The Folk Prophet

This pretty much explains it perfectly:
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY_Ry8J_jdw

The things about Joseph Smith, as per my perception, that people leave the church over have absolutely nothing to do with his imperfections. They are things that he did under guidance and direction from our Heavenly Father that people have problems with.

Not to be too obstinate on the matter, but it's not a matter of opinion. :) Liberty and/or freedom is distinctly a different thing than agency or "free" agency. The one is partial component of the other (we must be, at some level, free to choose to have agency), but complete freedom is not agency and complete agency is not freedom.
 
Prisoners, slaves, those in bondage, etc. all have agency, completely and fully. But their liberty/freedom is limited. We all have our freedoms limited in some regards. Our agency is, conversely, not limited unless we have managed to son-of-perdition ourselves out of it. Until then, we are free to choose eternal life or eternal death.

I've never been so ruffed up, bruised, tripped, received a sprained ankle and argued over stupid fouls than during church ball.  Been over 10 years since playing church basketball and don't regret it. 

But... Google. Who needs memorization anymore?

In my opinion, God cares not one whit about whether we are scholars.

My agreement has nothing to do with the matter. The scriptures teach very clearly that there is punishment attached to sin. Read 2 Nephi 9 and Alma 42. This is not a matter of opinion.
 
 
The law very, very much DOES impact agency. Without a law, and without punishment, then agency cannot exist. Once again, read the scriptures I suggest. Having punishment for behavior is key to our agency. Taking away punishment for action is as sure a way to remove someone's agency as taking away their freedom to choose would. Fortunately, we cannot take away another's agency, as they will always have the ability to choose morally, and they will always end up facing punishment for sin. The reality is that the legality of any given thing or not has absolutely nothing to do with agency. But if it were, somehow, an ensample of agency, then certainly, per the scriptures that teach us agency, having punishment for behavior is a more appropriate ensample then a free-for-all-with-no-consequences-attached structure.
 
Agency (or "free" agency) means that we're responsible for ourselves, not that we're free to do whatever we want without consequence.
 
 
I didn't say anything of the sort.

Having a law against something doesn't have any bearing on free agency whatsoever. Eternally there is a law and a punishment affixed. And yet we know we have our agency. So it would be with temporal laws too. Having a law that punishes the user of marijuana doesn't keep said person from using marijuana. It simply makes them accountable to the law and the punishment if they do so. Just as sin will make us accountable at judgment day.
 
Using "free agency" to justify not having laws against any given thing is an invalid argument.

Simply based on what I have seen of the women-to-men ratio of older single folk, I'd probably go with try harder. :)

Instead of looking for a scholarly answer we could also look for a scriptural answer.
 
In D&C section 110 we read 12 After this, Elias appeared, and committed the dispensation of the gospel of Abraham, saying that in us and our seed all generations after us should be blessed.
 
According to that we have committed to us the Dispensation of the Gospel of Abraham.
 
That sounds kind of important.  Dispensations are kind of a big deal.  And this one appears to be happening right now... So what is it... what can we expect to be happening during it?
 
We can look to the scriptures to find the answer, but the only place it is found is in the Book of Abraham.  Probably one of the reasons the Lord felt it necessary for us to have it anyway.  The idea that the Lord today is fulfilling the promises given to Abraham, should be something we are all aware of.  Thus the Book of Abraham clearly has an important place in helping us understand what God is doing.  Hastening the Work indeed.

Personally, I think all church-ball should be abandoned and declared a sin. 
 
Not really related to the OP...but....
 
:)

Since half my scripture reading is listening to audio recordings...

The whole fallible/infallible thing is a big misdirect. It's meaningless.
 
Fallible or not -- I choose to follow. The fallibility is irrelevant. Entirely meaningless.

Wouldn't teaching Timmy to ignore the prophet and/or disregard the sanctity of the Sabbath be exactly the wrong approach to helping him develop a testimony that will sustain him?
 
 
Even if this were 100% true and 100% of the story (which, in my thinking, this is only a very small part of any motivation behind following the prophet and or supporting policies), is there anything particularly wrong with this? You imply there is by suggesting we should be better than this. Why? Why is it a problem to want to depend on the rules to avoid culpability?

I have a problem with the idea that everything has to align with the scriptures or we are duty bound to reject it. By this thinking we must all reject that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment.

As I said, it is irrelevant. The lines drawn have nothing to do with belief and everything to do with commitment to act.

I'm not sure it's a matter of difficulty. It doesn't matter if it's new revelation, wisdom, speculative, or what-have-you. Those in authority are those in authority. And I will follow them. I don't need to distinguish whether the counsel is revelation to them or not before deciding this. I have already decided this when I raised my hand to sustain them.
 
Obviously there is a time and a place to prayerfully question things. But any time I've had need to do such, the Spirit has firmly put me back in the exact same path I would have chosen had I not questioned in the first place. Sustain. Follow. Obey.
 
Is there a time and a place to tell a leader to go jump? Perhaps. But the idea, certainly, is not the standard the church functions under. And when and if the time is right to react to any given thing with rebellion instead of support, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be inspired by indignation, frustration, anger, fear, or other similar feelings.

The whole fallible/infallible thing is a big misdirect. It's meaningless.
 
Fallible or not -- I choose to follow. The fallibility is irrelevant. Entirely meaningless.

I have a problem with the idea that everything has to align with the scriptures or we are duty bound to reject it. By this thinking we must all reject that the Word of Wisdom is a commandment.

The whole fallible/infallible thing is a big misdirect. It's meaningless.
 
Fallible or not -- I choose to follow. The fallibility is irrelevant. Entirely meaningless.

The whole fallible/infallible thing is a big misdirect. It's meaningless.
 
Fallible or not -- I choose to follow. The fallibility is irrelevant. Entirely meaningless.

In response to the original post: 
I haven't read the preceding 13 pages of this discussion so what I say here might have already been said, but if so, it's worth repeating, and if not, it's worth mentioning: I can't see understand how or why any empirical fact should have any impact in the slightest on a divinely revealed testimony. Empirical knowledge and spiritually revealed/confirmed knowledge are two entirely different types of knowledge, and if there ever appears to be a conflict between the two, then for the sake of one's eternal destiny, that which has been divinely revealed should always prevail. 

Call me superstitious, but prophets are "big medicine," to put it in Native American parlance. God stands by them in remarkable ways. Miriam, Moses' sister got stricken with leprosy for criticizing him. Dathan, Korah, and Abiram got swallowed up in the earth for challenging Moses' authority. A bunch of children mocked Elijah and 23 of them were eaten by a she bear. Ananias and Saphira lied to Peter about their donations and were struck dead. Korihor defied Alma and was struck dumb. Jacob Haun disregarded Joseph's warning to move the saint at Haun's Mill and a bunch of saints died. I want to honor God's messengers and stick as close to their teachings as I can get. That's the safest path through this life.

Another thought--and this isn't directed towards the OP; but is a reflection on people who take the suggestion that obedience and conformance to Church norms is "easier" and use it as battlespace prep with the intent of introducing secularist practice into the Church--
 
IMHO, it sure takes a lot of chutzpah to suggest that staying celibate until marriage; paying a 10% tithe; staying aloof from a number of social views that happen to be embraced by the opinion-makers in business, politics, academia and entertainment; and being ready to drop everything to fill whatever need your bishop needs filled at the drop of a hat regardless of how inconvenient to you--it takes a lot of chutzpah to suggest that that kind of attitude towards the Gospel is actually "the easy way" of doing things.

My observation is that those who decry the supposed practice of "prophetic infallibility" almost always want to deny or talk their way out of something important and meaningful. I have recently seen this canard hoisted in talking about homosexual "marriage" and women being "ordained" to the Priesthood.
 
The whining about those silly old Mormons worshiping their prophets is almost always agenda-driven. When I hear such complaints, my guard immediately goes up even before I hear what they're whining about. It's a rare event, not one time in ten, when the thing the complainers are really complaining about has any merit at all.