The Folk Prophet

Can you source this? As per what I can find, the closest I can come up with is: "The birth of our Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action." ...which isn't talking about conception at all, but the birth itself. And: "...it was begotten by his Father in Heaven, after the same manner as the tabernacles of Cain, Abel, and the rest of the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve." I don't see these sorts of comments as clearly supporting sexual conjugality in any regard. "After the same manner" could be read as such, of course. But it certainly doesn't have to refer to a physical means of conception, but easily renders to literal paternity, which we clearly do accept. That being said, it is clear that some early church members and even leaders may have thought this way, (for example, Orson Pratt justifying that Mary must have been married to the Father somehow...though this also doesn't imply sexual relations, per se, whereas the church considers even artificial insemination from a donor other than the husband inappropriate), but then again, several of Orson Pratt's theories were disavowed, so.... To the NextElement, I agree with Just_A_Guy on his overall point as to this matter.

That is interesting for sure. And we really don't know. My only thought in response is that sincerity is not the full equation. I agree that most are sincere. But what ultimately drives them? An honest and true desire to give up their wills in favor of God's? Or are they sincerely driven by something else? It is very difficult to truly be humble and concede that one's own thoughts and will do not matter. I suspect that at some level we are all driven by other desires that inhibit our potential for spiritual direction and growth. I can't see someone truly humbling themselves, honestly praying to the Lord in sincerity and then coming to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is a Satan' spawned wicked lie contrived by a con man. Therefore, I believe that anyone who would so contend ("I have a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is false" or the like) is, at some level, deceiving themselves. I have no doubt that even truly wicked men are sincere. I would expect that the "I'm evil. I know it and I love it." attitudes are fairly rare. But even that would be sincere from a certain perspective. And even that would be deceiving themselves. I think the "mists of darkness" brought about by sin is an interesting thing. From the experience I've had with those who have stepped into the mists (or left the strait and narrow path and the iron rod, if you will) -- they become truly blind in a way. The mists of darkness are practically literal (though obviously not literally literal :) ). They simply cannot see right from wrong. They cannot understand good. They are blind to it. And yet, I expect that when judgment day comes that everyone of us who allowed ourselves to be blinded will freely admit, "I knew better." The rare exceptions to this will likely not be accountable.

Actually, God kills people all the time. But...ha ha. That's not your point. Sorry. You are right, but I think it could be stated more strongly. God has no desire to do evil. We will have no desire to do evil. There is no "maybe" about it. If there were a maybe we'll change our minds about it then there's a major problem. If God can abandon us all because He changed His mind then we could have no confidence or trust in Him. But we can trust Him because He will not change His mind. Evil is entirely against His nature. Were it not so, He could not be God.

The exceptions to this idea are irrelevant though. The point is simply that there are some people, whatever the numbers, that clearly live in sexless marriages and are perfectly healthy and happy.

I can appreciate that. In that case here is my reply to your previous post: Your understand better than you think. It doesn't "look" like there are multiple gods. There are multiple gods. And Jesus Christ and God the Father are, in Mormon teachings, most certainly NOT the same person. We worship one God though. God the Father. We worship Jesus as well, but that is in that He does the will of the Father and has declared that they are one God - one in purpose and one in will. The distinction needs to be made. A theological understanding that there are multiple gods is not the same as polytheistic cultures that literally worship multiple gods (Ra, Zeus, Thor, what-have-you). We worship God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ. But they are one and the same in will, purpose, authority, power, etc... So we understand them to be seperate individuals, but it's not like sacrificing to the rain god for rain and then praying to the sun god for sun as if they're opposing forces that are battling it out on the back of a turtle...or some such idea. Anatess has explained this fairly well but I'll throw in my thoughts. Does any man who becomes truly righteous have a different will than God? That would not make sense, because if their will opposed God's then by definition they are not righteous. Is it possible that God has some uniqueness to His will as to what someone else might? Sure. Maybe a different exalted being would have chosen to make zebra stripes purple. Who knows. But those things are incidental and we have no insight into them. What we do know is that one cannot be wicked and righteous at the same time. If God became wicked, he would cease to be God because being God IS being perfectly righteous in every way. This idea gives us great confidence in God. He is good and will never be wicked. He will never choose wickedness, and neither will any god. Perfection, including perfect righteousness, is what makes a god a god. Per LDS scripture (Abraham chapter 3 - emphasis mine): 2 And I saw the stars, that they were very great, and that one of them was nearest unto the throne of God; and there were many great ones which were near unto it; 3 And the Lord said unto me: These are the governing ones; and the name of the great one is Kolob, because it is near unto me, for I am the Lord thy God: I have set this one to govern all those which belong to the same order as that upon which thou standest. God does not dwell on Kolob. It is merely a name given to a star that is shown to Abraham to be closest to where God dwells. But that means very little as to distance. For all we know, closest to God may mean billions of miles away. Or much closer, or much further. We don't know. The teaching in the book of Abraham is not concerning where God dwells. That is not the point. The teaching is about order - higher to lower, etc... Read the chapter here if you're interested. No one "gets their own planet". That's silly. God created the universe. All planets and stars and everything therein was created by God. The idea that someone "gave" God a planet is ridiculous.

Honestly these references to "zero tolerance" tells me 2 things. First, that some people are interested in twisting words and ideas to bolster their arguments. Second, that some people genuinely misunderstand the sanctity of the priesthood and the temple. First: It is the Lord's standard that is zero tolerance. D&C 1:31 "For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;" The twist is when people start claiming that this means the church has a zero tolerance policy concerning these matters. That is simply not true. If that were true then we'd all be excommunicated. If that were true then no one would go on missions. It's simply not the case. The twist is when people start claiming a mission is a blessing that we deserve to be given despite lack of worthiness. A mission is not a blessing. That is a side effect. A mission is a duty. A mission is a calling. A mission is a sacrifice. A mission is a privilege. The twist is when people start claiming "shame culture" because the church teaches strict standards of righteousness.The Lord's standards of righteousness as taught by the church are not to blame for the guilty taking those standards hard. Second: The sanctity of the Holy Priesthood after the order of the Son of God is no light thing. It is not something that anyone who reaches a certain age should just be given. It demands a level of righteousness that is higher than what is common. It is a higher standard. If one does not understand this, perhaps one is not ready to have the higher standard applied to them, in which case one is certainly not prepared to enter the holy temple and make solemn covenants. Without a willingness and commitment to this higher standard one should not go on a mission. The bottom-line concerning zero tolerance -- it is not a standard the church applies, obviously. But it is a standard that we should be applying to ourselves.

Honestly, this post makes me question your sincerity. Are you here to argue or learn what we believe? I'm not much interested in arguing. If you disagree, fine. If you are sincere then perhaps you don't realize that you're spouting a bunch of anti-Mormon garbage that has been thoroughly dealt with and recently (God does not live on Kolob and did not "get" his own planet.)

Neither is home teaching, or the word of wisdom, or the law of chastity, or..... It is a universal teaching of the church, regardless of what some believe.

We do not know. What we do know is what we have been commanded. We are commanded to worship The Father and His son. God tells us who to worship. We don't just randomly decide on our own. :) This is wherein others got themselves into some trouble -- they decided against the guidance of God's prophets, to worship differently than we have been commanded to. I can imagine. It is radically different. I think as one explores, prays, and studies concerning it one can come to see and understand the beauty in these ideas and how much sense they make. But it can be a radical adjustment I'm sure. Perhaps others who have experience with the change of thought can give more insight into it.

This is a false premise. Developed or not, we are indebted to God for all we have, even that we supposedly "earn".

There is a difference between not asking for perfection and the accepting of activities that assuredly drive away the spirit and have been specifically stated to disqualify someone as worthy to go on a mission. You can't quote the imperfection part and ignore the "It demands that those who serve as missionaries be worthy in every respect" part. Change and repentance is a literal matter. Repentance means change. It means to forsake the sin. Go read some articles on lds.org about repentance. Not repeating the sin is part of it. Thoroughly making up one's mind against repeating the sin is part of it. To claim sincere repentance implies that one will not commit the sin any longer. Return to sin either indicates that the sincerity was false or that the commitment slipped. But literally, if one continues in sin, one has not repented. When we look back at our lives and see the patterns we weaved it will be very clear, and one who has returned again and again to the same behavior, constantly writing it off as not that big of a deal, and claiming re-repentance each time, will quickly and easily see that there was nothing of the sort that ever occurred. I understand that people make the same mistakes and have to repent again. I do so all the time. But it is not some cavalier, "whoopsie", thing like you're making it out to be. The depth of humility, sorrow, anguish, and effort that it takes to repent of one's sins, is not some passing, casual thing. And that is true no matter how severe the sin is or is not. If we cannot truly come to the Lord with a broken heart, pleading with all our might for His forgiveness, with a commitment to change, then we have not truly repented? This isn't about masturbation and whether the church takes too hard a line on it or not. This is about what repentance means and what a change of heart actually entails. And it is not some church policy. It is God's standard. Sin is never justified. As to hard lines stifling progression -- garbage. The only thing that stiflles progression is sin. The only means to progress is to repent and to obey. Your entire argument is based on the lie that a young man cannot control himself. He can. It's as simple as that. The only reason not to take a hard line on sin is to justify it. I repeat: Sin is never justified. The hard line is on all sin. It is a big deal. Every sin you or another commits is a big deal and there is a distinct and clear line on it. Agency demands consequence for action. Lest you misunderstand me, I have not said that a bishop should never make the decision to allow someone who has masturbated recently go on a mission. That is the purview of the bishop and should always be decided on a case-by-case bases as the Spirit directs. But to approach any sin with an attitude that diminishes the standard based on a claim that we just can't help ourselves is entirely invalid.

When and if you are a bishop you will have the right to do as you feel best and according to how the spirit directs you.

My wife wishes she'd had that problem (we've been pursuing fertility treatments for a while now). Instead she felt she got treated like she didn't belong, wasn't supported by people (including the bishopric to an extent) and then was released for no apparent reason after less than a year. That really helped with her self-esteem you might imagine. She still struggles not to cry every time she sees the new YW leader, hears a YW activity announced, etc. And no luck on the fertility as an extra kick in the seat. :) That being said, in my opinion she was a wonderful YW president (something I've heard said by many people (point being that her feelings of not being supported were likely not legitimate)). Your comment about considering the young women instead of yourself is very insightful. I'd only change one thing. The word "helping" should probably be replaced with "serving". It doesn't matter if you help them. That is up to them and their agency. It matters that you love and serve them and do all that you can to help them. The rest is up to them.

Right. Well, my prudence and the prudent use of marijuana are not the same. I do not suggest cautious and prudent use of marijuana at this time in history. I suggest avoiding it like the plague. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question/comments though. I see. Yes, I did qualify a future possibility of prudent use thereby. That being said, as for me, I will consider it a valid treatment when and if the church puts out some sort of statement clarifying that it is acceptable to use as such. Until that time, I'm probably going to remain on the "avoid like the plague" fence somewhat. I can imagine scenarios that would change my mind without a specific church statement. (Like a new disease that is specifically cured only by marijuana or something - I mean, common sense is common sense, right?)

Then you are denying God's will and word. Anyone truly incapable of choice is unaccountable. Are you claiming all 18-year-olds are unaccountable because they have strong sex-drives? What defines "major"? Who puts these things on a scale of 1 to 100 and sets the line wherein something is considered major? But this is irrelevant. Major is irrelevant. We (and by "we" it should be clarified, "we" are irrelevant too...so I'll replace "we" with "God")...God does not want them committing ANY transgressions. Per the bolded word, it would be unreasonable. But I think maybe you need to do a bit of research into what it actually means to "repent". That's between him and his bishop. But if he relapsed, he didn't really repent. My opinion, (which is fairly easily supportable via a variety of prophet/apostle comments, some already in this thread): Absolutely! He should not be sent out on a mission until he has truly repented. And that means not relapsing a week later.

Who's to say they are wrong? Who's to say that those with good cause and understanding cannot have just as wholesome and healthy a marriage as those who have strong desire for consistent sex. Moreover, most marriages end up this way. Libido wanes with age. And whereas some older (and I mean "old" older) men still have strong drives, it is more common, I believe, for the so-called "need" to diminish significantly in the twilight years. Does that mean the marriage becomes unhealthy? I'm not sure how your logic is running on this. If a husband or wife strongly desires something and the spouse's basic response is, "go jump in a lake" then it seems to me that there's a real problem there. If neither spouse desires sex, so be it. The marriage can still thrive on principles of selfless love and giving. If both partners desire sex, then they should enjoy. If one wants one thing and another wants something else, there's a problem that has to be solved. If the one who desires sex demands it constantly with no concern for their partner's happiness then there's a problem. If the one who doesn't desire sex refuses it with no concern for their partner then there is a problem. I do think that both husband and wife having a strong desire for a sexual relationship is beneficial for their marriage, and that in the good/better/best scheme of things it is likely best. But it should not be the catalyst for development of a strong and healthy marriage. Accordingly, however, it does give good argument to the position that the one who suffers from our unofficial syndrome, (apparently now labeled GGS/GBS) would best serve the marriage by getting past their issues.

Hmm. My wife wasn't too young when she was YW president (37) and she faced the same issues (except the pregnant part). Even if MoE is right (which, surprise, surprise, I disagree with him in the extreme - and don't see wherein it is helpful to put you down that way) that is not really on the table. It is your calling. And thereby you are qualified. The Lord qualifies whom the Lord calls. I will say this: Idiot teenagers being idiot teenagers is NOT your fault. So get past that right now. (My wife had the same feelings). You won't be perfect. Of course. That doesn't mean you are to blame -- unless you just don't care or are purposefully lazy, unkind, etc... Beyond that, I'd say your best bet is to do as all YW leaders must. Pray - a lot. Counsel with your presidency. Listen to the spirit. Talk to your bishop and seek his advice. Pray more. Etc., etc., and then press forward with patience and faith. Remember, your goal is not to have a perfectly attended, problem-free YW group. It is to bring souls closer to Christ. And that doesn't necessarily mean immediately. You may not see the fruits of your efforts right away. But continue in faith, bearing down in pure testimony, and the Lord's purposes through you will come to pass. I used to remind my wife of this all the time. This is the Lord's church. These are His daughters. This is His YW program. And His plan and His gospel will go forward, despite people's imperfections. So put your trust in Him, seek His will, and press forward with steadfastness.

This seems to be an impossibility in this thread. It has caused me to go temporarily blind.

:) I'm doing my own share of thinking on it. I appreciate the conversation. But I'm sure X-men will push all other thoughts right out of your head. It's supposed to be pretty good.

I think it needs to be clarified a bit that we do not believe in "direct" worship of our Heavenly Mother. That is to say, we do not pray to her and have been expressly told not to. In a broader sense of worship, meaning to revere, honor, etc., we do worship her. But usually worship implies praying to...so it depends on how you look at it I suppose. We do not have any information on how Mary came to be with child from the Father other than what the Bible tells us. Read here on it.

Ha ha. Yeah. I bet there was a bit of deer in the headlight then. Though both missionaries couldn't have been that new. Perhaps you focused in on the newer one's experssion. :)

I am not associating these things. I am responding to a statement you made that seemed to associated these things -- at least that's how I read your statement. That is to say, you implied with this: "If I tell you Yes now, you're going to leave your wife and kids and kill your dog... so I'm going to say No for now". that the spirit might tell someone no. However, I don't want to fall into a meaningless debate. Maybe I don't know what you're really saying. I question the idea that the spirit would give negative feelings. I would contend, as for my thinking, that the spirit may allows for negative feelings as influenced by other sources, and as with all things, can turn things for our good if we remain humble and continue to ask, seek, and knock. I don't believe the spirit does negative feelings. I don't believe that someone following the admonition of Moroni will get any answer but "yes". If they get another answer, it is either because they have not properly prepared themselves, have failed to do as directed, or it is because the answer they get is not from God and they have allowed themselves to be deceived. I think that this part of the promise, "...with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ..." is often misunderstood. It is a strict requirement that comes easy to some and very difficult for others. The complexity of qualifying on all three (as well as the directive to "receive" these things and "ponder" them) is, I believe, significant. I would be highly interested in your story if you can find it or want to re-tell it.

Yes it does. I believe -- and obviously I can't prove it -- that many who so argue know in their inner most hearts that they are deceived and lying. There is something compelling that leads them to suppress what they actually know to be true. An example of this is given in the Book of Mormon in Korihor (Alma 30): ...yea, and I always knew that there was a God. 53 But behold, the devil hath deceived me; for he appeared unto me in the form of an angel, and said unto me: Go and reclaim this people, for they have all gone astray after an unknown God. And he said unto me: There is no God; yea, and he taught me that which I should say. And I have taught his words; and I taught them because they were pleasing unto the carnal mind; and I taught them, even until I had much success, insomuch that I verily believed that they were true; and for this cause I withstood the truth, even until I have brought this great curse upon me. Lest I am misunderstood, I am not saying that everyone who believes the LDS church is false or that their church is true is a Korihor and secretly knows better. I am saying that when people listen to false spirits and/or impressions and then justify them, or deny the true spirit when it is plain before them, that they likely really know better.

What you're saying is cut and dry. I agree. And I agree the Book of Mormon is necessary for the purposes you have put forth, and for other reasons. What it doesn't help to explain is why the Book of Mormon is specifically, scripturally, declared to contain the fullness of the gospel. There is an implication therein that is greater than it simply testifies of Christ. The fulness of the gospel, to me, means the fulness of the teachings of the gospel. Now, to be fair, I do not necessarily think you are wrong about the gospel and Christ. For example, in D&C 76:14 we read: Of whom we bear record; and the record which we bear is the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the Son, whom we saw and with whom we conversed in the heavenly vision. And then what record do they bear? That he lives! I'm looking for clarity of explanation, however, and to broaden my understanding (and hopefully other's). If that truly was the fulness of the gospel, then there it sits in D&C 76 in all it's glory. So why, repeatedly, specifically call it out as a key characteristic of the Book of Mormon? There's something meaningful there, I think, for many sources may testify of Christ, and yet not have the fulness. Moreover, and for example, as to the Bible question. In 1 Nephi 13 we read that the Bible came forth from the mouth of the Jews and contained the fulness of the gospel, but then, by the hands of the great and abominable church, "...they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious..." thereby rendering the Bible incomplete as to the fullness of the gospel. And yet, the Bible surely testifies of Christ still. That was not removed. So if that testimony is the fulness of the gospel, how is 1 Nephi 13 explained relative to it?

Hmm. I'm not sure I agree. The spirit speak through our minds and our hearts. Thoughts we have (that include long wordy paragraphs) as certainly within the scope of that. Moreover, I'm not sure we can bottle how the spirit speaks to individuals, as it is decidedly unique to each -- with some consistent factors. I do not believe it works this way. I do not believe the Spirit would ever say "No" in response to "Is the Book of Mormon true?" That would make a liar of the Spirit, something God cannot do. Remain silent? Sure. Speak something false? No. If someone receives a negative feeling as to the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon or related gospel truths, I would contend that it is simply not the Spirit.