The Folk Prophet

Members
  • Posts

    12210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    191

Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. Nice. I like this idea. If a young man, for example, has a testimony of the truthfulness of the gospel, then upon turning 18 the question should never be, "Should I go on a mission?" But the question could, appropriately be, "Help me to have a greater desire to go on a mission and truly understand in my heart how and why it's important." Or something along those lines.
  2. Thanks. That clears up your point. So just to take the thought a bit further...and part of this stems from a debate I had with a guy in my ward... His argument: We need a spiritual witness of every truth of the gospel. My argument: We need a spiritual witness of the gospel and that automatically teaches us that what the gospel teaches is true. I include in my argument a spiritual witness that the gospel is led by a living prophet. Or...to put it more directly to this thread/discussion: If I have gained a spiritual witness that President Monson is God's prophet, then do I really need to pray about the specific things he teaches me or can I trust the original witness to include what he teaches/says/directs/councils? What say ye?
  3. Sure. But would it be any different without the mantra? Seems you're implying the mantra is a problem. Not sure I see it that way, in spite of the fact that I agree on your interpretation of what the mantra actually means. I'm not still not sure of the overall point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting we should not trust the words and teaching of the prophet?
  4. Not quite. As pointed out previously, it's about whether businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gay weddings. A gay person simply getting their photo taken or buying a cake isn't the issue.
  5. I'm not sure of your point here. I suspect there would be plenty who went one way or the other. Doesn't change the fact that it's the Presiding Bishop's purview. I agree. Though it sort of amounts to the same thing until the President of the Church is brought up on charges of apostasy by the Presiding Bishop and all. Otherwise, we can pretty safely assume that we're not being led astray.
  6. Not that I'm disagreeing, but we do have the orig. Nauvoo temple tornado as a contrasting point.
  7. Ah...man!! I was right in the middle of preparing my next Sunday School lesson, Joseph Smith and the Magic Egg. Hmm. Maybe I'll rework it into a Harry Potter fan fiction book instead.
  8. I believe that's the Presiding Bishop's purview, not the membership's.
  9. No, no, no. We only discard Songs of Solomon... ...and anything said by Brigham Young or Bruce R. McConkie. Oh, or Orson Pratt...and...um...half of what Joseph Smith taught... ...well, and anything we don't like in the Bible, as it was translated incorrectly. And anything published before 2011 that isn't politically correct. :D
  10. We should include requests to add a whistle to his speech in videos...oh, and his limp.
  11. Fascinating. I don't mean to thread hijack too much with this, but thought it interesting enough to respond. From a certain point of view, this is precisely what the Lord taught us the meaning of loving actually is. As in, "If ye love me, keep my commandments." I know that's off topic, and not even really your point. And I don't mean to throw a wrench into the point that you are trying to make (there is specific meaning behind ritual that makes it important). Moreover, obedience to someone, now that I think it through, does not, actually mean you love them, as in, "if you love me, keep my commandments" does not mean "if you keep my commandments, you love me" -- so you're actually exactly correct. Hmm. Which makes my entire post useless... ...but I've already typed it out, so....
  12. Well...yes. That's my read, "lol" notwithstanding. Is not your intention to make the church out as inept and/or mistaken? If not, then what, exactly, is your objective here? Sincere seeker of truth? It sure isn't coming across that way. The "magic egg" talk doesn't help, btw. But if I'm mistaken and misread you.... Well...no....can't quite finish that thought.... Still...just in case I'm wrong..........disengaging....................
  13. Seems like this has been asked and answered. Answered pretty thoroughly too. Harping on about it makes it fairly clear that the intention is merely to disparage and vilify.
  14. I counter your D&C with this - D&C 58:28 Your understanding of this is a bit off in this case. We are agents unto ourselves. We are responsible for our own choices, and have the right given to us, without interference, to choose good or evil.
  15. I mostly agree. I'm not sure the reason for being late is really a concern. But I also think it's pretty clear there is no policy on it for a reason. As has been pointed out, it is not a saving ordinance. And it really doesn't matter. If in the theoretical myriad of weeks we take the sacrament we miss the prayer and take it anyway, then what, exactly, does that mean to our salvation, our situation in life, or anything? Are we contending that we therefore will NOT have the Spirit with us that week at all? I do contend, however, that we should do our best to show respect and reverence for the ritualistic aspects of our faith (as they are clearly intended by the Lord to be), and that we should, accordingly, not do something that betrays our best understanding of that. Don't take the sacrament if you've missed the prayer if you have a sense that you shouldn't. If you have no sense of that, I don't expect it much matters. As to whether we SHOULD have that sense? Debatable (obviously) but my take is, yes. It seems pretty obvious that the prayer is part of the ordinance. Miss that and you've missed it.
  16. There's also an application factor to it. What I mean by that...do I agree with everything every apostle has ever said? No. But disagreeing somewhat with a philosophy and failing to follow council are two different things. I'll give a personal example: I don't believe that tolerance is a virtue. I believe that other principles that are virtues dictate when and how we should be tolerant. There are times when we should not be tolerant. So when one of the apostles teaches that we should always be tolerant, I don't necessarily agree. But I believe that the reason I don't agree is simply because they are not using the word correctly. I do agree with what they're meaning. I have to interpret what they say, somewhat. For me to just take the advice and blow it off as wrong would be apostate. To reconcile it with truths taught in the scriptures and by other prophets and apostles is necessary and important. So I can agree that there is a contour to it, but that contour is heavily weighted, in my thinking, towards trusting and following the chosen servants of the Lord. There is also another factor to this that I've mentioned in a few other threads but I'll mention again here since it is applicable. There are specific instances where apostles of prophets have said something that has been clearly repudiated by later statements. When this is the case, we take the later statements as our basis for doctrine. But there is a trend of using these cases to blow off other things said by either the same apostle, or simply blowing off anything we don't agree with, siting precedence via these instances. Poor McConkie is a prime example of this. A few misspoken ideas and the guy is lambasted as entirely untrustworthy. (Please note: I am not accusing you of this, just making a point.) But he was an apostle. And in spite of any mistakes he made, I still take anything he says that has not been corrected as revelation and truth. And I believe it is proper to do so. To do otherwise is sort of the epitome of "because they are learned they think they are wise." I also want to expand your thought on Baldzach's statement that "we must decide individually when we are to be bound by what we hear" as more than mostly true. It is entirely true. But that doesn't mean we are in the right when we make the wrong decision. :)
  17. I believe this is to the point. My wife and I always use our right hands and will teach children the same. I would also not take the water if I missed the bread or either if I missed the prayer. There is no specific policy on these things. But there is good sense and respect. My sense of things and my respect for the ordinance runs along these lines. If others use their left hands however, that's their business.
  18. I always thought Indiana Jones was more documentary than fiction...until Crystal Skull. That's when I realized I'd been duped. Heheh.
  19. I don't know that I agree. It's not our place to blow off apostle's words because we disagree. That's a sure road to apostasy. It really depends on what you mean by "binding" and "doctrine" though. Is "doctrine" what the church teaches or what is eternally, ultimately, perfectly true. The church has certainly had doctrinal stances that have been corrected through the years. As far as "binding". Well, obedience is binding. Following the council of prophets and apostles is binding. Failure to follow their council will certainly be accounted against us, both in this life and in the hereafter.
  20. Once again, you'll need to be more specific for a proper response. Which person excommunicated for speaking out on which official stance? The Book of Mormon's pretty clear. If there are errors, they are the errors of men. Sounds like potential fallibility to me. Point being, fallible does not equal leading the church astray. Nor does it automatically translate to invalid or not useful.
  21. You're going to have to be more specific. Which signed, read-over-the-pulpit "from the mouth of the First Presidency, yea verily" letters and instruction manuals are you talking about? And more importantly, which ones led the church astray?