The Folk Prophet

There is still a distinct difference between murder and killing. And protecting one's family is mandated by God. I am not going to suggest when the line is crossed that allows a killing to not be murder, but I think it fairly safe to say that there is a line that extends beyond self -- a line crossed which is, perhaps, more justifiable, morally speaking, than self-defense.

I suppose it entirely depends on what one posts. :)

Of note: There is a particular key phrase in the temple related to queens and priestesses that is all but ignored in what otherwise might be the strongest and most logical of arguments from those arguing that women have or will have the priesthood. I claim no insight as to it's meaning, but I do feel that it's quite glaring to ignore it. That phrase is "..to her husband."

Right. Because claiming the LDS church is the only true church is usually a prelude to beating the snot out of someone. Your point of view loses credibility when you make it so ridiculously extreme. Slavery, rape, genocide, dehumanization, demonizing, terrorism? Yeah. That's the same thing as believing you belong to the only true church. It's pretty hard to take this sort of point of view very seriously. And there is nothing colloquial about the word "only" and it's meaning in the early days of the church as compared to now. It means the exact same thing, and holds absolutely no more or less offense than it ever did. There is no evolution to the meaning and usage of the fact that we believe that we belong to the only true church. None whatsoever. Your analogous examples have no relationship to the phrase "only true church".

He was trying to point out that the comparison was invalid. I am arguing that he failed due to logical fallacy.

My children will never know the joy of climbing freely around the car, over seat, under sister/brother, whilst mom and dad cruise it down the freeway joyously seat-belt free. Okay...cynicism a bit there. I do think the car-seat thing has gone a bit far though now-a-days. I do support car-seats and seatbelts, however. :)

The implication was clearly there, imo. My read was simple: Disagree with Joseph Smith = rational Disagree with Charles Darwin = irrational He may not have meant that. But it certainly read that way. So I said baloney. Or, per the follow up, he may have meant: Hate Joseph Smith = can't be a Mormon Hate Charles Darwin = can still be an evolutionist I still say baloney, but on the first clause this time. Or, finally, maybe he meant what he literally said: Disagree with Joseph = can't be a Mormon Hate Charles Darwin = can still be an evolutionist This creates a logical fallacy in the argument and isn't comparing apples to apples. So...I turn to Lakumi. Would you like to clarify? Here's my best effort to try and understand what he meant. I believe the point he is trying to make is that one can rationally disbelieve in God, but one cannot rationally disbelieve in, say, gravity.

The problem with this, perhaps, is that the negatives listed here can reasonably avoided via careful use of protection (with the possible exception of heartache). Without the inclusion of the seriousness of the sin and the commandments of God against behavior, it is too easy to rationalize things into mortal logic. Even the heartache part can only truly be understood in light of understanding the sin. Without disease, unwanted pregnancy, etc., wickedness will still bring misery.

Sure, but one could rationally hate Joseph Smith personally and still accept him as a Prophet. So there's a logical break in the analogy.

Read this article: Why and What do I need to confess to my Bishop?

I'm skipping the first part of your comment because we've gone the rounds many times on that. But as to the Charles Darwin thing...baloney. You do not have to be irrational to question the veracity of Charles Darwin's ideas.

Hehe. I know. I just can't help but come back at him for it. Sorry Lakumi.

Nobody wants that. That is not relevant. A minor amount of short-lived psychological guilt is pretty easy to intellectualize oneself past. And if you got from my little story that I was not happy in my marriage because of it then you read something into it that wasn't intended. My point, ultimately, was that if one cannot intellectualize oneself past the moments of natural psychological reactions from long-ingrained pre-marital attitudes then one likely has something else wrong with their psyche.

Stating that you are in the one (To be clear, the common expression is the "only" true church" in Mormondom) has nothing to do with insecurity. It does not deny good and truth in other churches and cultures. That is paranoia and over-sensitive. As you well pointed out, the LDS church at all levels constantly point out good and truth in other groups. And yet we maintain that we are the only true church. There is no conflict therein. It is easily explainable, and only offensive if one it looking to take offense. Leaving preaching at "the church is true" allows for the potential that there are multiple paths (churches) that might lead back to God. Teaching that one belongs to the only true church is not a sign of insecurity. It is imperative to leading others to the truth. A belief that all religions are fine and everything in them is good is false. Some things good does not mean all things good. Perpetuating belief in something false is not helpful to anyone. Yes, we should be sensitive. Yes, we should qualify our meanings. But we should not avoid a truth because some take it hard. We should stand firm that there is a better way, and preach against falsehoods. And we can do this easily in a kind and sensitive way without denying truths. But if someone feels that their church is just as true, just as good, and just as valid as The Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints, why would they ever leave their church for ours? An understanding that the LDS church is better, in some way, is necessary. Your implication that saying something along those lines is "vile" is pretty condemning to prophets and apostles throughout the ages, not to mention condemning to the scriptures. Just because a culture of over-sensitivity has grown up in the world and sentiments like what you are expressing here have become trendy does not change reality. The "lingo" is scriptural. I'm going to have a hard time accepting it as vile when it's straight from the scriptures.

I totally agree with you. The murder/war example was not meant to be a perfect one, only an idea of how what is right and wrong can change situationally. But you are right, it is not the same. I also agree that it is not surprising the good girl (and good boy) syndrome exists. In fact, I think it is a natural thing. It would be difficult to not have some level of complication to the shift in action and thinking, going from a "No, no, no, no!!" mindset to a "Bring it on!" mindset. Good boys have a strong testosterone drive to get them past this, which I believe makes good boy syndrome a lesser thing, but it still exists. In my mind, once married, I often struggled with feeling like I was doing something "bad" at first (and by at first I mean sometimes feeling so even a decade in). My drive was strong enough, that in conjunction with my intellectual beliefs about physical relations in marriage, I was able to take a pretty solid, "I don't care" approach to any bad feelings. (In point of fact, that strong drive, in my case, actually turned the bad feelings into fuel for the drive -- the "dirty" side of it and all...if that makes sense. That, of course, led to more guilty feelings...all part of the theoretical good boy syndrome that stemmed from my upbringing and moral/religious values.) But I believe that this is the way it is generally meant to be. Dealing with it psychologically is part of the experience of marriage. It is part of the learning, sharing, and growing that we are meant to do in life. And as with all things, each deals with it differently and with different rates of success. And some do not deal with it well. But that is simply because, as I have suggested, some people have issues. That's just mortality. I am not suggesting, by the way, that we should not bother trying to teach our children to have healthy attitudes about sex in marriage. Wisdom is wisdom and it should always be sought for it teaching and practice.

Alma's seed analogy helps with this. Knowing is a relative thing that leads to a series of "therefore" clauses of understanding. See bolded by me: 28 Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me. 29 Now behold, would not this increase your faith? I say unto you, Yea; nevertheless it hath not grown up to a perfect knowledge. 30 But behold, as the seed swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, then you must needs say that the seed is good; for behold it swelleth, and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow. And now, behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say I know that this is a good seed; for behold it sprouteth and beginneth to grow. 31 And now, behold, are ye sure that this is a good seed? I say unto you, Yea; for every seed bringeth forth unto its own likeness. 32 Therefore, if a seed groweth it is good, but if it groweth not, behold it is not good, therefore it is cast away. 33 And now, behold, because ye have tried the experiment, and planted the seed, and it swelleth and sprouteth, and beginneth to grow, ye must needs know that the seed is good. 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. ___ Does that mean that you know everything? No. But you do know, and saying so is appropriate. In other words, I have experimented upon the seed of the gospel and I have felt it sprout, therefore I know that it is a good thing and therefore I know that it is right and good and true. Is my knowledge absolute? Of course not. But in certain aspects it is, and therefore I can say I know.

Ha ha... so...yeah...this person was going on a mission? Um.....

I disagree...as explained in my prior posts.

Who knows and how? If you saw God would you know? Really? What if it was merely the onset of some serious disease and a hallucination?

Did he say how it would offend others?

I would ask in return, what harm does it do to use the wording "I know" when you only literally "believe"? From a certain perspective, we know nothing. Everything we experience could be false. We only believe very strongly because of the consistency and power of our experiences. So how is testimony any different?

So says the mother. I tend to discount sob stories of this nature as a bit too one-sided. Get a pod-cast of the other parties involved and we might get a very different story. The first is just plain stupid and does not require LGBT advocacy to change but simple common sense and righteousness. The second is a legitimate concern (with the removal of the word "demanding" which is never our place as to ward management) based on his clearly messed-up ideologies concerning the issue. I would be concerned about these folks being leaders over my youth as well. Regardless, advocating for LGBT Mormons is not required to persuade others to be good Christians. Hurtful, judgmental actions, once more, according to them. According to the gay community everything religion does and says about homosexuality is hurtful and judgmental. Whereas I'm sure there are clear moments of inappropriate hurt and judgment, my guess is that a large portion of what is being viewed as hurtful and judgmental is nothing more than people standing for righteous principles, which is in turn viewed as hateful and judgmental by those on the other side of the issue. I am unwilling to take the so-called "abused" gay's word as the end-all in these cases. Here is the message of "love" coming from the top, including a clear warning against condoning sin and against advocacy for it in any regard.

Concerning priesthood? Usually if one is worthy of baptism one is going to be worth of the Aaronic priesthood, and the preparation for such does not require a long time period. Likely within a week or so the bishop would interview a newly baptized male in regards to their worthiness and willingness to proceed to holding the Aaronic priesthood and then, presuming all was in order, have them sustained to that end in Sacrament meeting and then have them ordained thus. To be fair, it is not automatic, but in some ways it is as-good-as automatic. :)

To be fair, I'm not sure the entire list was meant as a punishment, but rather a laying down of the law, including punishments. But I agree with your thoughts. I think a more important issue is that punishment of this nature is unlikely to fix the problem. I'm not expert on raising teenagers, but it seems to me that this approach may increase the rebellious attitude, rather than help it to improve, which I believe is part of your point. If having FHE is viewed as a punishment in response to misbehavior it's hardly likely to teach a love of FHE.

I watched through the youtube vid so I could knowledgeably comment on it. My opinion: Everything the family says therein is a lie, a half-truth, a twisting of truth, or a woeful misunderstanding of truth and doctrine. This is Satan hard at work.