The Folk Prophet

There is nothing wrong with having expectations to know the facts that are available. But it behooves us, if we do have such expectations, to research on our own, and that IS clearly taught by the church. An expectation for a disclaimer in the manuals is unreasonable however. Of course there is further information. Don't be so sensitive. The obvious point of it was to say that we shouldn't base our testimony or lack thereof on other people because people are fallible, mortal, unseeing, unknowing, prejudice, blind, ignorant, weak creatures. And Mormons are people, so all of the above applies to all of them. ALL people are "idiots" (except, of course, the Savior). It wasn't an attack on you. Stop reading personal attacks into things that are clearly not.

I'm not sure this qualifies as a mormonism. More of a humanism. I cried when testifying a lot more when I was a teenager too. I was more emotional when younger. Conviction is emotional. Emotion leads to crying. I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think others crying when testifying influenced me to do the same. Could be wrong though. the human mind is a fickle piece of putty in a lot of ways. I do know this -- there are times when the spirit came down and whomped me pretty good and the tears came. Hmm. So in that regard, the church is true + the spirit testifies of the truth + the spirit often brings great emotion including a tendency to cry = crying during testimonies is a mormonism. I guess I could buy it on those terms.

This is a good point and I think important to reiterate as pertaining to the discussion because it did cause some problems and a great amount of apostasy in the early church (less so in the modern church because most of us never actually get the chance to directly interact with the prophet). If I was hanging out for a day with the prophet and he said "I think that's a solid investment" concerning something or and so I put all my money into it and then went bust... I see that as significantly different to the prophet saying something like, "always volunteer when service opportunities present themselves". The second I would jump on as prophet inspired advice, the first I would consider random advice from an older and wiser man. Most likely I wouldn't pray for confirmation about either of them.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...as soon as I posted I thought to myself..."duh." edit: I had visions of War Games.

estradling75, You still use a modem? :)

To be fair, I include myself as "people". The hat thing I can see not having heard about with no external reading on Joseph Smith. Though within the last 10 years or so really all it takes is a Google search or a quick wikipedia read...but.... The seer stone isn't that uncommon a thing, from my point of view, to have knowledge of. That being said, it really doesn't matter to not have heard of these things. It's not important. And in spite of my snide remark about idiots, not having heard of these does not make one an idiot...though it might be fair to say that one is somewhat uneducated in this particular field (which is fine, there are plenty of fields where I am woefully uneducated myself). I would hope that after a certain amount of time of serious investment in the gospel that one would dig into a deeper level of learning. But, if not...it really doesn't matter to our eternal salvation, except perhaps wherein when we do actually hear about things like this we let it throw our testimonies. I just read a book on Joseph Smith's polygamy...well, 3 books actually....called, interestingly enough, Joseph Smith's Polygamy. As much as I learned things that I did not know before, I did not find any of it "shocking". (Though I'm sure one could find more sensational/anti points of view on the matter.) Shocking is a matter of bias with most of this stuff. We have preconceived notions of something based on our contemporary, Protestant, Victorian influenced culture, so anything outside of that can blast us with cold chills. But it's entirely perception based in that bias. Our feelings on these matters don't really have much to do with reality and eternal truth.

Welcome, friend. :)

I don't think I'm seeing suspicion, skepticism and/or contempt either. So, hopefully I'm not coming across as too cantankerous. To me, it often feels like the new preaching one hears is more about criticism, pointing out fallibility in our leaders, justifications for personal points-of-view, and catering to imperfection, than it is about loyalty, dedication, commitment, and sacrifice, and obedience. Loyalty, dedication, and obedience are labeled blind following and/or not having your own testimony. Like we're so sensitive on behalf of those who struggle with faith that we have to cut down those who don't. So I do defend against what I see as attacks on "conservative" views. If I'm misjudging post intents, I apologize. But I'm fairly firm on the follow-the-prophet position, and find it somewhat sad if that really makes me the most ultra-conservative person here. Seems to me that we should all (and by 'we' I mean members, of course) be just as defensive of these ideas. I don't agree with everything coming from the church by the way (though I do admit, to Suzie's point, that usually when I disagree it's because I find a something too liberal :)) That being said, I keep those items to myself. It's not my purview to lead the church. It's not my place to speak against the brethren. And I would never be so arrogant as to presume that I know better than they do.

I'm pretty sure (didn't go back and re-read everything) that no one said it was a rule. There is a general rule, however, that applies to pretty much everything. It's called common sense. Unfortunately it's fairly divergent what some people think is "common" and what some people think is "sense".

Hi Durzan. Thanks for your thoughts. I have some counter thoughts. Ponder, yes. Pray for confirmation on every single little point? I'm not that unintelligent. I'll throw another example out. When President Hinkley advised that women have only one pair of earrings, neither my wife nor I prayed about it. She took her extra earrings out. Worried about being led astray? No. Increased spiritual strength in our lives? Yes. Trust that the advice was the Lord's will? Yes. But, fine. Feel free to get a confirmation on every thing he ever says. Can't hurt, I suppose. But here's the thing. We've been taught to follow the prophet. We've been taught to heed his council. We've been taught he will not lead us astray. We've been taught to trust the leaders of our church. Why not simply pray to get a testimony of that? Moreover, the Lord expects us to use our minds and not rely upon him for every, single, little point. How is heeding the the prophet related to why we have agency? Are you implying that listening to and following the prophet's voice might take away our agency somehow? I use my agency, brain, and conscience to listen to, and follow, the prophet's council and advice, as well as his "thus saith the Lord" pronouncements. Usually, huh? Just wondering if you can come up with a single instance where ignoring the prophet's advice turned out good for someone. Yeah, yeah. Following blindly. Typical shame-worded argument for this point of view. Problem is, I don't feel shamed. Either it isn't actually blind, because of the aforementioned testimony that he is God's voice on this earth, or it isn't actually a bad thing to follow blindly, because of the aforementioned testimony that he is Gods' voice on this earth. Either way, I'm not much bothered by the mormons-are-brainwashed, mormons-are-sheep type points. I'm not so convinced that, "Am I my brother's keeper?" goes over so well as an argument for righteous living.

Very interesting read. Thanks!

Wish it was better. Some health issues. But thank you for asking! I appreciate the civility. Respectfully... Give me a break! To revere someone and trust them implicitly does not mean you worship them. I don't know what you mean by "special class of humans", but if you mean I think they're some sort of Maiar sent to earth by the Valar as Wizards? No. If you mean that I believe they have a mantle, a special spirit, a priesthood right to guide and lead, authority to receive revelation for all mankind...well...yes. To be fair, it's not the experience that sets them apart entirely. There is a possibility that someone else has equivalent experience, though I would contend this*, but that person has no authority or right to guide the church, and THAT sets the prophet and apostles apart. It is not me presuming things about their experience, it is the Lord's method. He established the way he would guide His church, and it is through prophets and apostles. *My thought: why would someone with no authority or keys to have equivalent experience be given it. You're implying that anyone with a strong spiritual witness, seeing angels, having spoken with God even, becomes equivalent to the ordained leaders of the church. This is not the case. It's significantly more than just being in tune with God. There are rights and keys involved here. Point being, no one except the prophet will every have the experience of receiving revelation on behalf of the church. There is no equivalent experience. "binding to the Church" is a big distractor of a statement that has no real meaning. It's used by people to justify thinking and behavior contrary to council. (Note: I'm not accusing you of this...I'm more accusing you of using the term because it's a common thing to say nowadays.) I can agree with you, sure. Not binding on the church unless said at the pulpit with "thus saith..." attending, ratified by vote, etc., blah, blah... I don't buy it in practice. When the prophet speaks, you listen. Are there exceptions to this? Sure. But they are exceptions.

We don't know how Joseph viewed that word, is my point. It could very well have been the equivalent to our saying, "Any man who will not fight for his wife and children is a coward and a pig." A few hundred years hence and they read that in our journal and...oh my goodness!! What did he say?! Cool. By the same logic the antis call him a lawbreaking, womanizing scoundrel. Joseph was a special man with a special mission. That anything befell him, even multiple times, shouldn't necessarily read the same to us as in reading others. That being said, yes. Yes it is ok if he stank at business. And I admit to being a staunch Joseph Smith defender. In this case, however, I was just playing the smart aleck. Nontheless, I stand by my assertion that your assertion isn't conclusive. Commencing apostasy..............................................now.

see my previous post. I will take this moment and re-affirm that my username is nothing more than a nickname I had as a child based upon a misspelling (probably autocorrect) of Chuck. So "church says" should NEVER be confused with "the church says".

To be fair, turning someone away oneself is a bit different than supporting the rights of people to do so. Here's from the letter to Hawaiian congregations in the latest vote on gay marriage. The ask people to push for "a strong exemption for people and organizations of faith" that would protect religious groups "from being required to support or perform same-sex marriages or from having to host same-sex marriages or celebrations in their facilities; and protect individuals and small businesses from being required to assist in promoting or celebrating same-sex marriages." (note: I just google searched this and pulled it from the trib article.) Seems pretty clear what the church's current position is on this. (I'm sure I could find more with a bit of research...but this will do.) I admit that a cake may or may not be "celebrating" or "promoting". That'd debatable. I would content that it is according to an individual's sense of things. My own feeling would tend towards feeling that it IS indeed promoting it. Certainly, as a photographer (I dabbled for a bit many years back as a pro), I would feel very uncomfortable shooting pictures for a gay wedding and would very strongly argue that I was being forced to assist in promoting and celebrating the event. Where I start taking exception is when you start implying that others are less Christ-like, don't love their neighbor, and need to repent because of this position. I don't mean to make it super-personal or really get down and dirty with this, so don't take the above sentence like I'm ticked off or something. I am, however, making a point that your contentions in this regard are off-base from what the church actually teaches.

And yet it has nothing to do with the 11th Article of Faith. Allowing men the same privilege to worship God does not extend to any claimed legal right we deem inappropriate. And the church has been quite clear on this. The argument is about the legality of serving or not serving gay marriages. Legality debates obviously imply a desire to change or keep laws. One clear contention is that it should be illegal to discriminate, the other contention is that it should not. I say it should be legally acceptable to reject service for a gay wedding. So does the church. But, fair enough, you're debating whether we SHOULD be arguing for it's legality, or, rather, whether anyone should reject service and have caused any issue in the first place. So why are you quoting the 12th article of faith? I can courteously reject service while loving those I deny service to. In fact, I feel it is my Christian obligation to do so. Tying one to the other is a bit straw man-y. People who don't conform to the gospel ARE enemies of the gospel. But that is their doing, not my seeing them that way. Fighting against/for things that I know are wrong/right, that the church has specifically asked me to fight against/for, has nothing to do with whether I see people as "the enemy" or not. Moreover, them being the enemy is not a problem if we fully accept the command to love our enemies. But stop telling me that in order to love them I have to cave on the issues. That is not love. By this argument we should back off on any and all controversial issues for the sake of conversion. I'm sorry, but conversion doesn't work that way. I will grant, there is a difference between Captain Moroni and the sons of Mosiah's approaches to "the enemy". But there is a time and a place for both. When the enemy is threatening your religion, freedom, peace, wives, and children, you stand up and fight. Especially in the political and legal arena. You don't cave and let the kingmen win because you might convert a few of them, because you know that they will destroy your liberty. Meanwhile, you send missionaries to serve and preach. Sounds about like what the church is doing to me. Agree on the first paragraph here. Where we disagree is the second. It does apply. It does matter. It does hurt civilization. It is offensive and hurtful to be forced to capitulate. And it will bring about the calamities foretold by the prophets if we fail in our fight.

Trying to prohibit something that has a long history of sanction is vastly different from new sanction of something that has a long history of prohibition. The relative argument is a nonstarter.

Since when is being gay a form of worshiping God? What is this supposed to support. That we shouldn't work to change laws we disagree with? That we shouldn't fight against legal injustice? That no matter who ends up in power, we should just kowtow? Refusing to do business with a gay wedding has nothing to do one way or the other with winning people over to the gospel. Are you honestly implying that making the cake for them instead of refusing would play a role in their abandonment of homosexuality and conversion to the gospel? Standing up for right is explicitly commanded regardless of offense. The idea that not offending others is the highest order of righteousness is woefully mistaken.

Right. And there is strong historical evidence showing that legalization and social acceptance of any given behavior is the most effective means of eradicating said behavior.

We agree in principle, but not 100% in practice. Faith and conviction come from action. The prayer example isn't ideal because praying to get a testimony of prayer is...well, obvious... But take something like tithing. If one knows the church is true and has a testimony that Pres. Monson is a living prophet. Then the prophet gives a talk on paying tithing. If you don't have strong testimony of this, then pay your tithing to get one. Praying to get a testimony of tithing first is unnecessary and as likely as not to yield no response. You've already been told. Now go and do. Moreover, just personally speaking, if I were spending the day with Pres. Monson I would hang on every word and example as surely as I would when listening to conference. Calling him just a wise man is underrating what a prophet is, imo. I do not claim he, or any prophet, is infallible. But I will maintain that he's a better man than me, closer to the Lord, more in tune, etc. I maintain that he walks with the spirit. He is not just some wise man with a lot of experience. The idea that a prophet is only a prophet when speaking as a prophet does not mean that when that man is not speaking as a prophet that he becomes just the same as all the rest of us. These men have insight and experiences that sets them apart, even when they aren't officially speaking as prophets. Accordingly, I will follow their council even when they are only speaking as men.

Not that any of this matters, but I couldn't help myself... Right. Have you studied up on what was and wasn't considered "swearing" in the 1800s? Most cussing, as they saw it, would sound more like Yosemite Sam to us. Not that it really matters, but I'm a bit skeptical on this. Just because something reads as a swear word to us doesn't mean it did to them and was intended that way. Because he was a strong leader who spoke his mind and put people in their place? Or was there a story you heard in church of him breaking dishes and slapping people around? Just curious. I don't know if this is entirely fair. He wasn't successful, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was horrible. He was too generous, etc., but had a fair amount of bad fortune to boot. Everyone who fails at business isn't necessarily horrible at it. Ha ha. Seems reasonable to me. Wouldn't Lamanites and Incas being the same make more sense? :) Heheh.

That should TOTALLY be the next MacGuffin. INDIANA JONES AND THE GOLDEN PLATES I would so watch that.

Very generous of you. Within the next two years may be more like it.

Who?!