The Folk Prophet

You have redefined what sin means to you. Doing so renders the discussion counterproductive. You are certainly free to think sin is whatever you define it to be. That does not change what it is and what it is not. I presume you just don't like the word because it's too harsh or something. But it is what it is. Sin is anything that is not perfect. Even the little things that aren't that big of a deal. If you believe that because they're not that big of a deal then they don't qualify as sins then we're at a impasse.

Don't be melodramatic. The temple standards are not the standards that determine sin. The temple standards determine temple worthiness. But we ALL sin. Everyone of us. Most small sins have no bearing on temple worthiness. That does not mean they are not sins. I see what you're saying though on the contradiction thing. Someone who gets a tattoo has not necessarily sinned - true. That's because for sin to be sin we must knowingly do other than Christ would have us do. If someone doesn't know better, they cannot sin. But we, in the church, know better because we have been told. To ignore the prophet and go ahead with something that you know better than is, indeed, a sin. Having a tattoo is not a sin. Getting one when you know better is.

You are contradicting yourself. It's either wrong (incorrect behavior) or right (correct behavior).

Clearly we can be temple worthy and still sin, or none of us would be temple worthy, for none of us is without sin. The idea that temple worthiness is the criteria whereby we judge sin is silly and has long been perpetuated as a means of false justification for behaviors that we well know better than. We know better! Anything that is less than perfect is a sin (see my first post). Anything that is less than what Christ would have us be is sin. What would Christ have us be? Like Him. Perfect. Would Christ have tatoos and multiple piercings? Clearly the answer to that can't be "proven". But it seems fairly obvious, especially considering that His prophet ("whether by my voice of the voice of my servants it is the same") said not to. Prove me wrong.

Nonsense. :)

^ this!

Sin is anything that isn't perfect. Being perfect is a commandment. Anything that isn't perfect is breaking a commandment. That defines sin. Of course knowledge is required, as one cannot be accountable without it. But to say that doing something one knows to be wrong is not sin is incorrect.

Thumbs down on this one.

Loved this one!

I think I understand. I don't see it the same way, but that may be a good way of looking at it. Here's how I see it. The "fulness of the gospel" is the fullness of the plan of salvation, which can be explained in fairly simple terms. The details behind the broad points are implicit therein, but do not all need detailed explanation to qualify the broad point as sufficient as a fullness. The basic ingredients of the gospel are faith, hope, charity and love, which lead to repentance and obedience. This is made possible by the Atonement, and all this in place that we may return to our Father in Heaven and become like Him. That's the gospel. It would be unreasonably to expect, for example, that a fullness of the gospel requires every commandment and directive from God to be inclusive to count as a fullness. The fullness in this case is "keep the commandments". Then the commandments come - sometimes line upon line. Sometimes specific to cultures. Sometimes specific to individuals or circumstance. Sometimes permanent and everlasting. But all are contained within the idea of "keep the commandments". The Book of Mormon is the means whereby God chose to deliver a clear and concise presentation of the fullness of the plan of salvation. If you went through the points taught in the Book of Mormon you get a fairly consistent - obey, sacrifice, put off the natural man, obey, repent, come unto Christ, obey, repent, Christ, love, love, faith, hope, Christ, repent, etc., etc., etc... Is it in the Bible too? Yes. But it is not as plain. The Book of Mormon makes it plain, and thereby is a better resource for the fullness. Ultimately, I mostly agree with anatess, in spite of the fact that I debated the point a bit on it. :) I think it requires a bit more than to simply say the fullness is Christ, however, mostly based on the fact of "plainness". In order to have a true fullness it must be given, plainly, how to follow Christ. That doesn't necessarily mean every single detail of how must be included to qualify as a fullness, but that it must be plain enough that those who so humble themselves know the path they should follow. The Book of Mormon qualifies, and exceedingly well, at giving us a plain understanding of how we press forward. Take Moroni 10:3-5. Take Alma 32. Take the sermons by King Benjamin and Abinadi. These profound concepts and teachings are how we follow Christ, and they are not plainly in the Bible.

Interesting. It isn't explicitly said, but I think it would be silly to argue that they didn't think along those lines. It's fairly implicit. I think that it's clear that some early leaders believed this concept, but even some of the explanation is incongruent with other doctrinal ideas. A la -- "We want to try to make it appear that God does not do things in the right way, or that he has another way of doing things than what we know" is totally at odds with "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." Thanks!

When people turn to the internet, as they WILL do, and discover "issues" about the church, as they WILL do, it is significantly better to discover those issues hand-in-hand with explanations of the issues rather than via twisted, anti, negative agenda-driven presentations of the issues. I distinctly recall times in my past where even with the strong testimony I had I would read something online and it would throw me. It didn't shake my testimony, but it did throw me into some real confusion. However, with FAIR and the like I have learned over the years a whole lot of other "issues" about the church, with an immediate explanation, and have felt no "shaking" whatsoever as I have learned. Now-a-days you can't much tell me anything that I haven't heard and have a basic explanation at hand. FAIR, Ask Gramps, Jeff LIndsey, FARMS, the church essays, etc. are all instrumental in this. I, like many people, want to be knowledgeable. I want to know true history. I want to know what Brigham Young really said. I want to know details. But I want those details, history, and knowledge presented from a positive agenda rather than a negative one. Moreover, the church has very, very clearly become it's own apologist, FAIR and the like aside. They are facing the issues one by one directly and officially now. How could one contend that apologists are bad in that light? To do so, one would have to argue that the inspired, revelation guided church is down the wrong path. As a general point, I believe, with a solid foundation of testimony based on spiritual witness, one should not need apologetics to stay faithful to the church. If everyone in the church had that level of testimony, awesome. They do not, however. Regardless, how can apologetics possibly be harmful?

I do not believe it. The idea is not in accord with principles taught in the scriptures. For example, D&C 76:75 - per the terrestrial kingdom - "These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men." In other words, deceived. Moroni 10:4: "and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost." Is this a lie? Can we really ask God with a sincere heart, real intent, and faith in Christ and believe that God will not do as He promises? From a certain point of view, yes. But from another point of view, once the spirit has spoken to you, you know, and it is no longer faith - at least in that particular thing. Alma 32:34 - "And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand." It is not as complicated as you are implying. The discernment of the spirit is plain, not muddled. Jacob 4:13 - "Behold, my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore, it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore, these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old." Those on the other side of the aisle, as you put it, may be blinded, confused, unknowledgeable, or unfamiliar. That does not make them bad, but it doesn't prove that someone who has had a true witness of the Spirit is also confused.

I have no doubt whatsoever that it is correct. The Book of Mormon contains the fulness of the gospel. I think we are, definitely, looking for a modification of either what "fulness" means or a modification of it's application. The third possibility you suggest doesn't register with me. Maybe though.

I would venture to say that in the case of most things we tiptoe around the general rule for fear of offending the exceptions. Very insightful. In the simplest terms, in my opinion, Yes. We do believe this.

It's not ambiguous. It is an interesting thought. It doesn't answer the question about the fulness being in the Book of Mormon when the literal "fulness" (meaning all principles, ordinances, etc.) are not therein. I don't think divine approval constitutes fulness. Any revelation in print anywhere (say, a revelation printed in the Times and Seasons) has divine approval and could be considered divinely authorized. That does not qualify those pieces as a fulness.

I'm simply talking potential. We all have the same potential given to us by God. We also have agency and are and were free to do with that potential as we will. Not all will have chosen the same. But the potential is freely given. I'm not saying we were all the same or had the same growth there. I'm not even saying necessarily that we all were even capable of growth at the same rate. I'm definitely not saying any of us could have been the Christ. I'm saying that, ultimately, we all have the same potential, everyone equally. That is given by God.

God did give us all the exact same characteristics of Christ, but He also gave us agency. Every one of us has the same potential, and the some capabilities -- eternally speaking. Beyond that, I think it's guesswork.

Hmm. Seems like this is all trinitarian word play trying to explain the unexplainable. It doesn't make sense. It's never made sense. It cannot make sense because it is paradoxical. I think it likely that Brigham Young simply did not think in those terms. And it doesn't matter so much what Trinitarians believed in the mid to late 19th century as it does what Brigham Young thought when he explained Mormon theology as compared to the trinity (or, perhaps as compared to modalism). I would think that instead of asking bytebear to source what trinitarians thought, a correction to bytebears statement might be in order along the lines of: "...Brigham Young probably felt that most of Christianity blurred the lines..... " Because really all it comes down to per the thread topic is, why did Brigham Young set about to explain how Jesus is the literal, natural, physical Son of God? Now.... To be fair and honest .... You're right. I was thinking more along the lines of modalism. I freely admit, when it comes to theology outside of the LDS I don't entirely know what I'm talking about.

How so? I'm not saying you are wrong. But it's pretty easy to just make a statement like that. Why don't you explain yourself. Person is subset of being. All persons are beings. Not all beings are persons. What's your point?

Does it really need to be sourced in light of the doctrine of the trinity? Obviously if God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are literally one then God somehow begat himself.

Yes, that was a generic answer to a generic question. The details have been very much cleared up throughout, so why are you insistent on harping upon this zero tolerance idea? *shrug* If zero tolerance were the policy you don't think mission presidents are in the loop on it? I will grant, there is a difference between being on a mission and prepping for one, and there should be a more rigid standard applied to qualifying to go. Qualifying to go is a matter of delay. Being sent home is an end. Of course you will doggedly take that to mean more support for your zero tolerance conspiracy theory...but so be it. Speaking of which, what's the big problem with delaying a mission by a month or two to clear things up? You're acting like a bishop asking a young man to wait a few months and really get his worthiness in order is the end of the world - oh woe is me, my life and salvation are spent! ???

My point is that it is all given. The false premise I mean to imply is that we "earned" any talents we have in life. From a broader perspective, we will all be equal in talents if we are obedient, and that too is given. Everything we have or will ever have is given. What is our property, even those things that we "own" rather than "steward" was still given.

It appears? From where? Where do you get this? We even have a specific example given in this thread by Windseeker that directly refutes what you're saying.

Do you have examples of this actually happening? This is true of a myriad of sins. From Jeffrey R. Holland: In addition to teaching, encouraging, and cheering people on (that is the pleasant part of discipleship), from time to time these same messengers are called upon to worry, to warn, and sometimes just to weep (that is the painful part of discipleship). They know full well that the road leading to the promised land “flowing with milk and honey”6 of necessity runs by way of Mount Sinai, flowing with “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots.”7 Unfortunately, messengers of divinely mandated commandments are often no more popular today than they were anciently, as at least two spit-upon, potato-spattered sister missionaries can now attest. Hate is an ugly word, yet there are those today who would say with the corrupt Ahab, “I hate [the prophet Micaiah]; for he never prophesied good unto me, but always [prophesied] evil.”8 That kind of hate for a prophet’s honesty cost Abinadi his life. As he said to King Noah: “Because I have told you the truth ye are angry with me. … Because I have spoken the word of God ye have judged me that I am mad”9 or, we might add, provincial, patriarchal, bigoted, unkind, narrow, outmoded, and elderly. It is as the Lord Himself lamented to the prophet Isaiah: “[These] children … will not hear the law of the Lord: “[They] say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits: “Get you out of the way, turn aside out of the path, cause the Holy One of Israel to cease from before us.”10 Sadly enough, my young friends, it is a characteristic of our age that if people want any gods at all, they want them to be gods who do not demand much, comfortable gods, smooth gods who not only don’t rock the boat but don’t even row it, gods who pat us on the head, make us giggle, then tell us to run along and pick marigolds.11 Talk about man creating God in his own image! Sometimes—and this seems the greatest irony of all—these folks invoke the name of Jesus as one who was this kind of “comfortable” God. Really? He who said not only should we not break commandments, but we should not even thinkabout breaking them. And if we do think about breaking them, we have already broken them in our heart. Does that sound like “comfortable” doctrine, easy on the ear and popular down at the village love-in? And what of those who just want to look at sin or touch it from a distance? Jesus said with a flash, if your eye offends you, pluck it out. If your hand offends you, cut it off.12 “I came not to [bring] peace, but a sword,”13 He warned those who thought He spoke only soothing platitudes. No wonder that, sermon after sermon, the local communities “pray[ed] him to depart out of their coasts.”14 No wonder, miracle after miracle, His power was attributed not to God but to the devil.15 It is obvious that the bumper sticker question “What would Jesus do?” will not always bring a popular response. At the zenith of His mortal ministry, Jesus said, “Love one another, as I have loved you.”16 To make certain they understood exactly what kind of love that was, He said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”17 and “whosoever … shall break one of [the] least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be … the least in the kingdom of heaven.”18Christlike love is the greatest need we have on this planet in part because righteousness was always supposed to accompany it. So if love is to be our watchword, as it must be, then by the word of Him who is love personified, we must forsake transgression and any hint of advocacy for it in others. Jesus clearly understood what many in our modern culture seem to forget: that there is a crucial difference between the commandment to forgive sin (which He had an infinite capacity to do) and the warning against condoning it (which He never ever did even once).