The Folk Prophet

estradling75, after so many years of knowing me, having had friendly in-person conversation at dinner before, etc., do you REALLY think I meant to insult your character and person? Do you not think, perhaps, that maybe, just maybe, either I miscommunicated somehow or that you're misinterpreting or reading something in to what I've said? Are you really not giving me the benefit of the doubt here? I meant no personal attack. I disagree with the logic/thinking. It's not personal. I believe that suggesting that God's clarifying something because it was, in that one case, being used differently than is commonly understood does not justifiably equate to viewing anything else He has stated as semantically suspect. I'm sorry that's coming across as an attack on your character in the way I tried to explain myself. That's a pretty simple idea to me. If I tell you what I really mean when I say the word "new" is "used but new to you" then I'm not being dishonest. If I just talk about giving you something "new" and then give you something that's used I'm not honest. The very fact that God explained himself in a timely manner is why it's honest. Alternatively, letting the entire church for generation upon generation believe something because He point-blank said it in canonical scripture, and it was reiterated by prophet and apostle upon prophet and apostle, but then after the fact coming out and saying "I didn't really mean that" would be dishonest. Maybe it's because I said something about playing a game, which I meant as a generic way of trying to say it wasn't solid logic to me. And perhaps that somewhat flippant (unintentionally) phrasing is what made it seem insulting. I'm not, honestly, sure otherwise. I'll review what I wrote and consider, but I really wish you'd not take it personally, because I sure didn't mean it that way. That being said, I'll step out of the conversation now. I am SO not interested in this sort of personal hurt approach to discussion. It makes for a bad experience all around. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings.

God said: "And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law [...] they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. "Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory." (D&C 132:19-21) Unless you're playing @estradling75's "God doesn't actually mean what He says" game. Which turns God into nothing but a used car salesman type half-truth liar. "Sure....I said you'd get a new car. But what I really meant was 'new to you', so...you see...I wasn't lying." Even a child knows that's dishonest. God is not dishonest. He has made it very plain to us. Except a many abide by His law, being sealed to a wife by those anointed to do so, he cannot attain the glory of exaltation. I fully and completely reject the notion that maybe He didn't mean what He said and anything we've been given as the word of God may not actually be what He meant. "What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled." D&C 1:38 I believe that and consider the philosophy that what the Lord has spoken, in actuality, may not be what He has spoken....because secretly when he said "wife" he might have meant "husband" and secretly when He said, "except a man" He meant "one of the various alternatives"...is extremely dangerous and foolhardy. I believe He said what he meant and He meant what He said and we reject it to our peril. To what end? I think you're stretching pretty hard here.

FWIW I reject this sort of thinking.

I had another thought so I thought I'd share. The predominant view was not, necessarily, one of a "lesser" status (I'll qualify that in a second). It was one of inheritance. It wasn't looked at, over all, as a "bad" thing to not be able to hold the priesthood. Along the lines of only the the descendants of Aaron and the Levite tribe had the right to the priesthood in ancient Israel. That didn't make the other tribes lesser. Now I'm not going to go so far as to claim there was no racism in the early church. Of course there was. Heck, I remember my own grandma even saying things that weren't very....PC...regarding blacks. But...that wasn't the overall sentiment I remember surrounding the ban. To be fair, was 7 when the ban was lifted. But I remember. The sentiment was, overall, very loving and hopeful. Everyone rejoiced when the ban was lifted (and by "everyone" I don't mean "everyone", probably. Some jerk-face racist pig probably lamented....but I digress....) On the "lesser" status thing, yes, the prevailing theory was, indeed, that blacks were black because they had been less valiant in the pre-existence. That's been disavowed now. But the part of that view that isn't mentioned is that no one equated that to potential in this life. Everyone was behind a veil of forgetfulness and had the same potential to show humility, faith, and obedience, regardless of the pre-existence. So the idea that people, overall, looked down on black people because of the priesthood ban doesn't really resonate with me. As I said, I'm sure people did look down on them. But it was because of cultural and historical racism, rather than the principles and ideas expressed around the priesthood ban. I don't know if you'll find that interesting or not. And...keep in mind...I'm expressing my view remembering things from being a 7-year-old boy in white-bred Utah. So there's sure to be some flaws therein. But, that's my sense on some of these things.

Doctrine? Sure. The technical meaning of doctrine is simply what a church teaches. That's what a lot of people mean by it. There's no question that some spoke of it as doctrine. Other's, as they do now, qualified the meaning of doctrine differently, and called it (rightly) policy*. But there's no question that the church taught that blacks could not receive the priesthood, and so calling it church doctrine for some was appropriate (that's a semantic debate which I've had before. Some claim that church doctrine only included things that are eternal truth. I think that's silly. But some define it that way.) Eternal...no. Never. No one has ever argued that the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was eternal. There were conflicting statements and ideas as to how long the ban would last. And some of those teachings have been disavowed. But no one, that I'm aware of, ever said never. The explanative theory was simply that they, as a race, were "cursed" by the mark of Cain or something, and that inherited curse meant they couldn't have the priesthood in this life. But even under that theory the idea that they were children of God who had agency and would be accountable according to that agency, and stand before Christ as all mankind do, saved according to their acceptance of Christ and His gospel or not was always the case. *Edit: I should add that some of the ideas behind why the policy was in place were, indeed, viewed by many as doctrinal.

3 questions: 1: Do you really not see the difference between the changes in policy that have occurred and the changing of a fundamental doctrine like eternal marriage? 2: What "sin" has been changed to not a sin in church history? 3: Why do you think that sexual sin being sin is merely a policy?

I see. Well then I'd say, with all due respect, that you either do not understand or are denying the truth of plain church doctrine. I'd also go so far as to say that "highly improbably" is understating my views. It's impossible. It will not happen. As to the exercise you're engaged in, I get the idea and even see how it might be helpful to consider an extreme "what if". That's partly why I'm engaged in the conversation. It just seems like this particular what if is too extreme and not based in the reality of eternal revealed truths.

So is the idea that a boy thinking he's a girl makes him an actual girl...and yet.........here we are.

Can you clarify? At first I thought you were saying that we'd disagree on whether there is a possibility. But after re-reading...you're talking about the relevance of entertaining the idea. Relevance? Too what? What do you mean? Can you restate? His plan is for us to become like Him. So...yes...that unquestionably limits the plan to exclude two male gods procreating eternally together. How can you not know this? (I expect you actually do know this but are trying to be open minded at some level. But....why? There's no reason to open minded on this idea. I expect you'll challenge that, and I'd be happy to explain myself further if you'd like.)

Give it a few years.

Fixed it.

I'm going to go so far as to say that we don't need a bigger picture or our minds and understanding expanded to know the facts. The facts are these -- and they are clear cut scriptural canon: A man must marry a wife by God's law, by the new and everlasting covenant, and it must be sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, upon which they may pass by the angels to inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths to be set there, to their exaltation. And except a man abide God's law he cannot attain to that glory.

Okay...nitpicking you to death for no reason other than I thought of it....but....... You said that if someone speculates it tells something about them. But does it? If one person speculates that polygamy would return in the church and another speculates that it won't do I really understand anything about said person? Does it actually tell me much of anything other than that exact thing? Maybe I'm misreading you. I expect I am. But that's what had me wondering. 20 years ago I'd say that polygamy probably would return someday. 20 years later I'd probably say the same thing. But the why of my saying that is very, very, very different. And others would be as likely to assume that my reasoning was what it was 20 years ago as they would be to assume it is what it is today. Or...more likely....assume something else entirely. Anyhow, not trying to debate. Just...like I said... I thought the thought, so I said it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain?

Sure, I understand what you're getting at. And of course you use an extremely touchy subject as your example which makes it difficult to speak about in frank terms. So hopefully the following will come across: God clearly condoned slavery at some level in the Old Testament. I'm not sure, accordingly, that the practice of keeping slaves is an "eternal" truth. Particularly where what it means to be a slave is a fairly broad idea. At some level everyone is a slave to some things. Does that matter eternally? Clearly we value freedom. Clearly freedom is an important issue. But also, clearly, where freedoms are restricted that doesn't end up being particularly important as to mankind's salvation. In other words, if one man holds another as a slave, it doesn't really affect whether that enslaved person makes it to the celestial kingdom or not. But if two dudes or dudettes are doing the nasty with each other it very much plays into their making it to the celestial kingdom or not. The broader "what body parts go together sexually?" question is clearly not the eternal truth that matters. The importance of eternal celestial marriage is the core issue at hand. And homosexual behavior (and, yes, even tendencies) is directly at odds with that core issue. So I'm not sure how we can arrive at an "it's okay even though it'll damn you" conclusion.

When we speak of fundamentals we mean eternal truths. An eternal truth isn't an eternal truth if it isn't eternal and can be altered by societal trends. So which fundamental truth (I'd say "core gospel" is the same thing) has been altered by societal influences? We can speak in theoreticals all day, right? But let's get specific if you want to. What core fundamental gospel truth has ever changed because of the way society views things?

I think maybe you're missing what's being meant by "fundamentals".

(Parenthetically responding, I do understand the point you're making and think it is entirely valid. But it's false conflation, in my opinion, to compare someone leaving the church because, say, there's a policy that children with gay parents can't be baptized or things like that to the church actually proclaiming that fundamentals we've taught and believed and emphasized throughout the history of the church are wrong and we're abandoning them (and, more importantly, things I have a testimony of). There is useful binary thinking and there is harmful binary thinking. That being said, I am well aware that some of the teaching around polygamy was understood as "fundamental" in ways that it wasn't fundamental to our contemporary understanding. Still, a conflation of ideas though...because we still plainly and obviously teach polygamy as a doctrinal principle of truth. It's scriptural canon for Pete's sake! And I do acquiesce to the "semantic" point you made. If the church came out with a policy that people having gay sex inside a legal marriage were able to participate in church, hold callings, etc., then I might well explain it via said nuance, though I would, indeed, struggle with it. A ridiculous idea, even then, but explainable with semantic nuance. But if they announced that two men were now able to be sealed for time and all eternity as husband and husband....)

My commitment to faith in Jesus Christ isn't hypothetical though. It is an absolute. Which is my point. There are absolutes. It is the absolute-ness of certain things that make the hypothetical abandonment of them so ridiculous. The only reason to give such things attention is because there are so many who don't seem to believe them ridiculous. That's a dangerous way to live. I'm not saying this as a personal attack or criticism, but as a theoretical. Why hasn't the Holy Spirit already confirmed this to you? The idea of not having the Spirit speak to us the truth of eternal marriage and gender (especially in today's world) seems odd to me. Shouldn't we know this is fundamental -- by way of both learning and the Holy Spirit -- now? Consider: In the gospel, where do all roads lead? What does it mean to walk the ordinance path? What are ordinances about? What is the culmination of them? What is the pinnacle of this path...the ultimate covenant we make? And why? For myself that is why I can say something like I would walk away if the church abandoned Christ (despite @Just_A_Guy's semantic play with my hypothetical over the meaning of "worship". Come on JAG! You know what I meant!* ). My testimony is in Christ. That He lives. That He loves me. That He atoned for my sin. My testimony of celestial marriage and the relative associated points is akin. * on that note JAG, if the church redefined the meaning of the word "sin" somehow, so gay married sex wasn't a "sin", but the plain teaching that those engaged in it would forfeit eternal life then...weird...but...okay....

I disagree. I'll explain. Depends on what you mean. Is the base of the Church likely to be more inclined to lying and stealing and committing adultery in 20 years? I don't think so. Maybe. But really, I believe, that has little to do with the price of rice in China? Or...in other words...the base of the church does not dictate core doctrine --- not does it ever influence it. Ever. Yes...society in general and the way things are viewed therein changes, and as that bleeds into the church, it can effect some things -- even many things. Equating those things to core doctrine isn't legitimate to me. The law of Moses was the law. Then it was not. Such things can change. Such things WILL change. But the core of the gospel will not. Moreover, the core of the gospel is the thing in which I have a testimony. I will not deny that. I cannot deny that. If the church denied it (such as in the absurd hypothetical question), it wouldn't change my testimony one whit. I know what I know. There things I don't understand. Sure. Tons of things. But the man/woman, husband/wife, Heavenly Father/Mother, thing...being a thing? Well that's fundamental. One cannot pull the foundation out from a building and expect it to stand. But, anyhow... as to the question at hand...will the core Church members be more likely to embrace and accept homosexuality as legit form or sexual activity? My take: No. I believe it will be one of those underlying threshing mechanisms. "No man can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon." Matt 6:24 or 3 Nephi 13:24 Those who cannot accept fundamental truths will leave.

...everything and anything.

Why? Are there not fundamentals that are obvious? What if the church leadership came out tomorrow and proclaimed that we no longer worship Jesus Christ? Of course there are boxes we wouldn't and shouldn't step outside of based on prior knowledge and revelation. If someone has a legitimate testimony of Jesus Christ then that comes first. What @Vort said that I agree with is that it's not a useful question. It will not happen. It cannot happen. But if it did...stretching the impossible...then we should all, as a collective unit, walk away. Of course we should. Marriage, family, gender, etc., are eternal principles as foundational as is the reality that Jesus is the Christ who atoned for our sins. They are core principles that cannot be betrayed without betraying the gospel. Even the asking of the question shows a profound misunderstanding of what the gospel is. Everything is to that end. The very Atonement itself exists to that end. The gospel is, at its very most core, family. Which is, at its core, husband and wife. Moreover, it's like asking if the church came out tomorrow and proclaimed that stealing was no longer a sin. Or lying. Or cheating. Or jealousy. Or hate. Or pride. Or greed. Or sloth. Or etc., etc., etc. These things cannot be betrayed by the Church and the Church remain as Christ's.

I haven't seen it, so I can't say specifically...but...I do know that the lgbtq community co-opt everything as their own.

I cannot see how to reconcile my thinking beyond this as well. The difference being that I do believe. So I follow. However, I think there's an inherent implication in what the First Presidency message has urged that there are exceptions. And I believe President Nelson would be the first to recommend to someone who had underlying health reasons, spiritual promptings, or the like to not get vaccinated for Covid. What I worry about is how many seem to have neither of these things but are merely swayed strongly by the politics and conspiracies' of it all. I am one of those, actually (though not to the extent some are). But I do not believe such to be a good reason to disregard prophetic council. Therefore I am getting the vaccination, despite my strong reservations. I might add that I'd come to this conclusion before the latest First Presidency letter. Basically, to me, it is exactly this simple. You either follow, or you don't.