The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12214 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
Let's also not neglect the effect of personal perception and discernment. I expect the three of us have all sat through the same lessons and discussions about sex and relationships (both before and after marriage). Many, like you, develop healthy sexual relationships based on those principles just fine. A minority of us did not, and some of us feel like the teachings we took home from church (whether they were actually taught there or no) are a part of that. In the spirit of "seeking the one," we feel like the Church (as an institution and we as the body) should at least consider if our approach could be improved. If we go through the process and decide that everything is fine as is and should not be changed, fine. Some feel there are improvements to be made, if we would consider them.
I agree. However, there are two things to consider. First, a lot of the issues at hand are based on social conventions and the natural culture of the church. As the church grows this becomes more and more difficult to manage and keep in line, so to speak. Many complain about the authoritative bureaucracy that the church has become. Would we risk pushing that further for the sake of curbing these sorts of problems? Or should we teach the membership at large to be wise, be forgiving, study, pray, etc.. (Note that this is the current approach as to sex).
Secondly, and more importantly, we run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, as they say, when we push back on concerns like this. We see this in discussions like the recent one surrounding Tad R. Callister's morality/modesty talk. The responses, even if, perhaps, based on a semblance of right thinking, are so extreme so as to be the devil's advocate for discontinuing modesty, chastity, and morality all together. The prevailing liberal expression tends to account to the equivalent of "Don't teach your children to be righteous because it might make them feel bad when they sin."
- Backroads and SpiritDragon
-
2
-
Incidentally, in E. Petersen's talk, did you catch the ad-libbed "or doncha love them that much?" that immediately followed the questions TFP quoted above?
Old-school Christian preacher, indeed.
Self quote as a response (see bolded):
It's almost hard to put a finger on why. The message is the same. But there's something subtle in the difference of how it's said. Of course there are obvious things like:
Is it too much to teach our children that it is better to die in defense of virtue than to lose it?
These sorts of sentiments are specifically called out as promoting suicide in today's day and age.
I enjoyed this talk, btw. Thanks.
I particularly liked:
Have you a precious child? Would you save his soul? Would you fight to protect him from immorality, pornography, liquor, tobacco, and drugs? Do you shield him from evil companions?
How vigorously do you fight? Do you go all out for your child, or don’t you love him that much? Would you try as hard to save him from sin as you would to save him from drowning or from fire? If not, why not?
-
I was born in '71 -- which is as far as they currently go back on LDS .org. I have google/youtubed some older talks which were entirely fascinating (George Albert Smith, for example). They don't talk the same nowadays. :) (George Albert Smith was unique anyhow. In some ways more like an old-school Christian preacher).
-
This choice--between the good nonbeliever and the bad believer--is a non-starter with me. I'd counsel against both. "Better to be single and alone than to be married and wish you were alone!" I know...I know...eternal marriage. Yet, I'd double-down on my counsel. Better to spend eternity single than sealed to an abusive, obnoxious spouse.
This counsel (better to spend eternity single...) is also a nonstarter in LDS theology though because we believe that no unrighteous person who did all they could to obey will be denied exaltation because of things beyond their control. We are also strongly counseled to marry someone we are compatible with...so...choosing to not marry a jerk would certainly not be held against us as a "You had your chance" sort of thing. Along the same lines, the choice between a good nonbeliever and a bad believer is also a nonstarter in that the righteous person married to either will still be blessed with exaltation. Regardless, I am in complete agreement that I would counsel against both. Find a good believer. Period.
As for dating--our young can learn social engagement skills, interpersonal communications, tolerance for diversity, etc. from attending youth events, group outings, and perhaps some 'casual dating' in well-attended public places. However, there is no need to engage in multiple potentially romantic encounters to learn about our own likes and dislikes.
Completely agree. In point of fact, the interactions I have with my wife, both good and bad, are significantly more influenced by the interactions I had with my brothers and sisters growing up than by any dating I did. Moreover, learning about our own likes and dislikes is significantly less important to a good marriage than A. Learning to be selfless and righteous, and B. Choosing someone who is selfless and righteous. Speaking to this is the stereotype of good girls liking bad boys. They may "like" the bad boys. They may dislike the clean cut nerdy religious boys. But if they marry the bad instead of the good their likes will have little to do with the quality of their marriage in the long run.
Mark this--prisonchaplain is more old-fashioned, intolerant, and narrow-minded than most.
You need to meet more Mormons.
-
I usually hit the headlines on a few sites (cnn usually) just to see if there's anything of interest. If there is I'll look at a few articles. It's so much less of a time dedication than watching news. I despise TV news anyhow.
-
For today: Ever wonder what would happen if, during the sustaining of Church officers, someone stood up and said "no"?
That was hilarious. I wonder if they would have responded that way if the votes were silent instead of ridiculously vocal.
-
Also: A very thought-provoking discourse from Mark E. Petersen. (Reading this talk doesn't do it justice; you've got to listen to it.) This reminded me of TheFolkProphet's recent thread about bluntness. I don't think the message has changed; but people just don't seem to talk this way in Conference anymore.
It's almost hard to put a finger on why. The message is the same. But there's something subtle in the difference of how it's said. Of course there are obvious things like:
Is it too much to teach our children that it is better to die in defense of virtue than to lose it?
These sorts of sentiments are specifically called out as promoting suicide in today's day and age.
I enjoyed this talk, btw. Thanks.
I particularly liked:
Have you a precious child? Would you save his soul? Would you fight to protect him from immorality, pornography, liquor, tobacco, and drugs? Do you shield him from evil companions?
How vigorously do you fight? Do you go all out for your child, or don’t you love him that much? Would you try as hard to save him from sin as you would to save him from drowning or from fire? If not, why not?
-
Just curious. Why from the 80s? As they have them all the way back to '71 on lds.org.... Like I said, just curious.
-
i won't be submitting this as an issue. I tried that to get the same thing and as soon as I moved my mouse the dropdown went away. Took all of 1 second.
*shrug* Annoying is annoying whether it goes away in a second or not. Having a button hidden directly below a mouse-hover drop-down menu is not good design. Seems like it ought to warrant at least a to-be-considered bug...but it's not my site or say.
- Dravin and AngelMarvel
-
2
-
Yeah I'd be a wacky bishop, but doesn't one have to have a family to be called as a Bishop? (amongst other things)
That would rule me out, that and I'd probably change the office more then they'd be cool with lol
I don't think you need to worry about being called as a bishop Lakumi. :)
-
This is a bit finicky...but...
The View New Content button in the Full Version theme is so close to the user dropdown that I find myself accidentally opening the user drop down often when going to click it...which then covers up the View New Content button and I have to mouse off it and wait for the menu to go away. It's not a major deal...but a bit annoying.
(Edit: or the search dropdown)
-
I still miss the old artwork.
You need a bash script to unhorriblify things.
if (horrible)
make unhorrible
fi
Just a bit of formatting....mostly to be a wiseacre:
if (horrible) {
make unhorrible;
}
-
"Missionary dating"--that is, dating with the hopes of seeing the lass/lad conver (not dating those who are missionaries, obviously)--may win a few--but lose many. My guess is that more faithful youth have lost their way, as the attempted to help their boy/girlfriend find theirs. How many marriages have been forged unequally, when the root goal was 'missionary dating?' Besides, once the unconverted finds out about these motives, they may feel used. Being unconverted, they may figure that turnabout is fair play, and make false ovetures about being open to consider the restored gospel.
To put it more simply, what if the LDS youth ends up evangelical through this effort?
To be clear, I was not suggesting that missionary dating take place. I was suggesting that, in my opinion, for an evangelical to try and date someone LDS is, to me, different than an LDS trying to date an evangelical. It's more of a statement of theory than practicality, and is clearly based in my bias towards the LDS religion as true.
-
I'm not convinced that everyone remembers everything immediately upon their entry into the Spirit World. If they did, why would those who hadn't heard the gospel in mortality need to be taught anything? Wouldn't they just remember the lessons they had been given in the pre-existence?
No; I rather suspect that we get our memories of the pre-mortal life back "line upon line, precept upon precept"; and the ease with which that process comes to us depends on how finely we honed our abilities to receive revelation while in mortality. For those who never came to understand this process, I imagine them being "stuck"--sort of like in the movie Ghost, for lack of a better analogy--until someone with greater light and knowledge comes and teaches them how to progress.
And even then: I'm not sure that even our expanded memories (when we finally get them) will really change us. I always thought that the whole point of our mortal probation was to find out who we really are. What's that old statement about integrity being defined as what we do when we think no one's watching? We may behave differently when we have our memories back; but those memories don't change us. We will have already shown, through a lifetime of experiences and choices and priorities, what our true characters are.
I did not say immediately. But I don't think it's line-upon-line either. When the veil is removed it will be, I think, all of a sudden. It will be, I think, at the judgment day, when all remembrance is brought to us. And it will be, I think, a pretty great shock to us all. Weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth indeed.
-
In many ways I agree that this is a significant part of the challenge of teaching our youth. Sometimes we try to simply push it off onto the parents as if the Church should have no place in this issue, but I think the Church should put some thought into how it wants to present sexual concepts. For example, your final statement, in some ways, sets up a "false dichotomy" between "tender chaste and delicate feelings" and "sexual feelings" Do we really believe that tender, chaste, and delicate are always non-sexual, or is there room in tender chaste and delicate for sexuality?
It only sets up a false dichotomy if one chooses to read things into it that aren't there. Clearly there is room for tender, chaste, and delicate withing sexuality.
I disagree that the church needs to put thought into how it wants to present sexual concepts. The church teaches these principles very clearly, and it is on us to learn them, just as it is with any principle. It is invalid to blame the church when we misunderstand sexuality because we are not well informed about it. There is information a-plenty about it, and that information does not need to be stretched to be more candid, nor do I believe that it should be, because it is not meant to be.
There are plenty of parents in the church who raise their children on church principles, teach their children to be wise, selfless, and Christlike, whose children grow up with a healthy understanding of marital relations. And there are plenty of parents who fail at this. Such is life - both in and out of the church, and with teachings on physical relationships as well as other principles in (and out of) the gospel. The required information and understanding is out there. It is on parents to discover this information and pass it on to their children. And it is upon the children, once they are to be married, to avail themselves of this information as well.
-
Yes, it should be obvious, but sometimes the obvious needs to be stated.
So, if complete refusal to engage sexually (or at least engage in a discussion find a middle ground sexually) is selfish (and maybe that is a big "if"), then, this obligation to be selfless might lead into an obligation to engage the sexual relationship somehow. For some dealing with illness, injury, or abuse, this may start as seeking treatment/therapy to overcome the roadblocks to sexual expression, rather than immediately having sex. Do we think they can just selfishly ignore the issue?
Perhaps when framed in this way, the question of "sexual needs" vs. "obligation to have sex" is merely two sides of the "selfishness" coin. Yes, the sexual pursuer will have to sometimes selflessly defer or abandon perceived sexual needs in favor of what the relationship needs. On the flip side, the sexual distancer will have to find ways to selflessly stretch themselves to meet the pursuer's needs for the good of the relationship. Does this sound like something we would believe?
Maybe. I'm not sure we can add specificity to the way anyone's sexual relationship should work. That is between themselves, the Lord, and if necessary, perhaps the advice of a good therapist. We can speak in terms of Christ-like principles. But to apply those principles in the bedroom on behalf of others would be quite inappropriate. In point of fact, we cannot even apply them on behalf of our spouses. We can only apply them to ourselves and our choices and behavior.
-
I don't think the Church suggests that at all. For the Strength of Youth
It may have suggested that in the past (I can't remember) and that may be the opinion of some church leaders, but I don't think I would place that in the realm of divine and inspired general counsel (though it may be good counsel for some individuals).
Fair enough. But, then again, what criteria are you applying for determining what is and isn't inspired counsel?
Also, I'm scratching my head over the logistics of counseling LDS youth not to date evangelical youth while simultaneously counseling evangelical youth to date LDS youth.
Shouldn't be head scratching with application of the LDS-only teaching of Eternal Marriage.
-
Iron Butterfly, on the other hand...
-
But then I would still have issues of wearing anything in an environment with a blazing glory. Have you seen what happens to gummy snacks when they get heated up. I'd be reduced to a sticky goo permanently affixed to perfectly tailored cloth!
Ah...but you forget that Superman's suit is also Kryptonian.
-
so in short, I don't mind if my daughter goes on casual dates with one of your evangelical youth. But I will discourage them from becoming their own little item.
The concern is, of course, that one leads to the other. If they don't go on casual dates, they're unlikely to become their own little item, and thereby unlikely to marry. As I understand it (and I believe this has been clearly taught...though I'd have to do some reading to validate it) the church suggests that even casual dating outside the faith, as it were, should be generally avoided.
-
Wise counsel is wise counsel regardless of a parents reasonings. I would counsel a Bishop to stick to his guns, with as much kindness and friendliness as possible. And if offense is taken, that is each person's prerogative in this life. But we hold to right principles regardless of how others decide to take it.
Frankly, any parent that complained to a Stake President that their Bishop was giving them counsel that not only aligns with church teachings, but is also designed to lead that person to peace and happiness.... Well...that parent is asking for trouble.
LDS teachings do not forbid dating non-LDS. But they clearly counsel against it. Any Bishop or Stake President would be right in sharing similar counsel.
As to the evangelical youth counsel...that's a bit more complicated. As we (LDS) believe we are the only church with the fullness of the gospel, we would hope all youth find means to explore the truthfulness of our gospel. If a desire to date an LDS person were motivating them to explore to that end, then that is good. So I hesitate to say I would want evangelical leaders to discourage dating LDS. And yet, I do not think it wise to date and marry outside of one's religion, and so I only hesitate to say it in terms of hoping for them to explore the LDS religion, and not because I think cross-religious dating is wise.
-
To be perfectly honest, the supposition that I will find joy in eternally wearing a garment that is constantly bunched up under my armpits makes as much sense as the supposition that I will continue to not enjoy that feeling.
Garments are, to me, a temporary nuisance I put up with because I covenanted to wear them throughout my life. If you think that speak poorly of my spiritual maturity, too bad. Welcome to humanity.
If we are going to be required to wear them eternally (and I highly doubt that's the case) I assure you that I'll be plenty outspoken about the need for better garment design and fitting than what the temporal church makes available*.
* unless of course I'm told that I can't feel true joy in a celestialized world without the oppositional feeling of pain, in which case the current options for garments would be a fitting (see what I did there) approach to helping me feel joy**.
** Yes, now I'm just screwing with you.
As an exalted being I'm fairly certain you could design them perfectly. :)
I'm not speaking of anyone's spiritual maturity. Finding garments comfortable or uncomfortable has nothing to do with that. I'm talking about a presumption of understanding a state that we can not even begin to pretend to understand. Who knows. Maybe clothes bunched up in our armpits will be a great pleasure.
Were I guessing...and it is nothing more than that...I'd guess we don't have any use for clothing, but adorn ourselves when appropriate, like appearing to mortals, etc... But that is a total guess. Clothing may have important and special meaning in the Celestial Kingdom. Who knows. And that's my point. Who knows. But I'm not going to say that I refuse to wear clothing if I'm secretly a nudist.
And I'm not going to say I refuse to not wear clothing if I'm extra prudish. I have no idea what I'm talking about (as none of us do) in speaking of what will and won't be ideal in the Celestial sphere -- with the exception of that which has been explicitly revealed to us -- like the knowledge that we must be married. -
TFP, and that's why I said this: Of course, that doesn't mean our view can't or won't change...
And so, I maintain that we will retain what we desire and won't desire, but again, that doesn't mean our view can't or won't change... Saying this, part of your post got me thinking. It almost sounds like there's a rebound board that we can all fall back on in the next life, regardless of how crummy a life we lived on earth. So if we are all to truly know and understand the magnitude of our shortcomings and sins, and will be overcome by God's presence, then what was the point of coming to earth to begin with if we're just likely to change course? Something to think about I guess.
Our final estate will be established by the choices we made in this life. The keeping of our first estate determined our right to have a second estate. All of us will pay for our sins except those who are redeemed by the atonement through repentance. I think it safe to say that the agony we face in the payment of those sins will teach us pretty clearly the wrongness of our ways. The idea that people will still be running around in the Telestial kingdom with strong desires to lie, cheat, steal, and murder is inaccurate. But you do bring up an interesting thought, and it's a bit of a doctrinal conflict for me. I need to think about it and do some reading.
-
There is no policy on cremation.
From the LDS Church Handbook -
21.3.2CremationThe Church does not normally encourage cremation. The family of the deceased must decide whether the body should be cremated, taking into account any laws governing burial or cremation. In some countries, the law requires cremation.
Where possible, the body of a deceased member who has been endowed should be dressed in temple clothing when it is cremated. A funeral service may be held (see 18.6).
It is discussed at length in Answers to Gospel Questions - Joseph Fielding Smith
How is the above not a policy? Even "decide for yourselves, the church has no opinion" is a policy. The above is very, very clearly a policy. The church does not normally encourage but the family must decide, particularly as relating to laws, and if cremated they should be dressed.... That is a policy.
The life path of conservative thinking
in General Discussion
Posted
I don't know if my thread title is really what I mean it to mean..but....
So, PC posted something in another thread about being "old-fashioned, intolerant, and narrow minded." It got me thinking about conservatism, particularly morally (not necessarily politically) speaking.
I was raised in a conservative home. One might even call it ultra-conservative. BYU loving, Utah Valley, green jello mormonism. (I never got the green jello thing. Never made it. Never ate it. Never really even saw it. So maybe that undercuts my claim...but......)
In my home we were modest. We did not swear (even if we had thought to my mother's wrath would have prevented it). We did not date until 16 (if then...yeah...I was a bit of a social nerd too). Did not watch R-rated movies (PG-13 wasn't around back then...so I'm not sure what the stand would have been. I have a sister who refuses to watch them even as an adult though.) We had be be home by 5:00 every day for dinner (and could not go back out again). We had family home evening every week. We were not even allowed to listen to pop/rock music.
Accordingly, I am conservative. Ultra conservative, one might say.
However, I have always been more liberal than my parents. For example, when I hit my teenage years I rebelled against the no rock music thing. I introduced Michael Jackson to our peaceful home. The horror. Even worse, I later brought in Metallica. As you can imagine, my mother was not happy about it. I retained my conservative leanings overall, stayed active, went on a mission, etc., but was definitely more liberal than how I was raised.
Until recently.
Okay, in some ways I may still be more liberal than my parents, and that is cultural and generational. But in some ways I have actually become more conservative than them. I find myself in conversation with them nowadays and I find myself taking the more conservative stance. It's been fascinating and surprising. I clearly see this to be a phenomenon of my changing too...meaning to say that my parents are not more liberal than they used to be (though they are a lot more chill about being conservative than they once were). No. It's me that's changed. As the years pass I get more and more conservative. And I don't even have children yet (side note: fertility issues...we're seeking treatment...hopefully soon.....) I can imagine that having children will increase my conservationism even more.
So, anyhow. I was wondering where you see yourselves on this life-path. State of rebellion? Constantly more liberal? Getting more conservative through the years? Etc., etc.
As it's relevant I suppose the discussion might include (for those wiling) ages. I'm currently 42.