The Folk Prophet

Sleep. I've discovered in my life that if I get enough sleep I handle life and if I don't I do NOT. So when I am really struggling, it's almost always because I need sleep.

It's not a policy related response. It's a logic based responds. By literally I mean "literally". If they "literally" can't, then they can't.

My favorite so far.

I thought it might be helpful if I posted the text I was reading that led me to start this thread. This is an excerpt from Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F. Smith. My feeling is that we would never hear or read something this "blunt" by church leaders in our day. Many would contend, I think, that this is because this sort of idea is dated and no longer entirely valid or supportable by church principles. I disagree with that however. Whereas there are some things we know to be dated, and even repudiated, this sort of thing (and many like it) are still concrete and valid gospel principles that have been diluted by nothing more than popular culture and politically correct ideology. I believe that the reason we don't hear this sort of thing is because it would offend people, and there is good, and valid, cause to not offend people. I think wingnut hit it on the head in saying, "...political correctness is important. Its absence can be a barrier in missionary work." The church is gathering. Offense may well be the greater evil in this time of gathering. The downside is, I believe, is that we have a whole host of LDS folk who do not actually understand the gospel because they write off anything potentially offensive as dated, and validate that because they no longer hear it spoken at the pulpit or written about, etc. Additionally, they may hear a simple quote akin to "men and women are equal" and use that in conjunction with the missing dialogue as seen below to misunderstand the nature of the gospel and God's order. You see what I'm getting at? Here's the excerpt: "The Father the Presiding Authority of the Family. There is no higher authority in matters relating to the family organization, and especially when that organization is presided over by one holding the higher priesthood, than that of the father. This authority is time honored, and among the people of God in all dispensations it has been highly respected and often emphasized by the teachings of the prophets who were inspired of God. The patriarchal order is of divine origin and will continue throughout time and eternity. There is, then, a particular reason why men, women and children should understand this order and this authority in the households of the people of God, and seek to make it what God intended it to be, a qualification and preparation for the highest exaltation of his children. In the home the presiding authority is always vested in the father, and in all home affairs and family matters there is no other authority paramount. To illustrate this principle, a single incident will perhaps suffice. It sometimes happens that the elders are called in to administer to the members of a family. Among these elders there may be presidents of stakes, apostles, or even members of the first presidency of the Church. It is not proper under these circumstances for the father to stand back and expect the elders to direct the administration of this important ordinance. The father is there. It is his right and it is his duty to preside. He should select the one who is to administer the oil, and the one who is to be mouth in prayer, and he should not feel that because there are present presiding authorities in the Church that he is therefore divested of his rights to direct the administration of that blessing of the gospel in his home. (If the father be absent, the mother should request the presiding authority present to take charge.) The father presides at the table, at prayer, and gives general directions relating to his family life whoever may be present. Wives and children should be taught to feel that the patriarchal order in the kingdom of God has been established for a wise and beneficent purpose, and should sustain the head of the household and encourage him in the discharge of his duties, and do all in their power to aid him in the exercise of the rights and privileges which God has bestowed upon the head of the home. This patriarchal order has its divine spirit and purpose, and those who disregard it under one pretext or another are out of harmony with the spirit of God's laws as they are ordained for recognition in the home. It is not merely a question of who is perhaps the best qualified. Neither is it wholly a question of who is living the most worthy life. It is a question largely of law and order, and its importance is seen often from the fact that the authority remains and is respected long after a man is really unworthy to exercise it."

I'm not entirely sure this was a pure and honest threadjack, as it goes to the point and is definitely helpful to me in understanding and learning about the changes in approach to bluntness.

Technically I did both. :) I can threadjack my own thread though, right? Heheh.

I just noticed that. Thank!

Hooray! There's a New Posts button!!!

Excuse me. To exercise unrighteous dominion one has to actually exercise dominion. Expressing an opinion on a forum is in no way even close to dominion. I did not say it was up to the bishop or a therapist or me. You're putting words into my mouth unfairly. I stand by my opinion that there is a spirit of the law that can be broken even within marriage. Calling that opinion unrighteous dominion is ridiculous. Moreover, all instances of whether or not we are sinning are up to the Lord. That has no bearing on a discussion as to whether behavior is appropriate or not. Of course it's between them and the Lord. Same thing if a couple lies to each other or says mean things or ignore each other. And I would feel perfectly comfortable advising against such behavior whether you call it judgmental or not.

Well, first of all, (and this is a bit argumentative) all of the references to the equality of men and women are qualified in the link you provided. Men and women are obviously equal in many regards, the most important being in their potential standing before God according to their faith and obedience. But that does not mean they are equal in all regards. And that's okay. :) I agree with you overall though. I do not think those complaining about equality are saying the same thing as what the church is saying. And, accordingly, they're talking past each other. Still...the equality thing wasn't meant to be the point of the discussion (though I'm all for thread hijacks). The point is that I feel that there are things that are not being said that should be said because if they were said they would offend others. I want to be clear -- I am not suggesting the church change. Their approach is their prerogative, and the leaders are better men than me to make these distinctions. I am only talking theory and philosophy for the sake of learning (as you and I have done before).

Great post! Just the sort of discussion I wanted. The discussion at hand is what is considered tempered with love. A call to repentance is, for example, one of the most loving things we can do. It is usually taken as hateful though. Hmmm. Apparently your in-laws never read The Miracle of Forgiveness. :) Not using archaic terms is not really the point though. That is good, clearly. Sort of. Not really. More closely aligned to "frank" or "straight-forward". Actually you're getting right at what I'm trying to say...in that -- what is considered rude because of the PC culture cannot be said anymore. People use offense to dissuade others from speaking clearly, and in cases, any straight-forward talk is responded to as offensive. So I mean blunt. I mean Paul blunt. I mean Captain Moroni blunt. I mean Brigham Young blunt. I mean Spencer W. Kimball blunt. But my point is that I do not feel that this sort of bluntness should be considered rude. But nowadays, it is. Hmm. Actually, truth be told, from certain crowds, such bluntness was always taken as rude (take Nephi and Laman and Lemuel). So I suppose I wonder wherein previous generations of prophets spoke this way and it was called standing up for the truth, but nowadays such expressions are considered not "tempered with love".

If they literally can't, they literally can't, and then, yes, baptism for the dead would be the only solution.

As often pointed out by those in support of feministic ideas, the idea of equality is related to opportunity. And that is where the inequality undoubtedly must be acknowledged. Women do not have the opportunity to baptize their children. They do not have the opportunity to serve in certain rolls. Etc. Etc... We can go back and forth with a discussion of whether they ought to want such opportunities or not, and I suspect we would largely agree there, but the desire is not relevant to the literal fact of equality. If women did not desire to vote (as I suspect many of them did not due to cultural forces about them) it would not mean that suddenly the women were equal politically. The lack of desire to be equal does not change the reality of the inequality. My opinion is that it would be much clearer for everyone if the church said, "We don't believe in full equality. In some regards men and women aren't meant to be equal. And that's okay." This would not change the feelings of those who demanded equality...because they already feel that this is what the church really means anyhow...but it would, I think, help to fix some of the confusion around the discussion. Such bluntness concerning these subjects would also deflate some of the arguments being made by those who are inclined to support outlying ideas.

I also just figured out that you can preview the first and last post from the threads lists (there's a down arrow on each thread), which is helpful as well, I think.

Fair enough. But it still limits blunt speech. Regardless, where religion is concerned, and to my point, the way things are taught nowadays compared to the way things were taught back in ye olden day is decidedly less blunt. Of course there are extreme examples on both sides, and I would not contend that either are best practice. I am more interested in the trend as a philosophy. Does our politically correct culture tend towards softer speech, and is that sometimes harmful? Or, perhaps, is that sometimes more harmful than the bluntness would have been? How so? Is it not factual that women cannot lead/administrate in the church? Therefore is it not factual that they are not equal? Talking about equality in terms of inequality requires a fair bit of logical gymnastics. And, the fact of the matter is, those struggling with women's equality in the church are not buying the wordplay. And yet you hear equal but different all the time. Or at least, equal but with different roles. I sense self-deprecation in the Force. Actually, I take a bit of exception to the idea that non-blunt = bland, and also to the idea that the General Authorities are increasing in their blandness. I do not find that to be true.

Oh boy...you really would think that I'd have clued in when that talk was given. The talk says pretty much exactly what I was starting to put together in my own mind. Pretty cool. Thanks!

Hey, look at that! The Doctrines and Principles Contained in the Articles of Faith Hmm. I listened to conference, took notes, etc...but the connections I made today I did not make at that time. Reading through that talk now.......

Cool. It looks like you can ignore people's signatures. Perhaps useful in the case of repeated obnoxiously large pictures or the like. (I didn't "ignore" yours mordorbund, I was just looking at it and noticed the x next to it and....)

Hmm. Interesting. I don't think I mean to be comparing politically correct speech with blunt speech. I am comparing speech that is tempered by politically correct thinking and ideology to blunt speech. It's not really about whether you say African American or Black. It's whether you can talk about race at all without offending someone who blanches at the fact that you even see in terms of race at all (this being an extreme example, of course, that only the most extreme would take offense at). This political correctness to which I refer is an extension of the tolerance/love ideology that pervades society and causes many to view anything intolerant and judgmental as immoral. Whereas I am of the opinion that intolerance and judgment are degrees, and can sometimes be moral, I find the pervading ideology stifling to frank (blunt) speech. An example might be made of the current issue surrounding feminism. In blunt speech, men and women are not equal in the church, and both sides should acknowledge that. In politically correct terms, men and women are equal but different (which sounds an awful lot like separate but equal, which ultimately is not equal at all).

Hmm. I'm not sure on that. In fact, I kind of reject it as the reason (though admit I could be wrong). Not calling a spade a spade is not a world-cultural issue. It is a result of the politically correct culture that takes offense at bluntness instead of accepting things to mean what they mean, no more - no less.

I appreciate no longer being licked by your avatar...though I suspect that is a support bug. :)

I was reading some older writings of prophets and apostles and was struck with the comparatively blunt speech they used. They were not subtle in the way they stated things. My opinion is that this is good, and that we have lost something in the new contemporary need for political correct, non-offensive speech. Was wondering what others thought. I made it a poll for fun, but please discuss. Edit (note: you may select multiple responses (I think) for the poll)

I overall get and like your post, but I do think that such a philosophy needs to be carefully understood. To "not worry about sin" in an apathetic, God-will-beat me-with-a-few-stripes, kind of approach is extremely dangerous. I do not think this is what you mean by saying what you're saying, but I thought it wise to respond just in case someone reads such a thought into it. In point of fact, I think it contradictory to have a broken heart and a contrite spirit and to also have any sort of nonchalance concerning sin and behavior. A broken heart and a contrite spirit leads to every possible effort to obey. And if we find ourselves short of that obedience, we immediately regret and alter our behavior as best as possible (repent). Once again, to be clear, I do not think you nonchalant about sin. Just wanted to clarify the idea.

I liked this except the difficulty of reading it. (Hint: bullet points :) )

I don't think it's that black and white. Take, for example, a couple who Vegas marry just so they can be church-legally intimate, and then quickly annul the marriage (albeit anecdotal, I have heard of this happening). Take that to an extreme. Say a couple marries with no intent of every living together or raising a family together, etc. They only marry, once again, for the church-legal physical intimacy. Problematic, right? Now apply that sort of thinking to a separation. A couple has no intention of growth, no willingness to sacrifice as a marriage requires, no desire to increase their family, etc., etc.... Not to mention they just don't get along. So they separate. But they still find each other physically attractive, and they don't mind movies and eating out together. So they stay married so they can complete their date nights with physical intimacy. I call bogus on that as fitting into the law of chastity. It's an abuse of the sacred. On the other hand, if a couple is separated but honestly trying to grow together...I'm less strongly opinionated. But only just. I tend to feel that if you refuse to be in a marriage in all senses of the word (living together), then you don't really have the right to treat your marriage as a marriage in all senses of the word (physical intimacy).