The Folk Prophet

I remember when the idea of being a "rich lawyer" was a thing. There's a guy in our ward who was a lawyer. He quit to become a school teacher because he could make better money. A SCHOOL TEACHER TO MAKE BETTER MONEY! To quote a Sondheim lyric: Smoke on your pipe and put that in.

I did not say, "God would never do that." I said, very plainly, he did do that. And I said why. So the communication failure doesn't seem to be on my end.

This statement is incorrect.

Thank you. I'm going to leave off the conversation anyhow though (after this post) primarily because I've said what I believe and think. I think I've even said it clearly (though who knows). Either way, I don't see much value in continuing to debate it back and forth. But I'll restate for clarity one more time: I fully reject the concept that God cannot be taken at His word or that His words mean something other than what they mean -- unless He explicitly says otherwise in a timely manner. I will add, since I now sense it was the root of your offense taken, that my used car salesman analogy was meant to convey an idea, not insult. I am trying to make the point that if God doesn't immediately and quickly clarify a word he uses that He's using to mean something entirely different than what that word actually means then it would be a dishonest. One of the most important ideas that we have of God is that he can be utterly, completely, and unreservedly trusted. The concept that his words might not mean what he said destroys that trust -- completely. It puts us all into a realm of having no idea what His doctrine and precepts actually are. It allows anyone at any time to put His commands or doctrine as suspect and questionable. Whereas I recognize that interpretation is always going to be a bit of a problem with understanding the meaning of any words, that's a good part of why we have living prophets. Of course many just cast off the living prophets too. Which is moderately justifiable if God has said a bunch of stuff to them as well that He meant something else entirely by. But as a general rule, if one is walking away from the words of God thinking, "Hmm....I wonder if that meant what it said...or the opposite? Hmm." it's a potentially serious problem. A problem that we're seeing a lot of in today's world. I don't agree with the philosophy. That's my third expression of the same idea. If I haven't made it clear yet, I'm unlikely to. If anyone else agrees with me and wants to take up the discussion, great. Otherwise I'll let you have your final say and be done. Thanks again for the acceptance of my clarification.

I disagree it's left unsaid. I hope this doesn't come across harshly. I'm maybe sensitive because of my other run-in in the thread. So take it with a grain of sand, etc. I'm legitimately jaw agape at the word wrangling that goes on in this sort of discussion. I really can't understand how anyone can read D&C 132 and walk away thinking gay sexual interests is possibly somehow included in the mix. It's so utterly confusing an idea. Not to mention that the idea that man and woman are to be joined together is explicitly defined repeatedly in the scriptures, even by Jesus himself. And homosexual activity is expressly forbidden in the scriptures. That being said, you read it the way you read it. And I don't think more explaining or debating on my part is going to really change the way you see it. That being said....consider... Does D&C 132 talk about or refer to a man's sexual interest or even love for women (or...as is being implied...love for other men)? No. That has nothing to do with the covenant. Nor should it. It doesn't say, if a man is sexually attracted to and has romantic love for his wife then... That has nothing to do with it. It says if a man is sealed to a wife by the new and everlasting covenant then they may be exalted together. And why? So they can have a continuation of seeds forever and ever. How homosexual interests or even the nonsense "love" lie being perpetrated in the world has anything to do with covenants made between a man and a woman to seal them up to eternal baby making is so beyond me that it's hard to even discuss. That being said, I'm trying to not condescend entirely (as I plainly get myself into trouble in that regard all the time.) But I really cannot understand the line of thought at all. Appease them how? What do you think eternally being sealed to someone means? There's this over arching conflation of things that I think you've bought into here. Part of it's the nonsense "Disney fairy-tale endings = true love and happiness" garbage that Hollywood's been selling for so long. Arranged marriages worked for millennia and are perfectly in line with God's eternal law. And part of it's the idea that somehow being interested in gay sex, or even straight sex, is related to love. And finally that romantic love has anything to do with the covenant of being sealed together. Consider: God's love for everyone is perfect. He loves Jesus just the same as He loves Heavenly Mother, just the same as He loves me and you. Perfectly and absolutely, without reservation. Does He have some sort of special romantic relationship with our Heavenly Mother? Maybe. But how does that even work and what does it mean? And why would being romantic towards another be restricted unless you're sealed? And does romance and sex even really exist in the eternities? Seems doubtful to me when an exalted beings experiences all things before them at all times, past present and future. ALL things. Including all the sex going on. The idea of God bringing home flowers to his wife who has a candle lit dinner on the table doesn't exactly fit into the incomprehensible reality of Their EVERYTHING seen, experienced, and known timeless existence. The only difference we know of in the sealing power is related to the continuation of seeds. On top of that...what, exactly is your view of "together" in the eternities? Have you given it any thought? You suggest gay marriage might be a thing in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms...but I ask again...why? So they can have sex with each other? Why, in the name of all that's good and holy, would they need marriage for that?!?!?! Why do you even think marriage is eternal? So we can sit around in easy chairs for all time together on the front porch watching the fireflies at dusk making goo-goo eyes at each other? So we can collect government benefits? So we can visit each other in the heavenly hospitals? And even if sex is a thing, and even if those in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom accordingly wanted to spend their eternities doing the gay horizontal mambo with each other, then how does proclaiming themselves married change anything? And why couldn't they just proclaim themselves married? Anyone can. It's not like the US government's going to restrict Terrestrial beings from having a "marriage license". And if God does but they say otherwise...so it's not "legitimate". So what though? As long as they're "appeased" by the idea of it, what difference does it make? Why is some paper license or whatever the telestial equivalent is necessary for them to consider themselves "married". They can't have a continuation of seeds, so otherwise, they can call their relationships whatever they like. But it's not eternal marriage, because eternal marriage is about the continuation of seeds. I'm not trying to berate your or just bludgeon you with things here. I'm just taking you through some things to consider, because it strikes me that maybe you haven't really thought these propositions through. Clearly you don't mean slavery and polygamy were sins and are now are not? So I suppose you mean the opposite. Slavery and polygamy used to not be sins and now are. Putting aside the fact that that is literally the opposite of what I'm asking....but sort of accepting, for the sake of argument, that reversing the idea doesn't inject any sort of logical fallacy... Who says slavery is a de facto eternal sin? I'm saying this as an intellectual (and semantic) exercise, not as an argument that we ought to bring back slavery, just so we're clear. But, consider... if one were to follow the council of the Lord completely, and follow the second greatest commandment completely, but had technical "slaves" like a king or something, is the technical having slaves really a sin, eternally speaking, in the eyes of God? And what makes them slaves? Are the provided places to live? Are they fed well? Are they given clothes? Do they get a wage? Is the wage sufficient? Do they get time off? Where is the line where someone literally becomes a semantic "slave". Is it according to the individuals want? Is someone who has all these things but doesn't get paid as well as they like a slave? Like, say, Filipino children sewing Nike sneakers for thirty cents a day? Or is it only no wage at all? Does food and shelter count as a wage? Or is it only the inability to quit? But what if all the above are given at a high level? What if one lives in a lavish castle, has all the food they want of whatever kind they want, can wear nice clothes, get lots of time off, get a six figure salary, are treated with love and respect, but simply don't have the choice to quit because they're "enslaved" by the king? Technically slavery. Right? But sinful? Is that king, who treats his "slaves" that well more or less sinful than the crappy employer who underpays and abuses his employees when the job market sucks, but they can "technically" quit? I think there's no doubt that slavery was a great evil. But why? Wasn't it the inhumane treatment, the abuse, the chains, the whips, the evil that was evil. Is the simple idea that someone is beholden to another at some level (slavery) evil in and of itself? Are we not all beholden to others at some level? Do we not all work for the government at some level? To be, truly, totally free there can be no law. There is. So where does that law (restriction of freedom) become evil by God's law? I mean, clearly, at some level it does. But where? Whereas the idea of what constitutes the level where restriction of freedom crosses into "slavery" then we're into semantics. And if one defines that line by the cruelty and inhumanity then, sure...okay...by that then yes, slavery is evil. But...and this is the point... do you believe for one second that the official church thinking on slavery EVER justified inhumanity, chains, whippings, killing, and the like as "not sin"? I think not. Therefore...I say that's a stretch. As to polygamy -- I've said this before but perhaps you missed it. We still practice it. It's eternal law. It's canonized scripture. It is not, in and of itself, remotely a sin. But, like with anything, there are rules surrounding it, and the breaking of those rules, as with all church rules, constitutes sin. And that was always the case. The rules changed as to the when and where of polygamy. Currently it is only authorized if one's prior wife is deceased. But the idea that authorized plural marriage was considered righteous and is now considered a sin is simply false.

estradling75, after so many years of knowing me, having had friendly in-person conversation at dinner before, etc., do you REALLY think I meant to insult your character and person? Do you not think, perhaps, that maybe, just maybe, either I miscommunicated somehow or that you're misinterpreting or reading something in to what I've said? Are you really not giving me the benefit of the doubt here? I meant no personal attack. I disagree with the logic/thinking. It's not personal. I believe that suggesting that God's clarifying something because it was, in that one case, being used differently than is commonly understood does not justifiably equate to viewing anything else He has stated as semantically suspect. I'm sorry that's coming across as an attack on your character in the way I tried to explain myself. That's a pretty simple idea to me. If I tell you what I really mean when I say the word "new" is "used but new to you" then I'm not being dishonest. If I just talk about giving you something "new" and then give you something that's used I'm not honest. The very fact that God explained himself in a timely manner is why it's honest. Alternatively, letting the entire church for generation upon generation believe something because He point-blank said it in canonical scripture, and it was reiterated by prophet and apostle upon prophet and apostle, but then after the fact coming out and saying "I didn't really mean that" would be dishonest. Maybe it's because I said something about playing a game, which I meant as a generic way of trying to say it wasn't solid logic to me. And perhaps that somewhat flippant (unintentionally) phrasing is what made it seem insulting. I'm not, honestly, sure otherwise. I'll review what I wrote and consider, but I really wish you'd not take it personally, because I sure didn't mean it that way. That being said, I'll step out of the conversation now. I am SO not interested in this sort of personal hurt approach to discussion. It makes for a bad experience all around. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

God said: "And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law [...] they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory." (D&C 132:19-21) Unless you're playing @estradling75's "God doesn't actually mean what He says" game. Which turns God into nothing but a used car salesman type half-truth liar. "Sure....I said you'd get a new car. But what I really meant was 'new to you', so...you see...I wasn't lying." Even a child knows that's dishonest. God is not dishonest. He has made it very plain to us. Except a many abide by His law, being sealed to a wife by those anointed to do so, he cannot attain the glory of exaltation. I fully and completely reject the notion that maybe He didn't mean what He said and anything we've been given as the word of God may not actually be what He meant. "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled." D&C 1:38 I believe that and consider the philosophy that what the Lord has spoken, in actuality, may not be what He has spoken....because secretly when he said "wife" he might have meant "husband" and secretly when He said, "except a man" He meant "one of the various alternatives"...is extremely dangerous and foolhardy. I believe He said what he meant and He meant what He said and we reject it to our peril. To what end? I think you're stretching pretty hard here.

FWIW I reject this sort of thinking.

I had another thought so I thought I'd share. The predominant view was not, necessarily, one of a "lesser" status (I'll qualify that in a second). It was one of inheritance. It wasn't looked at, over all, as a "bad" thing to not be able to hold the priesthood. Along the lines of only the the descendants of Aaron and the Levite tribe had the right to the priesthood in ancient Israel. That didn't make the other tribes lesser. Now I'm not going to go so far as to claim there was no racism in the early church. Of course there was. Heck, I remember my own grandma even saying things that weren't very....PC...regarding blacks. But...that wasn't the overall sentiment I remember surrounding the ban. To be fair, was 7 when the ban was lifted. But I remember. The sentiment was, overall, very loving and hopeful. Everyone rejoiced when the ban was lifted (and by "everyone" I don't mean "everyone", probably. Some jerk-face racist pig probably lamented....but I digress....) On the "lesser" status thing, yes, the prevailing theory was, indeed, that blacks were black because they had been less valiant in the pre-existence. That's been disavowed now. But the part of that view that isn't mentioned is that no one equated that to potential in this life. Everyone was behind a veil of forgetfulness and had the same potential to show humility, faith, and obedience, regardless of the pre-existence. So the idea that people, overall, looked down on black people because of the priesthood ban doesn't really resonate with me. As I said, I'm sure people did look down on them. But it was because of cultural and historical racism, rather than the principles and ideas expressed around the priesthood ban. I don't know if you'll find that interesting or not. And...keep in mind...I'm expressing my view remembering things from being a 7-year-old boy in white-bred Utah. So there's sure to be some flaws therein. But, that's my sense on some of these things.

Doctrine? Sure. The technical meaning of doctrine is simply what a church teaches. That's what a lot of people mean by it. There's no question that some spoke of it as doctrine. Other's, as they do now, qualified the meaning of doctrine differently, and called it (rightly) policy*. But there's no question that the church taught that blacks could not receive the priesthood, and so calling it church doctrine for some was appropriate (that's a semantic debate which I've had before. Some claim that church doctrine only included things that are eternal truth. I think that's silly. But some define it that way.) Eternal...no. Never. No one has ever argued that the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was eternal. There were conflicting statements and ideas as to how long the ban would last. And some of those teachings have been disavowed. But no one, that I'm aware of, ever said never. The explanative theory was simply that they, as a race, were "cursed" by the mark of Cain or something, and that inherited curse meant they couldn't have the priesthood in this life. But even under that theory the idea that they were children of God who had agency and would be accountable according to that agency, and stand before Christ as all mankind do, saved according to their acceptance of Christ and His gospel or not was always the case. *Edit: I should add that some of the ideas behind why the policy was in place were, indeed, viewed by many as doctrinal.

3 questions: 1: Do you really not see the difference between the changes in policy that have occurred and the changing of a fundamental doctrine like eternal marriage? 2: What "sin" has been changed to not a sin in church history? 3: Why do you think that sexual sin being sin is merely a policy?

I see. Well then I'd say, with all due respect, that you either do not understand or are denying the truth of plain church doctrine. I'd also go so far as to say that "highly improbably" is understating my views. It's impossible. It will not happen. As to the exercise you're engaged in, I get the idea and even see how it might be helpful to consider an extreme "what if". That's partly why I'm engaged in the conversation. It just seems like this particular what if is too extreme and not based in the reality of eternal revealed truths.

So is the idea that a boy thinking he's a girl makes him an actual girl...and yet.........here we are.

Can you clarify? At first I thought you were saying that we'd disagree on whether there is a possibility. But after re-reading...you're talking about the relevance of entertaining the idea. Relevance? Too what? What do you mean? Can you restate? His plan is for us to become like Him. So...yes...that unquestionably limits the plan to exclude two male gods procreating eternally together. How can you not know this? (I expect you actually do know this but are trying to be open minded at some level. But....why? There's no reason to open minded on this idea. I expect you'll challenge that, and I'd be happy to explain myself further if you'd like.)

Give it a few years.

Fixed it.

I'm going to go so far as to say that we don't need a bigger picture or our minds and understanding expanded to know the facts. The facts are these -- and they are clear cut scriptural canon: A man must marry a wife by God's law, by the new and everlasting covenant, and it must be sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, upon which they may pass by the angels to inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths to be set there, to their exaltation. And except a man abide God's law he cannot attain to that glory.

Okay...nitpicking you to death for no reason other than I thought of it....but....... You said that if someone speculates it tells something about them. But does it? If one person speculates that polygamy would return in the church and another speculates that it won't do I really understand anything about said person? Does it actually tell me much of anything other than that exact thing? Maybe I'm misreading you. I expect I am. But that's what had me wondering. 20 years ago I'd say that polygamy probably would return someday. 20 years later I'd probably say the same thing. But the why of my saying that is very, very, very different. And others would be as likely to assume that my reasoning was what it was 20 years ago as they would be to assume it is what it is today. Or...more likely....assume something else entirely. Anyhow, not trying to debate. Just...like I said... I thought the thought, so I said it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain?

Sure, I understand what you're getting at. And of course you use an extremely touchy subject as your example which makes it difficult to speak about in frank terms. So hopefully the following will come across: God clearly condoned slavery at some level in the Old Testament. I'm not sure, accordingly, that the practice of keeping slaves is an "eternal" truth. Particularly where what it means to be a slave is a fairly broad idea. At some level everyone is a slave to some things. Does that matter eternally? Clearly we value freedom. Clearly freedom is an important issue. But also, clearly, where freedoms are restricted that doesn't end up being particularly important as to mankind's salvation. In other words, if one man holds another as a slave, it doesn't really affect whether that enslaved person makes it to the celestial kingdom or not. But if two dudes or dudettes are doing the nasty with each other it very much plays into their making it to the celestial kingdom or not. The broader "what body parts go together sexually?" question is clearly not the eternal truth that matters. The importance of eternal celestial marriage is the core issue at hand. And homosexual behavior (and, yes, even tendencies) is directly at odds with that core issue. So I'm not sure how we can arrive at an "it's okay even though it'll damn you" conclusion.

When we speak of fundamentals we mean eternal truths. An eternal truth isn't an eternal truth if it isn't eternal and can be altered by societal trends. So which fundamental truth (I'd say "core gospel" is the same thing) has been altered by societal influences? We can speak in theoreticals all day, right? But let's get specific if you want to. What core fundamental gospel truth has ever changed because of the way society views things?

I think maybe you're missing what's being meant by "fundamentals".

(Parenthetically responding, I do understand the point you're making and think it is entirely valid. But it's false conflation, in my opinion, to compare someone leaving the church because, say, there's a policy that children with gay parents can't be baptized or things like that to the church actually proclaiming that fundamentals we've taught and believed and emphasized throughout the history of the church are wrong and we're abandoning them (and, more importantly, things I have a testimony of). There is useful binary thinking and there is harmful binary thinking. That being said, I am well aware that some of the teaching around polygamy was understood as "fundamental" in ways that it wasn't fundamental to our contemporary understanding. Still, a conflation of ideas though...because we still plainly and obviously teach polygamy as a doctrinal principle of truth. It's scriptural canon for Pete's sake! And I do acquiesce to the "semantic" point you made. If the church came out with a policy that people having gay sex inside a legal marriage were able to participate in church, hold callings, etc., then I might well explain it via said nuance, though I would, indeed, struggle with it. A ridiculous idea, even then, but explainable with semantic nuance. But if they announced that two men were now able to be sealed for time and all eternity as husband and husband....)

My commitment to faith in Jesus Christ isn't hypothetical though. It is an absolute. Which is my point. There are absolutes. It is the absolute-ness of certain things that make the hypothetical abandonment of them so ridiculous. The only reason to give such things attention is because there are so many who don't seem to believe them ridiculous. That's a dangerous way to live. I'm not saying this as a personal attack or criticism, but as a theoretical. Why hasn't the Holy Spirit already confirmed this to you? The idea of not having the Spirit speak to us the truth of eternal marriage and gender (especially in today's world) seems odd to me. Shouldn't we know this is fundamental -- by way of both learning and the Holy Spirit -- now? Consider: In the gospel, where do all roads lead? What does it mean to walk the ordinance path? What are ordinances about? What is the culmination of them? What is the pinnacle of this path...the ultimate covenant we make? And why? For myself that is why I can say something like I would walk away if the church abandoned Christ (despite @Just_A_Guy's semantic play with my hypothetical over the meaning of "worship". Come on JAG! You know what I meant!* ). My testimony is in Christ. That He lives. That He loves me. That He atoned for my sin. My testimony of celestial marriage and the relative associated points is akin. * on that note JAG, if the church redefined the meaning of the word "sin" somehow, so gay married sex wasn't a "sin", but the plain teaching that those engaged in it would forfeit eternal life then...weird...but...okay....

I disagree. I'll explain. Depends on what you mean. Is the base of the Church likely to be more inclined to lying and stealing and committing adultery in 20 years? I don't think so. Maybe. But really, I believe, that has little to do with the price of rice in China? Or...in other words...the base of the church does not dictate core doctrine --- not does it ever influence it. Ever. Yes...society in general and the way things are viewed therein changes, and as that bleeds into the church, it can effect some things -- even many things. Equating those things to core doctrine isn't legitimate to me. The law of Moses was the law. Then it was not. Such things can change. Such things WILL change. But the core of the gospel will not. Moreover, the core of the gospel is the thing in which I have a testimony. I will not deny that. I cannot deny that. If the church denied it (such as in the absurd hypothetical question), it wouldn't change my testimony one whit. I know what I know. There things I don't understand. Sure. Tons of things. But the man/woman, husband/wife, Heavenly Father/Mother, thing...being a thing? Well that's fundamental. One cannot pull the foundation out from a building and expect it to stand. But, anyhow... as to the question at hand...will the core Church members be more likely to embrace and accept homosexuality as legit form or sexual activity? My take: No. I believe it will be one of those underlying threshing mechanisms. "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." Matt 6:24 or 3 Nephi 13:24 Those who cannot accept fundamental truths will leave.