The Folk Prophet

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.

I believe that's the Presiding Bishop's purview, not the membership's.

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

We should include requests to add a whistle to his speech in videos...oh, and his limp.

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....

Which statement by Pres. Monson are you referring to here?

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....................

What?! Are you saying the horse should be a llama?

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.

See Moses 6:56 as well.

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

I always thought Indiana Jones was more documentary than fiction...until Crystal Skull. That's when I realized I'd been duped. Heheh.

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.

That is a very interesting thing to think about.

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.

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?

Church leaders being fallible has been taught and believed since Joseph Smith taught it himself. Not sure why Uchtdorf's comment is so revolutionary to some.

Sure...to an extent. I would content it's much more along the lines of the similarities to masonry and the temple. The same could be argued, of course, the Joseph Smith used what he knew, (or that the Lord used what Joseph knew), or one could look at it in the light of some truth was maintained in the masonry rituals through the years. One doesn't prove the other, etc... I see it the same way with seer stones. The fact that others used them previously to Joseph, that it was common in any regard, doesn't prove that Joseph was influenced by them. Moreover, it could very reasonably have influenced the interpretation of those who saw Joseph use them, and thereby create the reports from others as we read them. But it doesn't concretely prove that he was influenced by them in any way. Seer stones are documented Scripturally, stones prepared for seers and translation LONG before they were popular in Joseph's time. I admit, my "hogwash" p.o.v. is my own. But it is as supportable a p.o.v. as is making otherwise a statement of historical fact.

I'm familiar. Still interpretive. Still hearsay. And I still think its hogwash. It has nothing to do with Bushman's qualifications as a historian, or anyone else's, for that matter. It's the nature of the history itself. To draw a concrete conclusion of this nature is unfair. You are certainly free to draw that conclusion. I am pointing out that it is not requisite for everyone to -- not on your word or on Bushman's. Joseph Smith was, is, and will be spoken of for good and evil. So anything said of him may be suspect to prejudice. History is also extremely susceptible to error of communication, misreporting, and the general fallibility of human kind. Bushman reports the facts and doesn't assume prejudice or stupidity in them one way or another unless there is evidence of prejudice or stupidity. But that doesn't mean that no prejudice or stupidity existed. If a reliable quote from Joseph himself existed saying something along the lines of, "I was highly influenced by the seer-witch-woman in the village and that's why I started looking at seer stones," then I'll reconcile my thinking. Otherwise, I'm not buying.

Moreover, there is an assumption that the Sunday School manual is and always has been the complete and perfect answer to teach everyone exactly what they need to fulfill their intellectual concerns and desires about the church. This is patently unfair and a ridiculous expectation. The manuals are put together to teach the gospel as best they can. They are developed by committee and then reviewed and approved by the appropriate authority. To expect that they will cover every detail that is concerning to every one of the millions of members through the years is unrealistic. And to blame "the church" as if they were trying to cover things up is just plain silly. People are going to have concerns with the church. Satan is working his very hardest to ensure this is the case, and people are weak and skeptical and naturally of little faith. The Sunday School manual cannot possibly account for every single instance of every crisis of faith that members face. The Lord expects us to study and learn, have faith, pray, listen to the spirit, etc. not be spoon fed every minor detail, even those that hardly matter, in is Sunday School.

To be fair, Joseph called the process a translation. So that would be a fairly easy thing to come to if one did not bother to every do a single bit of reading or research into it. Because it has nothing to do with anything. As has been pointed out, it has been taught and has never been covered up. But it is not the objective of the church. Moreover, there is also, as has been pointed out, a cultural divide that makes certain things difficult for our culture to understand. It's entirely reasonable to not openly discuss something that is difficult to understand culturally, in favor of discussing the things that actually do matter, meaning spiritually. I mean, we don't generally go into detail in Sunday School about how they bled out the animals when doing sacrifices and smeared the blood all over the alter, etc. The gory details of it would be quite shocking to our culture as we don't generally slaughter our own animals anymore.

Members being uneducated has nothing to do with anything. People are idiots. That includes members of the church. This hardly needs to be said because it's been said many times if one cares to look into it in any regard but... Sunday school is not about teaching history. This is not the domain of "the church" as you like to call it, though calling a picture painted by an artist "the church" seems pretty unfair. Regardless, the church's position is, and always has been, Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God.