The Folk Prophet

The doctrine is clear and it is fleshed out. They will go to the celestial kingdom. It means exaltation.

Long winded? Sure. Unkind? I don't think so.

I agree that everyone should make such effort. It is the why they should make the effort that I'm concerned with.

In this case, I think, discussing you is one and the same as discussing the thread, in that you started the thread, and the thread is a "vent" (or complaint, if you prefer) about LDS culture. So discussing your attitude ties right into it all. I mean, the very nature of the original question comes down to perception. You perceive the culture a certain way. It comes down to a determination if it is a valid perception or not.

So...ugly people are doomed to a sucky life huh?

To be hot, a desire to be hot, a desire to be seen as hot, etc., is rooted in vanity. Modesty is rooted in humility. They are, at their core meaning, opposites.

At first I thought this was going to be an anti-modesty rant...and I was all riled up to respond. But I actually totally agreed with it. Very interesting.

SS is right in this case though. Children cannot sin. Pointing out that children lie is not valid. It's like pointing out that babies poop in their diapers. Children do "wrong" things all the time. That is not debatable. Everyone knows that. The point is that when children do wrong things it is NOT sin. For sin to be sin, accountability is required. No accountability -- no sin.

First, "constantly", as I'm using it, does not mean what you're inferring from it. Constantly swearing, for example, does not mean every word is a swear word, nor does it mean every sentence one says includes one. When someone constantly swears, however, it's fairly obvious even if statistically only one out of every 5 sentences actually has a curse word. Second, Autistic is irrelevant to whether it's constant. That may be the why of it. It may play into understanding why. It does not change the fact of what occurs. Third, complaint is a subset of statement, not an antonym. Pointing out that he's making statements doesn't have any bearing on whether those statements are complaints or not. In point of fact, the primary definition of "complaint" is "a statement that is....(etc)." Fourth, Pam didn't say he was complaining. She said was that he was constantly venting what doesn't work for him in the LDS world. And that, he does do. You debated the point. I disagreed. The "complaining" issue he, himself, said he constantly does. My response to him was advice related to his admission that he does so, not related to my view of what he does in this forum.

What are the other two?

You've turned a blind eye to it. He does, actually. Constantly.

The issue of whether it is valid to promote marrying outside the faith or not is not whether the marriage can be a happy one or not. Our temporal satisfaction in life is not really the point. The point is two-fold from an LDS perspective. 1. If an LDS person can be happy married to someone who is not involved in their faith then it is indicative of a problem. The LDS faith is not a casual thing that a faithful member should be so cavalier about. And eternal marriage is not something that a faithful LDS person should be cavalier about. Of course people can be happy in their marriages outside of temple marriage. But if an LDS person chooses to skip an eternal marriage in favor of other issue it is indicative of a problem. 2. As I said, temporal happiness in the marriage is not the issue. Eternal salvation is. With that as the prime criteria for who we choose to marry, we should be choosing eternal, temple marriages. Everything is secondary to this. What does love matter if you miss out on eternity? What good is getting along if exaltation is spent? How can we possibly recommend that anyone consciously make a choice that could damage these things and, possibly set a pattern that will be inherited for generations to come, potentially driving our posterity away from eternal life?

Surely you must understand that "extreme" is a relative status. When the church says "extreme groups" they mean as compared to the church and it's teachings, not as compared to society as a whole. Clearly, the church itself is an extreme group if you compare it to regular folk.

My name comes from my college band. Last Christmas my wife and I decided to record a folk album for family and friends. I grew a 'stache for the cover photo and we called the album "The Folk Prophet" In tribute to my college band. Here's the CD Disc face:

See, that's the thing. It's not about what you need. Or, rather, it should not be about what you need. You sitting next to others should have nothing to do with whether you need to be near others. It should be about you trying to fill other's needs, serve and love them, and an effort to help them feel loved so that you can be an instrument in building the kingdom and bringing others closer to Christ. Just wanting to be by oneself is understandable, surely. And there is a time and a place. Church is not that time and place. Honestly, going to church with that attitude will harvest much less to your soul that what it could. I'm not suggesting you run faster than you are able. Only that you (and all of us) continually choose to work towards a mindset of this nature. That is, perhaps, the primary way we will come to know Christ. There is a reason the 2nd greatest commandment is to love our neighbors as ourselves. It is a great part of the means whereby we learn to fulfill the 1st commandment, and the means whereby we learn to know the Savior, for only doing as He would do can we begin to understand Him.

Complaining is quite off-putting. Perhaps you should work on that. I suspect you'll say it's just who you are and you can't help or control it. Baloney. We are who we practice to be as much as anything. Rather, we will become who we practice being. You may not be able to control yourself in speech as easily, as speech with careful thought tempering it is difficult. But in writing it is fairly easy. Re-read, re-think, and edit before posting. It's not that difficult to practice character when writing. It takes a moderate amount of attention, effort, and patience -- but those are worth practicing too.

I'll grant, the doll collecting thing is a bit out there. The D&D and fantasy on the other hand is pretty average.

Just FYI, the combined KFD is not entirely reliable. Some of the things taught therein are currently taught by the church and clearly doctrinal. Some of the things are not. The various reports differ. The day was windy and it was difficult for all to hear. It is a very interesting read, but you'll come across a few ideas that will likely make you think, "What on earth?" :)

I would argue that we should be more concerned with being ministering angel than in seeking them. Let God and HIs angels do as He will. Our "seeking" of ministering angels is not a special thing that we should be focused on. To me that is a clear "looking beyond the mark" thing. Our seeking of ministering angels should come down to nothing more than what we have been given. Serve God. Serve others. Keep the commandments. The angels will attend. The Ministering of Angels - Jeffrey R. Holland I think it's a bit of a stretch to think Lennoxlewy has been given a "special gift" because he's fascinated with something. I have been fascinated with many subjects over the years that have nothing to do with special gifts, unless of course fascination itself can be considered a special gift. The gifts of the spirit are also not magic. "...and they come unto every man severally, according as he will." Everyone has the right to the gifts of the spirit as we obey and have need, according to the Lord's will. Everyone of us may have the attendance of ministering angels as we serve God. But our focus should be to serve and obey God.

Whereas you are right, it is not fair to imply that it is a "church" issue. It is a people issue. How to deal with those with unique needs is not a problem that is bred by the LDS church in any degree. All people and organizations need to be better equipped in this regard, the church included.

You should maintain perspective on things. But beware of ideas that would discount the seriousness of sin as well. Per the handbook, you will not be given a disciplinary counsel for what you've given here as your sins. Nothing you've spoken of is an excommunication offense. This is not the way sealings work. For a sealing to be broken it must be officially broken by authorization of the first presidency. Talk to your bishop. He will counsel you through it. There is a balance that needs to be struck in your feelings. Yes, sin is serious. Yes, it causes guilt, and justly so. Yes, you should feel bad about it. Yes, you need to repent sincerely. But your concerns and fears strike me as extreme beyond what they should be. Your sins are not "pretty light stuff", but they aren't the end of the world either. And you can repent and you can be forgiven. What your sins are, however, is common. They are very, very common. That does not discount the serious nature sin. But you should understand that there are many, many, many men in the church who have struggled with the same. Many have overcome and some are now even your leaders, free and clear from such burdens. Sins can be repented of. And you can be made clean. As for how your wife will feel, that depends on your wife, and it is one of those "reap what you sew" things. That is one of the downsides of sin. It hurts others. Hopefully she will be understanding and forgiving. Ideally she will be. Talk to your bishop.

I'm sure wondering how long it will be until this starts happening again. They (OW) seem determined to push the issue further and further. Eventually...the church will need to defend itself and it's members against the barrage of attacks that continue to be more and more aggressive.

Meekness, humility, serving others, and unselfishness is dark? O................kaaaay.......

Read those ^ then we'll talk. :)

Anxiously Engaged