The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
This came to mind. It certainly doesn't answer all the complexities of these sorts of things, but there is insight here I think.
Mark 10:29-30
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.
-
The well known and oft quoted Matthew 7:1-2 reads
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
The Joseph Smith translation of this is delivered thus:
Now these are the words which Jesus taught his disciples that they should say unto the people. Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged; but judge righteous judgment.
(Note: 3 Nephi 14 is rendered the same as the Bible pre-JST (“Judge not, that ye be not judged…”))
Judgment is an interesting topic, and I thought some insight into it was in order. I did a bit of scriptural research on it. I think it’s clear that certain types of judgment are reserved for the Lord. Certain levels of condemnation are to be left to God alone. Other levels of condemnation are only appropriate to the right political or ecclesiastical authorities. So if using judgment as a synonym for condemnation, I think the idea of “judge not” can be taken as generally accurate. However, judging is not synonymous with condemning, but it has become popular to look at it that way. To condemn is a judgment. To judge is not necessarily a condemnation.
If you read a bit on judgment in the scriptures and look past those referring to final judgment, condemnation, etc., we find insight in scriptures like:
Lev 19:15
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
John 7:24
Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
Alma 41:14-15
Therefore, my son, see that you are merciful unto your brethren; deal justly, judge righteously, and do good continually; and if ye do all these things then shall ye receive your reward; yea, ye shall have mercy restored unto you again; ye shall have justice restored unto you again; ye shall have a righteous judgment restored unto you again; and ye shall have good rewarded unto you again. For that which ye do send out shall return unto you again, and be restored; therefore, the word restoration more fully condemneth the sinner, and justifieth him not at all.
Moroni 7:18 (other verses surrounding this are quite insightful as well)
And now, my brethren, seeing that ye know the light by which ye may judge, which light is the light of Christ, see that ye do not judge wrongfully; for with that same judgment which ye judge ye shall also be judged.
And D&C 11:12
And now, verily, verily, I say unto thee, put your trust in that Spirit which leadeth to do good—yea, to do justly, to walk humbly, to judge righteously; and this is my Spirit.
It’s a bit difficult to really set a factual standard on judgment because we use the idea of judging to mean something that it doesn’t necessarily mean, and even the scriptures use it this way. But scriptures like the above seem to indicate that rather than “judge not” (which even aside from the JST rendering could rightly, I think, be understood to mean “condemn not”) that we are, in fact, commanded to judge, but to do so in righteousness.
Ultimately, I would contend that the reading of “judge not” as a literal expression is a paradoxical impossibility, arguing strongly for the JST rendering. By this I mean to say, in order to not judge, one must judge. There is no fence sitting when it comes to judgment. There is no neutral. Non action is choice.
Going further with this: Action requires choice, choice requires judgment. If one is to act, including the act of remaining motionless or neutral, it requires a choice, and that choice requires a judgment.
To use a specific example, a loved one wants to be in your home whose standards are at odds with yours. The common Christian approach to this is to decry that not letting them in your home is judging them. Letting them into your home is not. I cry foul on that logic. Letting them into your home is judging them just as much as not letting them into your home is. Either way, the action requires choice and the choice requires judgment. The intention of this example is not to draw a conclusion as to which choice should be made (and which judgment, therefore, should have been made) but to simply point out that “judge not” as a denunciation of a choice is not a valid response.
I would argue that a replacement for preaching "judge not" (which in and of itself, I would point out, is a judgment) would be to preach "judge righteously".
-
I see this sort of advice akin to an old writer teaching younger ones that they'll write better if they use a typewriter instead of a computer. Rubbish I say. Still, follow your leaders and you'll be blessed. But I don't agree with this sort of thinking. (Spirit stronger if you don't use electronics? Really?) I find the notion ridiculous.
Now asking the youth to bring paper scriptures to church, or in preparation for a mission. There's some logic there at least.
-
It's very easy to make arguments regarding specific roles when the other 50% don't even get a oppertunity to speak for themselves, or have power over those making the decisions. "As long as I'm up here and you're down there, what are you complaining about?"
Actually, it's a very difficult position to make an argument from in my view.
-
I tend to think about managing the result versus the process.
If there needs to be activity/meeting/visits 3x per week, then I would manage to that result and delegate what can be delegated to see the result happen.
Sometimes, you do need to 'grin and bear it'. But with a little creative thinking, I'm sure you can get the results you want and have the time needed for family as well.
Agreed. But sometimes the directive is more direct. "You must get out personally and..."
I've had situations like that where I've struggled. Ultimately, I've concluded to do what I'm asked. Sometimes what I've been asked has been downright stupid. With the right leader you can discuss, work it out, etc... With some leaders, not so much. So you obey.
It's a tough thing, for sure. And like I said, there's a time and a place to say no. But this is my general philosophy. And it applies all the way up the chain and to every level of church bureaucracy. Sometimes things get lost in the huge engine. And people are dumb. ALL people. So bad calls are made all the time. But you move forward, obey, do your best, serve, etc... Start with a premise of obedience. Then, attend to all of this, of course, with sincere and earnest prayer and attention to the guidance of the spirit.
edit: this post was responding specifically to the ability to delegate. I did note the "sometimes" part of it and do not mean to be arguing something where we obviously agree. Thought I'd better make that clear.
-
I tend to think that most of us who struggle to get out and serve more are at conflict with time spent watching TV rather than actually having a problem being away from our families. My experience tells me that most brethren's priorities are something akin to:
1. Sports
2. Work
3. Family
4. Calling
This is not literal, of course, replace "sports" with a variety of other time-wasters and you get my point though. And it may not actually be #1. But I think it's generally much higher on the list than it probably should be, whatever it is.
No argument here on behalf of the accuracy of the mission presidents directives. But it amazes me how many brethren in our ward can make it out to play basketball early morning Saturday, but cannot find time to get out when there's a service project instead.
I also understand that my response doesn't necessarily fit appropriately to the original post, but I do think it expresses a point that does fit. We can all find more time in our lives if we look for it. Other responses are, I think, generally excuses and nothing more.
That being said, I generally agree that leaders can sometimes misunderstand how to balance time properly and that a lot of time can end up being wasted, etc., etc... Just thought I'd throw another thought into the mix.
But... I also feel pretty strongly that you follow your leaders even when they're wrong. If 3 times a week is the directive, you get out 3 times a week. And it will be accounted to you for good. There are, of course, extreme exceptions wherein it is proper to say no. But generally, find a way to make it work even if your local leaders are making bad calls on policy.
-
So with respect to things like priesthood, family leadership, etc, the question that remains at the heart of the matter is if priesthood and family leadership are opportunities that are tied to biological sex, or are they social constructs?
I would content (lightly) that it's the other way around. Biological sex is a result of something else inherent in our basic existence that ties more closely to things like the priesthood and what-have-you. I theorize that biological sex is a result of something deeper. This is, of course, way beyond our ability to understand or any revealed concrete doctrine. But, well...there it is.
-
Equality, when feasible, is very nice; but clearly it can be (and is) superseded by other gospel principles.
I would go a bit further and say that if one truly accepts the theology of the patriarchal priesthood, that inequality is preferable, that we will have more joy from it than we would from equality, and that the levels of the kingdoms and glories and the inequalities therein are perfect and will be the very best for all. So it's not a matter of superseding, but a matter of the reality of wherein glory truly lies.
-
No, but in that context men aren't equal. If we're talking about the Gospel of Jesus Christ I don't feel bound to the terms of the World. The context of this thread, at least as I took it, is the gospel. I do understand you point though, what we mean by equal is a non-trivial aspect of discussing equality.
I suppose it would make sense for me to tie my thought into the original post, now that you mention it.
Paul is laying out a hierarchal difference between the sexes. The church’s doctrine of “equality” between men and women is specifically referred to (in the original post) as to our partnership in a marriage. The one does not preclude the other. The patriarchal hierarchy (an inequality) does not mean that we cannot be equal in our marriage partnership. The two thoughts do not conflict. Moreover, the patriarchal order of marriage does not play into our value or our eternal potential.
-
I don't think this is true. Equality, as far as political movements, is usually geared toward ensuring that people have the same opportunity to do things regardless of gender, race, etc.
For example, obtaining authorization for women to join combat forces was an equality issue. No one ever claimed that all women were as capable as all men for these positions. The goal was for women to have the same opportunity. Now that they have that opportunity, I don't hear any credible people complaining that women have to meet the same physical standards as men in order to be in combat units.
So, in the end, equality is about allowing the opportunity for those women who are equally capable as those men to participate.
Your clarification is in order, certainly. I overreached a bit perhaps. But your thought does tie in. Specifically, in the opportunities (particularly here in mortality) that men and women have in the church...not equal. Easiest example is in the priesthood. Women do not have the opportunity. The political equality you speak of would infer that they should, if they are indeed allotted true equality.
-
If I might suggest a phrasing: "While men and women are equal they are not identical."
Yes. But I would suggest, that theologically, men and women are not equal. Not in the terms the world would like to impose, which is to say, exactly as capable as one another in all regards.
The question is, wherein is that a problem? Wherein is equality a desirable attribute.
Example: I don't necessarily buy into the "women are superior and that's why they don't need the priesthood" theory. But we can use it as an example of my point. Accepting this as temporarily factual: If this is true, then it is true. Facts are facts. If women do not need the priesthood because they are spiritually superior then that's the way it is. What good will it do me to claim equality in that regard.
If we use equality to infers identical value, however, then I would suggest that across the board, men and women are identically valuable, and in that regard we can accept equality as a proper attribute. But this is generally not what is meant when people cry for equality. The call is for an acceptance of shared capabilities across the board. (Though this is an extremely one-sided levy.)
Within various characteristics, abilities, roles, etc., etc., there is definite inequality. Why is that bad? Equality in and of itself is not an important plane to share. Theologically, men have their value that is of greater worth than women in specific arenas and women have value that is of greater worth than men in certain arenas.
I know it's complicated and becomes significantly more difficult socially speaking. Nor can universal compendium justly be applied to the individual (example: the idea that women are universally more nurturing does not mean that all women are more nurturing) and so how this sort of thing plays out in equality in mortality becomes considerably more convoluted than my ideas here.
-
A thought just occurred to me and I was surprised it didn't make it into this new edition of the scriptures: The Family: A Proclamation to the World and The Living Christ.
I don't know what it takes to get something added to the scriptures, but I'm kinda surprised that it wasn't added.
My mother had the same thought. Our conclusion on it was that they aren't needed as additions because they are reiterations of doctrine that is already in the scriptures. Dunno for sure though. It is interesting.
-
I anticipate much less controversy than the last site caused. :)
-
I would say that the Gospel *does* teach equality, in that we are all, each of us, of equal value in the eyes of our Savior and our Father in Heaven. No one's role here is more prestigious than the other. No one person's sin is more unforgivable than another. No matter how sin-filled our lives may be, He still died for each of us, without exception. Now, how we value OURSELVES, and what we choose to do with that sacrifice on our behalf (accept it or reject it) is our own choice, but He didn't wait to find out what our individual answers would be before he volunteered to play that part in the Father's plan, and someone of low self-worth, or someone rejected and reviled by those around them, is no less precious to Him.
Yes, agreed. But all that you just said is what I mean by qualifying the word. Where things get muddy is when we introduce the idea of the Priesthood and the patriarchal order of families. Then trying to talk about in terms of strict equality falters. Men and women are equal, as I said, in what matters. But they are not equal in all things.
-
church, you are a great example of someone who does not agree with the letter writing campaign group, but you are tactful and still charitable to those in that group. Thank you.
M.
This is interesting in my life actually. To individuals, I think I am understanding. To the forces en masse, I am not. In battle with the Lamanites, I say, "kill, kill, kill!!!" But to the individual Lamanite I hope to be able to say, "Come unto Christ, I will be your servant, no I don't need to marry your daughter or be given half your kingdom....." Er...I digress...
But it is an interesting challenge and perhaps an interesting point of discussion (maybe another thread someday). That is a balance that we are facing in our current world. How do you toe the line and stand strong in principle and remain charitable and tactful without compromising standards or inadvertently condoning behavior? How do you take up your sword against the Lamanite hordes without them feeling like you're being intolerant?
-
Well for one thing, this letter campaign was not about telling the LDS leaders they were or are wrong; it was about bringing something that had been overlooked to their attention in a very polite and thoughtful way.
M.
The presumption in this sort of thinking, however, is that it was, actually, overlooked. I have a hard time with that, while admitting it is possible.
I tend to not see the First Presidency as that naive in most regards. I believe they are well aware of these issues even before the letter-writing and pants-wearing brigades took up their march.
It comes down to a matter of trust. Do we trust our leaders know what they're doing or not? I tend to fall on the side of, explicitly and unconditionally YES!
Why? Because I believe that they are led by God. I believe that if and when something is important that God will lead them to change. Even if someone believed the leaders of the church were ultimately doddering old fools, but they had a testimony that God leads His church, it would imply that in spite of the doddering natures that the church would, actually be guided, in all things, according to the will of God and not according to the doddering natures.
That being said, and in fairness, I do think that the Lord sometimes works in mysterious ways, and it is a possibility that the rampaging of the masses could be the catalyst for a query to the Lord that then inspired policy or procedural changes. Fair enough. But does that justify me to take it upon myself to be a part of those raging masses? That's a different question entirely. I would answer absolutely not. The Lord may use the most vile scum of creation to His ends, but that does not justify me becoming vile scum. (And so we don't fall into meaningless banter, I am not calling letter-writers vile scum (though some of them may well be...who knows) but simply making a point). :)
-
Equality is one of those trend-words that has more to to with political correctness than truth, and doesn't really play into eternity accurately without qualification. Talking about these things in terms of equality muddies the waters of reality.
Equal how? That needs to be addressed. And it must also be asked, wherein is 100% total equality desirable and valuable. Equality is popular, and a real push-button for some. But why?
The fact of the matter is that the church does not, nor will ever, teach equality. So approaching the whole p.o.v. from an understanding that it does is destined to fail. What the church does teach is equality in certain regards. Qualified equality--specifically in things where equality actually matters.
How this understanding plays into the reading of Paul is another discussion, perhaps a bit more complicated.
-
I'm glad someone mentioned ark-steadying, because it sums up my thoughts on this fairly well.
I do have a few other thoughts. I know of no direct and specific “covenant” to sustain my leaders. I would call that more of a commandment...and the covenant is to obey the commandments. Regardless, interpretation of how to follow certain commandments is certainly left to the individual. Some are laid out in black and white, others are not.
I also think that viewpoints of how one does or does not steady the ark are not black and white. And we should not presume that an individual’s choice to join a campaign, in every case, is ark-steadying behavior. That being said, taken as a whole, I believe it fair to view the practices in question as such. In other words, I know some well meaning and righteous people who have interpreted things similarly as some in these threads and take it as their obligation to join in some of these causes. I know these people's hearts and intents. I think they are dead wrong in the approach, but I do not believe they are actively breaking a covenant. I think they are simply blinded by mortal weakness, the same as all of us. I hope that as they continue to push forward in understanding and spirituality that they will eventually see their actions as ark-steadying, unnecessary, and harmful. But we all do things that are unnecessary and harmful. Heaven knows I have. I would hope that when I make those poor choices that others would be patient with me. I would also hope that I eventually get past my silly, selfish, immature, mortal perspective.
I think the logic behind Vort’s thinking is sound. However, people, in general are not logical. And this has to be accounted for in how we view their choices and actions. It doesn’t change the fact that we should speak truth clearly and distinctly, but it does apply to how we temper our views of others.
I’m a black-and-white thinker with many points of view similar to Vort’s. But most people don’t think that way. Most people are more Kirk than Spock (inner nerd coming out). This doesn’t change the reality of black-and-white in truth, but it does change how we need to communicate, share, debate, and address each other.
This is a challenging thing for me. I think the letter-writing-pants-wearing approach is ridiculous. But I can’t honestly believe that everyone involved are covenant breakers.
I do, however, based on the same logic, wonder wherein people can view any sort of rebellious action as valid in a church that they supposedly know to be true. If they do not know the church is true, then either get down on your knees, or go follow something that makes more sense. Logically this is valid. But I think we also need to understand that testimony is not a black-and-white state. In many ways it is a journey. I think it’s valid that someone could believe the church is true--even hope the church is true--but struggle with that at some level, perhaps intellectually. In any person’s journey, their testimony and their understanding of the hierarchy of the church, how it works, how change is and should be effected, etc., etc., is a needle on a scale rather than a simple switch. Not being “ON” in this regard does not necessarily equate to being “OFF”. The initial proposition, while sound, does not allow for this.
-
Just dropping a quick hello. Been reading on the forum for a long time. Decided it was time to join in some of the conversations. Looking forward to it.
Incidentally, my username is a childhood nickname and has no reference whatsoever to religion. :)
Troubled: Sexuality and the Church
in Advice Board
Posted
I'm a bit confused at what the suggestion is here. Are you suggesting that the recommendations to go the the bishop were mistaken? Or that the bishop must have been wrong to not allow the person in question to go on her mission?
That some sexual acts are worse than others is obvious, and I would doubt that any bishop would look at them all the same. But one thing being horrible doesn't alter the severity of another sinful act. As more and more wickedness enters the world should we downplay the severity of lesser sins?
The bottom line is that sexual sin of any nature is very, very serious. Because there are worse things one can do than fornication does not mean fornication is a lesser sin than it is. And more and more people engaging in sexual sin has no bearing on the nature of its severity either. This is a big part of how Satan is pushing his lies on the world.
Anyhow, I'm not entirely sure what sort of thoughts you're looking for in response as I'm not sure what conclusion you meant to draw or question you meant to ask.