The Folk Prophet

Have you every had a physical emotional "thrill" from something non-spiritual that seems quasi-spiritual? A great movie moment, a wonderful song bridge, a happy, happy moment in life, etc., etc... On top of that there's the "disguised as an angel of light" thing, which I believe applies to false spiritual manifestations. The bottom line is that the spirit will not testify to someone that the BOM is false. But the issue is, if they feel it has, how do you argue the point, right? You can't. What you can do is testify of the truth and set a continued example. You can try to explain the difference between emotional thrill and spiritual witness, but that's a hard thing to explain, a.k.a explain salt to someone who's never had it. But we testify of truth and we represent that Savior in all our doings and we leave the rest between them and the Lord.

If "we don't know" is the truth, it can and should remain the party-line indefinitely. It is safer than presuming things not said. Personally, I think it much more valid an approach to speculate on what has been said rather than what hasn't been said, even if what has been said is from a century ago. We can reasonably accept that what has been said in disavowance (a word I may have just made up) of things said a century ago supersedes that by nature of continuing revelation (though I personally question the current statement by the church as "revelatory"...but that's a different point), but should not automatically imply further speculation about things that were not disavowed. The "liberal" Mormon p.o.v. seems to be that such speculation is just and valid because it's a natural conclusion to draw. Some wrong things were said about a subject, so it only stands to reason that all things said about said subject are of questionable repute. A logical fallacy. The fact is, as best I understand it, past prophets and apostles have stated that the priesthood ban was revelation. This has not be repudiated. Therefore, I will continue to believe that was from God. If and when the current prophets and apostles state clearly that it was not, I will accept that. Until that time, I believe, very firmly, that it is a wiser choice to stubbornly give the benefit of the doubt to things said by prophets and apostles. This is a safe path in my mind.

I'll say it again. "SOME" statements. SOME. You are either misreading or intentionally misrepresenting.

How does "...no clear insights into the origins of this practice" become, ?Moreover, how does, "Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation..." (emphasis mine) lead to the same conclusion and also become, ...and that Brigham Young... ?You seem to be reading things into what wasn't said and then stating that it is "clear". You need to re-read the church statement with a little less bias. "Some" explanations -- not "all" explanations were made in absence of direct revelation. And it says nothing whatsoever about the ban itself vis-a-vis revelation.

I've adopted as my honest-to-goodness motto: "Never give up. Never surrender!" Say it to myself all the time.

I read once, as an apologist defense of Danites running around slashing people's throats, that since we were a temple building people we couldn't be violent, and used the fact that David couldn't build the temple because the wars he'd been in as validation of the theory. I'd like to debate about that at some point. Not about the Danites, but about the no building temples idea if you've killed a bunch of people, even righteously.

Yeah...no. Only implying that the theological conflict of polygamy vs. obeying the law of the land gets removed from the mix. Not suggesting that this will mean anything. It's just interesting to think about.

Was the implication in my post otherwise? If so, it was not meant to be.

We just finished watching Galaxy Quest. I love that movie. "Let's go, before those things kill Guy!"

One word: Astin Martin DB5 Hmm. I had liked Skyfall. The next time I see it I'll hate it now. Thanks a lot!

I keep trying but my ideas don't seem to get anyone's knickers in a twist. Of course I pretty much stay away from homosexuality discussions because they're pointless, like arguing with a child about whether they should clean their room or not. I pretty much hate politics. And I'm scared of feminists. *sigh* It's hard to be controversial when you hate confrontation. I don't know about Peeps. But Swedish Fish are disgusting when fresh and awesome when stale.

All of my time travel theories are based on Star Trek or the Back to the Future movies. Of course Hollywood pretty much informs all of my scientific understanding, which tells you how scientific I really am.

I find it interesting. I was reading some articles on polygamy and the argument that gay-marriage will lead to polygamy. This idea was argued to be totally ridiculous, but then in the comments there were a billion "if people want to, what's wrong with it" posts concerning polygamy. Point being, the argument might be easy to make look ridiculous on paper, but the reality I see is that the gay-marriage thing is, without question, a gateway argument for the legalization of polygamy (and any other crazy versions of marriage one could come up with). As a Mormon who was raised on the idea of polygamy (and therefore, whereas it is foreign to my sensibilities, it is not objectionably theologically or in principle (being a guy may play into this a bit)), I'm not quite sure how to feel about this. Part of me reverts to the traditional post-manifesto Mormon ideology of "it will return someday because all things must be restored" and find the irony of it potentially returning through homosexual "rights" intriguing. Another side of me, as would be expected, finds the idea terrifying. Edit: Here's the article I was looking at btw.

Here's my real problem with the idea of there having been a first. It implies that exaltation is possible without someone to exalt--that the first god came to full exaltation without the assistance of another god. The inference from this would seem to argue contrary to eternal truths that we know to be eternal truths, perhaps even hinting at our own abilities sans-supreme-being to advance. As much as I can see the theory as reasonably plausible in my science-fiction trained, how-lightsabers-might-possibly-work, sensibilities, the evidence imparted by those wiser than me suggests otherwise. I've never thought of the eternal existence of gods in terms of the chicken and egg question (in spite of the embarrassing fact that this is obvious). From now on I will argue accordingly. The answer is clearly (anti-fuliginously??): Neither. The chicken is as eternal as the egg, and the egg as eternal as the chicken.

I usually use words wrong and out of context for years and years before I finally use them correctly--probably never in many cases. I still secretly sing in my head, for example, "Should all the cointance be forgot..." That's what I heard as a kid. My brain doesn't want to let go of it. That's a different issue of course. But using made-up words is something I do as well.

By the way, I think we can fairly safely assume that if there was a first, that our Heaventy Father was not the first, in that we can see by Joseph Smith's teachings that Jesus followed the pattern of the Father, that our Father did live on an earth at some point, and did the same, in some regard or another, as Jesus did in his footsteps. I think this fairly clearly equates to the Father being a son as well.

A word you know and use? Or the result of a thesaurus (a practice I admit to utilizing to sound smart.) Heheh. I had to look this one up. You couldn't just say "murky"? (Edit: don't get me wrong. It's an awesome word!)

Hmm. I've never thought of it that way. Never assumed there had to be a first. Why does there have to be a first? I accept on principle that there are things I cannot comprehend. That there was no first is one of those things that fits into the same idea of the universe never ending. In point of fact, the whole idea of time is known to be mortal--as God sees all things, past, present and future before Him. If time doesn't work the same way, neither would the concepts of first and last. We cannot comprehend that, of course.

I would contend (admitting some speculation, but basing that speculation on logic, order, and known truths) that it is not so complicated as to be totally incomprehensible. Within the context of understanding the theological context of it though, the question of who is Heavenly Father's father and so on is the wrong question. As would be: Who is Heavenly Father's great-great-great-grandfather? Who is His 20 trillion-zillion brothers and sisters? Who is his third cousin once removed? "Who," is the wrong question. The appropriate question is a simpler question. Does Heavenly Father have a father? The answer to this is fairly clearly, yes. Does Heavenly Father have a great-great-great-grandfather? Does he have some bazillion brothers and sisters? The answer to these can be fairly safely surmised. Yes. The order of father to son, mother to daughter, brother to sister, etc., seems to be clearly laid out, and implicitly eternal. Is there a multitude of Saviors? A bit more complicated because it would require an assumption that the plan of salvation for all exalted gods worked the same way. I would think, logically, that God being perfect, chose a perfect plan, and therefore I would contend the answer to this is also, yes. I would say the basic pattern of the plan of salvation is repeated again and again. Speculative? Yes. Logical? I think so. We don't know much, true. But the basic idea of it seems fairly plain. Righteousness+celestial marriage=becoming gods. Being gods=having eternal offspring who are then lovingly given the same opportunity to become gods through righteousness+celestial marriage, likely through a plan of salvation that is the same as we know ours to be. And so it goes. And so it has gone before. Not that complicated at the most basic level.

Right. Well, basically, you're saying the same sort of things, just looking at what's considered judging differently. I would contend that your examples above are definitely judging and supportive of my point. Crossing the street to avoid a shady character is judging, but it is justified and appropriate. Yes, if the spirit whispered to you to stay on that side and talk to them, you follow. Short of that, I would, in those cases, err on the side of safety, generally speaking. Moreover, I'd stay out of those parts of town entirely. Don't walk down the dark alleys in the first place, right? Why? Because you're judging that the people who hang out there are evil. Where it gets complicated is when we move away from the idea of physical safety (which is obvious to most people) and get into spiritual safety. Should you have friends who are immoral? There are definitely two sides to this, though in todays hippy-free-love, "tolerance is a virtue" world there is only one side. I cry foul on that thinking. My elder's quorum president, for example, called the whole quorum to repentance because he'd heard that someone had not let their kids play with some non-member kids next door. He preached at us in tears as he condemned us all for judging and not loving. I'm sitting there the whole time thinking, "Are you kidding me? I'm not letting my kids play with the little pot-smoking, cussy, thieving, rotten kids next door!" Mind you, I don't have kids so I was only thinking it theoretically. But there was a disconnect of safety in what my elders quorum president was saying. Our spiritual safety is much, much more important than our physical safety. However, if we cannot judge people to be spiritually dangerous, we put ourselves and our families in great peril. The common viewpoint nowadays seems to be that we must always favor the sinner. I say we always favor spiritual safety. You hear all this talk of tolerance, and going after the lost sheep, and how horrible it would be to stop being friends with someone for whatever evil viewpoint they may have. But I don't think bringing (or keeping) the wolf into my life accounts to the same as going after a lost sheep. However, in order to make this decision, I must judge between the lost sheep and the wolves. Whereas (as we've all said again and again) the spirit is requisite in this judgment, I think there are obvious, self-governing principles that apply. We will not feel a burning to the bosom, or a whisper in our ear, or what-have-you with every interaction we have. At least I don't. I strive to keep myself worthy and clean, and I work to listen to the spirit. But I have found that in a lot of ways, the Lord leaves us to our own judgments. If the neighbor kids are rotten little stinkers that I think will be bad influences on my kids, I'm going to restrict my children from playing with them. This is basic good sense and I don't buy that it's judgmental, hateful, un-Christian, or unloving. There are certain people that I simply will not interact with. I can make this judgment on my own based on principles of basic wisdom. Certain intentions, viewpoints, agendas, and influences I just avoid. I judge and I act on that judgment.

Ultimately you will want to have the missionaries visit, which you can request through most of the means selek suggested. Missionaries have a special spirit about them because of their calling and whatnot. They are dedicated full time to teaching and sharing gospel principles and thoughts. They are also quite flexible with scheduling and will work around your availability. Best of luck!

At first I read "laughable" instead of "laudable" and I couldn't get my brain around you thinking that.

More likely you'll remember all those answers yourself, as you likely knew them before coming to earth.

I just felt like I cut you down a bit with the Adam's belly button thing, like I was saying it was stupid to even discuss something like this.

Cats have no rights, expect apparently to meow as loudly as they can any time they want to for absolutely no reason whatsoever. I mean what more can they possibly be asking for? They get food. They get water. They get more love from my wife than they rightly deserve. Do they really need to be legitimized further? Heheh