife....why was your wife continually engaged in doing what she was asked not to do? I certainly understand not wanting to send my kid to a class where they might be teaching false doctrine...but I wouldn't insist (illegally) that I had a right to be where I was asked by those in authority not to be. I would just not have my daughter attend that class. Frankly, I'd have her come to the adult class with me. And if they asked her to not do that, I'd have her not attend the second hour at all before I'd force it the point of threats to call the police and the like.
Seems like things escalated in ways they didn't need to.
If I don't like what the leaders are doing, I'd quietly withdraw in protest and talk to the bishop on the side. I have no right to forcibly go where I've been asked to no go.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding.
-
2 minutes ago, old said:
Yeap; that's the difference. Wheat and tares. We who stay are the wheat and those who leave are the tares. Cool. It's the self-licking ice cream cone. Look at us who are so awesome because we stay . . .WE are the tares. I mean isn't the point of the wheat and tares is that only God knows who is a wheat and who is a tare. It's only when the winnowing happens (which is at judgment) of who is wheat and who is tare.
I mean, if I am a tare because I saw the needs of my family and made decisions to help bolster their belief in God and Christ . . .dang man that's a pretty harsh teaching. I can't seem to find anywhere in Scripture where that type of a decision would be condemned.
So totally agree on this website the verbage about "let God decide". The video of Rasband or the other one I get mixed up with specifically stated "suicide is not a sin".
If you were the tare you'd be growing within the wheat trying to strangle it.
I'm pretty sure the point was that there are people teaching homosex as not wrong within the membership who are the tares.
You only get to be a tare if you join with the saints again and try to corrupt from within.
-
1 minute ago, old said:
The German dude who got excommunicated for not supporting the Nazi's would beg to differ!!!
That is not the whole story. And you should darned well know it. Are you being intentionally disingenuous or are you unaware? The First Presidency, just as I JUST FINISHED SAYING reversed it upon review. Which is exactly what would happen for anyone excommunicated in like-wise manner.
If you want to be taken seriously get real.
-
26 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
It sure seemed like it was on the table if he pressed the issue.
For what? A Stake President who excommunicated a member for nothing would have that overturned on appeal to the First Presidency. You don't get excommunicated for doing nothing. No one every got excommunicated for nothing. You get excommunicated for doing something. If they didn't do anything, they don't get excommunicated. It's not on the table and it never has been as a threat to keep "unruly" member under the thumb of abusive leadership.
-
10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
For some people, that may be true. But for some, a single wrong word spoken, etc... with the stake pres already publicly chastizing him without even hearing his concerns?
It sure seemed like it was on the table if he pressed the issue.
Methinks there's an awful lot more to the story than that.
-
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:
Yes, I saw @zil2's post. And I agree. That would be the first option that I'd look into. I'd beg and plead for help from the Lord.
But (AFAIK) selling the house and moving would either have been untenable or ineffective for @old. AFAIK, "going to the cave in the mountains of Zoar" seemed to be the only option for him. And if I didn't receive clear direction on how to proceed, I may have done the same thing to save my family from being consumed.
Me thinks there are some exaggerations going on though. "Consumed" or "Zoar" seems a bit of a false dichotomy.
11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:I disagree. See Zil's post above for my response as well.
And see my response to that.
12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:Maybe it could be considered missionary work.
Seems a pretty poor example for missionary work. Here! Buy this Kirby vacuum while I clean my house with this Dyson that you already own.
-
1 minute ago, zil2 said:
Probably that it's a little easier to come back if you just walked away than if you were either excommunicated or had your name removed.
I can see what you're saying. But I'm not sure I agree. It's putting the technical need for time, interviews and re-baptism as the "difficult" part of coming back. I'd say excommunicated but faithful and active would be much easier to come back from in the ways that matter.
That being said...I don't really believe excommunication was on the table here. It's a bit of an exaggerated point.
-
@Carborendum see @zil2's answer for basically what I was in the middle of typing up.
I'd only add...it's my perception that leaving the church for another is as good as nullifying ordinances through excommunication anyhow. What's the difference?
I didn't covenant to give all my time, talents and everything the Lord's blessed me with to some other church.
-
2 minutes ago, old said:
you know what it just ain't worth it.
It is worth it.
I trust in God that much. I trust accountability will be just.
How can one believe otherwise in today's world?
Either God is just or He is not.
The plain fact is that the garbage is unavoidable. And it's going to get worse. And worse. And worse.
It legitimately and truly frightens me, in particular for my children.
I'm going to run from it too...as much as possible, and as much as it doesn't mean betraying the covenants I made, which matter more to me than anything else.
-
12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
That may be. But it wouldn't be the first time people mistook a prophet's words for license to continue in sin.
And it seems pretty clear to me. He who must be commanded in all things...
Whereas I agree with you....
I also understand. When you get into a classroom at church, or at a family party, or etc., and half the people in there are nodding their head in agreement to something egregious and false, it very much does make you worry for your kids' sakes. I mean we homeschool just to keep our kids away from that kind of stuff...and yet we are well aware they'll get it at church. And it seems like such a simple thing for the prophet or an apostle to clarify.
Unlike @old, however, despite my consternation on the same ideas, I trust that God knows what he's doing and that He leads this church, and that for whatever reason that I don't understand, He wants the general confusion instead of the explicit clarity. Which makes a certain sense. I mean Jesus spoke in parables for a reason, right?
I don't fully understand. But I fully trust.
On a side note: apparently in the previous ward we attended (which is my wife's parents' ward), one of the brethren started wearing a dress to church. I mean a dress, high-heels, and carries a cute little purse around. I'm so glad we aren't in that ward any longer. But what do you do about that kind of garbage?! Argh. So frustrating.
-
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:
I agree with your philosophy which you outlined (the correct one). But I disagree that the Church's position is at odds with that philosophy. The last quote above is not what you seem to think it is.
We never say that it is ok to ruminate on it. In fact, that is what the Savior warned against in Matt 5. So, let me clarify what the Church's position is. While I'm not an official of the Church, I've heard and read enough commentaries from Church leaders that I believe I can give a good summary.
- The fact that we all have weakness and tendencies that are not in line with the Lord's will is obvious. It is why we need the Atonement.
- Some weaknesses are an underlying motivation to do that which the Lord condemns. We need to bridle our passions. We need to do everything we can to prevent these tendencies from turning into action. Dwelling on those tendencies and thoughts is the first step to actually committing the act. So STOP dwelling on them.
- Many heterosexual men will look on a woman who is drop dead gorgeous and have a physiological reaction that we don't really have a lot of control over. And if that man is married, he should do all he can to bridle his passions in that case.
- Let's say he is successful in shaking it off and moves on to think on other things, do we take Matt 5 literally? Is it the same as actually committing adultery? NO! If it were, I believe 95% of all men would need to be excommunicated. Committing it in his heart is a step further than simply having a reflexive reaction. The dwelling and fantasizing is a sin. But it is not actual adultery. The warning is that if you keep dwelling on it, the act is not far behind.
- The same goes for homosexual thoughts. The "reaction" may be something that will take a LONG time to change. But the command to bridle one's thoughts and passions is still given to those with SSA and others.
It is the same standard.
The fact that many tend to interpret it as you do, does not make it a correct interpretation of the Prophets' counsel.
I think the concern is (and I understand it) that the church has allowed too many members to misunderstand this by not being more explicit and direct.
-
13 minutes ago, old said:
I'm not sure what you mean. What do you want to know about it? Do I wear the garments, yes, do I obey the law of chastity, yes, do I smoke, drink, etc. No.
Frankly, if "keeping my covenants" is the marker of a "worthy" person . . . ain't a whole lot that I want to do with that. Do I have a temple recommend. Considering it expired after we left and we haven't been back. No.
Did my wife have a temple recommend prior to leaving. No, but only because she told the Bishop she was upset that the covenant she was told was critical to her salvation that she made in the Temple was changed, no explanation no rational given. Just, today's it's changed. You have to accept it.
I mean, that's a pretty darn cruel joke. Tell someone this covenant you make right here and now is critical to your salvation, but we as the Church can change the actual meaning of that covenant however we feel God tells us to change it and the only acceptable response is you have to like it.
No compassion; hey I can understand why you would feel so upset. This thing we told you was vital to your eternal salvation, we changed, and look I get you are upset, I think in time if you attend regularly the answers will come. I will issue a temple recommend for you and I want to help you work through this . . . why don't you attend the temple monthly for the next six months and we can evaluate if things have changed.
Nope; just oh I see you are upset, I think you need more time before you are ready to go to the temple.
I got a Temple recommend after the change b/c I didn't make that covenant; but my wife did. And I understand her being upset. Did the Bishop understand it; nope. Literally, she didn't even get asked the first question; because when he asked her, how she was doing she was blunt and said I'm upset because my covenant changed.
Was the YW President and the woman who said such nasty things temple worthy? Yeap you betcha! Goes to the temple regularly. And while my wife has plenty of flaws, she would never in a million years have ever said anything like that to a fellow Christian-it's just not within her character to do so.
So you know if whether someone is "temple worthy" or "keeps there covenants" is the marker of eternal salvation; I think you are focusing on the wrong thing.
I wrote up a large reply, but the more I consider the more I'm just not sure replying is going to be of much use. You don't seem to understand the import of covenants. Short of encouraging you to research and understand better... I'm just not sure what I can say. And saying more is probably only likely to offend further.
But as a starting point here's a link, as a reminder, that explains what covenants are made in the endowment, for example.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/temples/what-is-temple-endowment?lang=eng
Moreover, you're clearly struggling with faith and testimony.
The church is true or it isn't. What people do in a ward or stake doesn't change that. You need to know that core thing. I encourage you to find out through study, prayer, and faith.
Beyond that, best wishes in your endeavors.
-
-
9 minutes ago, old said:
The text from this nasty woman stated STE "if you don't like the way we are teaching the class, and you don't sustain the Prophet (side comment, which is silly b/c we never brought anything of that into any conversation nor was there any discussion of it, and really what she was saying is "I SUSTAIN the Prophet and b/c I SUSTAIN the prophet and I have been called by God, who called the Bishop, who called the SP, who called the Prophet-therefor what I teach is what the Prophet would want taught here and b/c I am the called leader, if you don't SUSTAIN ME-you are vicariously not sustaining the prophet"); well you better find yourself a different Church".
FWIW, I've heard commentary and feedback from people that is similar and I despise it. D&C 121:39 "We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion." Yep.
11 minutes ago, old said:"regardless of what has happened to you, you better stick with the Church b/c if you don't you are damned"
The covenant path is the only path to exaltation. You have some issues, apparently, with that gospel truth. I don't feel like I deserve the blame for that for merely stating it.
-
4 minutes ago, old said:
No I don't; so I'm not sure what the comment this is about. There was no intended dig there. It was just a statement of fact. This isn't about "acceptance and love".
I have a history of being pretty vehemently against the homosexual agenda.
2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:@The Folk Prophet-who I don’t know offline either (and both of us are much happier due to that) is no left winger.
Honestly I think we'd get along rather well.
-
2 minutes ago, old said:
I'm generally curious why you feel the need to mention "oh you are damned, you apostate"?
The keeping of covenants are key.
If you truly believe you are then tell me to go jump.
I don't think going inactive and attending a church that isn't God's authoritative church wherein the covenants are authoritatively made is keeping said covenants.
That being said, I didn't directly tell you you are damned or call you an apostate. I did imply that those who leave the church are damning themselves. That's because of covenants, of which, if you have made them, you should also know very well what the consequences are for failing to keep them.
-
4 minutes ago, old said:
If you think it is just "love and acceptance" you are sadly mistaken.
You don't know me. So we'll just let that one slide, as everyone else on the forum has a bit of a chuckle.
- LDSGator and askandanswer
-
2
-
12 minutes ago, old said:
Your response is a position of weakness not strength.
My position is irrelevant. I'm a rando on the internet.
God's position is the only one that matters.
If the church is God's church and the covenant path is His then you are damning yourself for leaving it. It has nothing to do with anyone else's position or anyone else's strength or weakness.
If you don't believe The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's church then you don't believe it. And we disagree. And it's as simple as that.
But to claim that other's who DO believe this are weak for believing it doesn't hold a lot of water in my book. You're free to believe what you want and exercise your agency according to your convictions.
-
@old do you understand what's meant by "the covenant path"?
Do you understand what's meant by "authority"?
Do you understand the concepts and ideas behind the "restoration" of Christ's gospel.
Do you understand priesthood keys?
Do you understand the purposes and importance of the temple?
-
11 minutes ago, LDSGator said:
The Catholics say the same thing about their numerous sex scandals.
I'm not sure what your point is.
Epiphany of why people think Elon Musk is stupid
in General Discussion
Posted
Yes. But the people you speak of who think he's stupid are, I'm supposing, not stutterers.