The Folk Prophet

They already do make that argument, though perhaps not as in depth as is possible. I am curious what understanding of the scriptures led your church to that, incidentally. LDS scripture, however, is a bit harder nut to crack when it comes to support for ordaining women, as there are stronger indications of the patriarchal nature of it in some of the other books beyond the Bible that we consider scripture. However, in reality, the scriptural debate is a non-starter in the LDS world, as we are firmly entrenched in the continuing revelation camp, and believe that scriptures are to be interpreted by the revelation received by those authorized and set apart to receive such (meaning prophets and apostles). Therefore, no amount of scriptural 'proof' will hold sway. Revelation from God is required for change.

Personally, I think that assuming the thoughts of the Ordain Women's group is a mistake. First, we just don't know if, as a group, their intent is naive or malicious... Secondly, how can we apply individual motives to a group and vice versa? It's entirely possible that some of them do want to shame GAs and some do not. It's entirely possible that some are conniving, some are just stupid, etc.., etc...

This is true. It requires great humility, faith, and intent.

I'm not sure why you'd need to go to the Stake President unless the bishop is actually threatening some sort of action against you. The fact that he's asking things he should not is a simple matter to handle. Answer the questions that you don't mind answering and are appropriate or merely inquisitive. On the inappropriate questions, tell him it's none of his business. Unless he threatens to take away your temple recommend or something else like that there's no reason to escalate it, imo.

Here's Neil L. Andersen on doctrine:

I can accept that. I don't think how one defines doctrine is an apostolic/prophetic proclamation that is binding on the church. I think the way Elder Packer used the term doctrine does, actually, make things problematic without a bit of clarification. If we accept the idea that doctrine = eternal truths and ONLY eternal truths then doctrine does not change. I have no problem with that. But then we have other apostles saying that blacks will never have the priesthood and that it is doctrinal. So there's your inconsistency, because we know that changed. So either it wasn't doctrine (a concept I reject) or doctrine changes and Elder Packer is using an idea of doctrine that is not consistent with what other apostles have said. It doesn't, ultimately, matter. But one of the apostle got it wrong. And, regardless, it does not change what the current teaching of the church is on what constitutes doctrine: as in, what is currently commonly taught, easy to find, etc., etc... Boldness aside, you're misinterpreting what I said. "The application of doctrinal principles" is the same as "the information in the handbooks does constitute church doctrine."

You misunderstand my meaning in that thread. Truth does matter. Truth is ALL that matters. And doctrine matters. By my saying "who cares..." I did not mean to imply that it doesn't matter what we believe. I meant to say who cares if we call it doctrine or not. People get so hung up on what's considered "doctrine" instead of worrying about trusting the Lord, His plan, His church, and His anointed ones' counsel.

Logically, yes, it could change. But not because of preference. The Lord's doctrine is the Lord's and He will do as He will. Our preference is meaningless. Our whole goal should be to bend our will and understanding to His. Also, as I also said in the doctrine thread, eternal truth does not change. Not at all. There is no difference. Trying to say there is a difference confuses things that are plain. What, exactly, does "preside" mean if it doesn't mean "preside". The prophet presides over the church. Who has final say there? The bishop presides over the ward. Who has final say there? pre·side[ pri zī́d ] 1 be officially in charge: to be the chairperson or hold a similar position of authority at a formal gathering of people 2 have control: to be the most powerful person or the one everyone else obeys, usually in a specific place or situation 3 perform as instrumentalist: to be the featured instrumentalist in a musical performance How can one preside if one doesn't actually preside? The concept is mystifying at best. The husband and wives are equal because the Priesthood is never, can never be, enforced. The powers of the priesthood may only be exercised through the means dictated in D&C 121. The righteous husband and righteous wife will be equal partners because they will both pursue righteousness. The unrighteous husband loses his right to preside. The unrighteous wife will not follow the righteous husband anyway, and the righteous husband will never exercise unrighteous dominion. But the husband does preside, and then the righteous wife should follow his counsel. That is doctrinal whether people have a problem with it or not. Well, you may bow out if you wish. But I'm not sure wherein we should be accepting definitions for words that don't mean what the words actually mean. The meaning words have actually does matter, and using words in ways that they don't mean causes a breakdown in communication. Clarification of what a word means is meant to help communication. But if some choose to ignore the meanings and press forward belligerently, that's their prerogative. However, I am not defining these words. They are already defined. Hence the dictionary definition posts. If you find discussion based on the actual meaning of words like teaching a rock to do arithmetic then you're probably right, we won't go far in useful conversation. Regardless, the doctrine thread and this one are two different points. My post in the doctrine thread is, very clearly, my point of view on it. But the points I'm trying to make in this thread (while, obviously, still my point of view, as anyone's points are) are based on scripture and doctrine. My so-called "defining" of patriarch is not really the point though. The patriarchal order, what it means, how it's established doctrinally, scripturally, and in LDS theologically, are concrete principles and it has nothing to do with defining the actual word. It has to do with the way we interact in the church, the priesthood, and in our own homes. There is effort to alter these things, and it is to our detriment to do so. The Lord's order is His, not ours to do with as we prefer. Your overall response seems to have turned fairly antagonistic. So I think, for that reason, I too will bow out of further responses if the tone remains the same. I'm not interested in antagonism. I'm more than happy to discuss the philosophy and even challenge each other's thinking. I'm not interested in moving into territory that intentionally, directly insults one another.

It is asymmetrical because it is meant to be. Preference to altering the order of God has no meaning. The meaning is intentional and tied to the patriarchal order. It is important, doctrinal, scriptural, and it matters. We are taught to go to the temple to gain new insight, not prefer wording that suits our own politically correct preferences. Actually, I was talking about why only men will have the priesthood and the viewpoint that women could have it someday is nonsense. I was also talking about it in terms of the temple wording, in that she said she'd like it to be less patriarchal. I reject that as a viable philosophy. The patriarchal wording has meaning and intent and is not just based on chauvinistic archaic philosophies that needs updating to modern sensibilities.

More scriptural support of "patriarchal" priesthood:

Which part of a covenant to obey the Lord leaves a husband unaccountable to his wife? Changing the wording, as you have implied, would make things less patriarchal. That would be a denial of truth. The church is patriarchal. The gospel is patriarchal. The priesthood is patriarchal. And the patriarchal order is scriptural, eternal truth. The Priesthood is not optional for men. Not at all. Ordination to the Priesthood is a saving ordinance. Then you misunderstand the nature of the Priesthood and the patriarchal order, which is synonymous with it. A woman cannot be a patriarch any more than a man can be a matriarch.

I don't usually disagree with you, but I do on this one. The church clearly teaches family, job, then callings. However, to flip on my own opinion, anyone who is unwilling to give up family, home, jobs, etc., for the Lord is unworthy of salvation. But this would apply to women too and has nothing to do with the Priesthood.

It's an interesting thought, but I'm not sure it's consistent with the usage. First, it doesn't seem contextual: Also Elder Oaks on it: The Only True and Living Church. And finally, corresponding scriptural ideas from the First Vision, as in: Overall, I think "true" means just what it seems to mean. We know that it doesn't mean the church is the only source of truth or goodness. But, collectively, the church is the only true church.

Some leaders of the church use Doctrine and Policy as separate and distinct items. And I understand why. And if one defines them accordingly, I'm fine with that. But I personally think it makes things more complicated, and does not adhere to the actual meaning of doctrine. doc·trine [dok-trin] Show IPA noun 1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine. 2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine. 3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Doctrine is what is taught. And what has been taught has changed. So doctrine changes. Trying to define doctrine as something that it isn't just makes things confusing. And some of the leaders of the church have been guilty of making things more confusing, as I think we can all agree. Anyhow, even if we accept what you're saying, it would by default fall under the category of policy -- meaning that if the church does indeed officially regard policy and doctrine separately (which I do not think there is anything official about it) then it is a policy, and not doctrine, and therefore, even according to those who hold dogmatic doctrine-never-changes views, subject to change. :) How was that for a run-on sentence?

That's because it wasn't meant to address the doctrine of Polygamy, or to fully explain everything about it. Yes, there is that risk. But we follow the living prophet, regardless. A dangerous point of view in my opinion. I can see your logic, but I, personally, think it wiser to follow the modern teachings (a.k.a. doctrine) of the church with a healthy benefit-of-the-doubt attitude. Moreover the wording in the current teaching can be easily reconciled against the scriptures and the like. In saying, "the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse", for example, it is referencing those theories mentioned in the essay, and does not mean that all doctrinal p.o.v.'s that might be considered racist by the world (like the Book of Mormon examples) are included. I just don't see the dilemma. We follow the living prophet. It's really that simple. But you, (and I include all mortal beings, including myself) have such a ridiculously limited perspective on the eternities and the reality of truth that it is silly for us to rely upon conscience and intellect alone. That is why we need continuing revelation, and why we follow the teachings of our inspired leaders in spite of our personal convictions and thought processes. Who are you worried is going to "follow" older teachings? The implication here is that you worry that someone will refuse to ordain a black man.

I heartily disagree with this post. Rely on the teachings of the prophets and apostle even if you "feel" differently in your own thoughts and prayers. If you know the church is true, this is the only wise course. If you don't know the church is true, then find out or get busy finding the one that is true. Doctrine, as I've said, is fluid. But truth is not. And the idea that Jesus wouldn't attend the meetings of His own church is just silly.

What is taught by the church is the doctrine of the church. Of course doctrine changes. Whoever rigidly holds to the idea that doctrine can never change is setting themselves up for serious shock and disappointment. Truth, on the other hand, does not change. Doctrine is just a word. So is policy. They can, theoretically, mean the same thing when applied to a church. We get so caught up in defining the words that we look past what's actually important. Who cares what is or isn't "doctrine"? Is the Word of Wisdom doctrine? Yes. Is it also policy? Yes. Was it always doctrine? No? Was it always policy? No. So what. It's what is taught now. It is doctrinal and it is policy. So we obey. What about blacks holding the priesthood. Was it policy? Yes. Was it doctrine? Yes. Is it now doctrine? No. Is it now policy? No. So...what's the problem? In the Old Testament there were doctrines relation to slave ownership. They were doctrinal. They do not apply in our day. That doesn't make the scriptures non-doctrinal, it only means that we must understand the scriptures from the point of view of current revelation. We should care about what the prophets and apostle teach. It's as simple as that. The fact that they haven't always taught exactly the same thing is easily reconciled via an understanding of continuing revelation and the line-upon-line principle. But what is currently taught is doctrine. A few responses to comments herein: I think that's a real stretch and part of the problem with people views on this. People tend to write off anything they disagree with as only a prophet's opinion. I would argue that finding obvious examples of opinions are few and far between and difficult to come by. It does not mean we have to accept things that have been clarified by new teachings. What is CURRENTLY taught is doctrine. This is the obvious answer. Doctrine does change over time. It has to. All truth has not been revealed. We know that. So how could we possibly contend that doctrine will never change? As stated before, however, truth is truth and does not change. No book is doctrine. Principles and teachings are doctrine. But the information in the handbooks does constitute church doctrine.

Awareness of the welfare and checking on the members is the bishop's responsibility. He relies on hometeaching for help in that as he cannot usually visit every member on his own. If you cannot legitimately fast, then don't fast. If you can, do. It's fairly straightforward. I think a lot of people make excuses to not fast that they shouldn't...but that's between them and the Lord. Fast for any righteous purpose. Answers to questions. Greater spiritual enlightenment. Drawing closer to the Lord. Missionary work. Health issues (for yourself, family, friends, etc.). Or any other righteous purpose. And you do not need a single purpose. Just like prayer, you can fast for any and all reasons you deem important all at the same time. It doesn't dilute the meaning or power of a fast to do so. The Lord is all-powerful, after all...and fasting is really more about a show of faith. Extra fasts can be useful if one feels it is appropriate for a special reason. No. Fasting is not required for a temple recommend. Bearing testimony has nothing to do with fasting. The bearing of testimony on Fast Sundays is more of a tradition. Bearing your testimony is a good and important thing to do, and when you are ready, you should. If you are not ready, you're not ready. Concerning judgment, that's just your own paranoia (though an understandable one) talking. If any one judges you negatively for bearing your testimony (even if you did it wrong), which is unlikely, then they are in need of some serious repentance.

In your pondering did it occur to you that maybe he was wrong. Because that makes no sense. Mortal means mortal. And, scripturally, this life is the probationary time to prepare to meet God. I can see an application of probationary state to spirit prison, of course. But mortal? I don't think so.

The church's position on debt is fairly clear. "If you do incur debt, such as a reasonable amount in order to purchase a modest home or complete your education, work to repay it as quickly as possible and free yourself from bondage."

This in not what the church teaches. They teach that sometimes the economic bondage is worth it, not that it isn't economic bondage in those cases. It is. Always. But sometimes it's worth it (as in home and education). Anyone who thinks owning their own home under a mortgage is not economic bondage is fooling themselves.

D&c 49:6-7

Mmmm. Sandwich. Arrrgglllhhuuhgglll.

It should be pointed out that the Lord expects us to fast in the same way the Lord expects us to pray. So unless one is not able to fast, we are, actually, under obligation to the Lord. D&C 76:88 Gospel Principles lesson on Fasting This should answer any questions on fasting.

I almost laugh at this because it is so very typical of these types of companies. We have someone in our ward doing Nuskin sales and they won't leave my wife alone (though less dramatic about it (so far)). Any companies whose sales model is to bug your family and friends will not get my business. Ever. And I will tell them that, as simply and plainly as possible.