The Folk Prophet

Interesting example of things that are directly contrasting to the principles and standards of the church, and yet used somehow to try and support the idea that we can be...let's see, how might we put it...serving God and mammon.

May I suggest that if this was your intent, then you've been asking the wrong questions. You may want to consider some of these:
 
What role does the LDS Church have in shaping and influencing communities and cultures ('none' is also an acceptable answer)? You'll learn a little about when the Church has gotten involved politically and when it has kept out. You might also hear about some local interfaith initiatives.
 
James says pure religion is caring for the poor and the need. How does the LDS Church and its members fulfill this initiative? You'll learn a little about the Church's humanitarian programs and the Church's welfare program.
 
And then of course there's the fundamentals that you've completely skipped over. Remember the primary purpose of a church is salvation. It assumes an afterlife and a God, which then goes to inform life's priorities. Remove God and the afterlife and you're dealing with a social club. With God in place, you then need to discover what the rules of this game are. Now that's a useful line of questioning.
 
What is the purpose of life?
Why does God allow so much inequity in this life? Do I have a moral (even spiritual) responsibility to address it?
What does it take to be saved? Is salvation as unfair as this life seems? I think you asked something similar and got to hear a little about the pre-mortal life, but I think the discussion was abandoned before you understood the implications.
What does it mean to be saved?
What do you recommend I do to learn if these models are indeed correct? For instance, a community of scientists would tell me about the scientific method and encourage me to duplicate their reproduceable results, and a community of philosophers would instruct me on the rules of logic and encourage me to rederive the same conclusions they have. What is the Mormon scientific method or rules of logic? 

Actually, I'm not sure I am entirely prepared in my own thinking concerning the matter to really get into it. But the sense I get from the Book of Mormon is that there may well be a whole lot more cast into outer darkness than we like to believe. The principles I'm referring to are the ones that state otherwise -- that it will be exceedingly rare, that only those who have literally seen Christ qualify, etc... As I said, I'm not in a position to back that up. But I'll dig into the debate if you'd like. As long as it's with the clear understanding that the position I hold on the matter is one of the least secure I've ever held.

Interestingly enough (well...maybe not) I very, very much "get" the attraction of it, and am still condemnatory rather than compassionate.

Or...another way to put it:
 
Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
 
That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death. D&C 121:43-44

The committee's proposals were apparently solicited by, and definitely ratified by, the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve as then constituted.  The only way I see it as being a problem is if you suggest that Joseph Smith held prophetic keys that were not passed on to Brigham Young and his successors (aside from his unique keys as head of this dispensation).  The FLDS and some modern writers (Denver Snuffer, Rock Waterman, etc) are fond of making that argument, but it's hardly orthodox LDS teaching.  In fact, it got Snuffer excommunicated earlier this year.  (Well, Snuffer's grandstanding, accusing his stake president of being a mindless toady to the general authorities in Salt Lake, and walking out of his own disciplinary hearing probably didn't help him any.)
 
 
There's nuance here.  The statement is that they embraced important doctrines of salvation.  The lectures are not the doctrines--they are a man-made vehicle for attempting to relay those doctrines to an audience.  They (the lectures) are not infallible, and do not purport to be. 
 
Moreover, the Lectures on Faith were accepted by the Church as a part of the entire 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.  To state that the Lectures on Faith must never, ever be removed from the D&C, is to state that no part of the 1835 D&C can ever be removed from the D&C.  You ask, by what authority did the 1st Pres/Q12 remove the Lectures on Faith in 1921?  I reply:  By the same authority that the 1st Pres/Q12 removed the "Article on Marriage" (Section 101 of the 1835 D&C) in 1876.
 
 
Pardon, but I really don't understand this train of thought at all.  The LoF does not specifically refer to Abinadi's discourse.  What you call "providing context" basically seems to take things Smith taught in 1840 and 1843-44, and projecting them backwards to make assumptions about what Smith meant in 1835--even though the text of Lecture 5th states quite clearly that the Godhead consists of God the Father (personage of power/glory), God the Son (personage of tabernacle), and God the Mind (Holy Ghost, representing some sort of mystical union between the other two).  The plain text of Lecture 5th is simply not reconcilable with Smith's later statements--despite the LoF's other virtues with regard to faith, gaining communion with the divine, etc. 
 
Why is the idea of an ongoing restoration--that Smith knew things in 1844 and 1840 that he didn't know in 1835, and that in the interim he may have given undue deference to traditionally Protestant personalities like Sidney Rigdon; so troublesome? 
 
 
Skalenfehl, I really wish you'd word these assertions a bit more carefully.  You make it sound as though the LoF were independently presented to the Church for ratification.  They weren't.  It was the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants that was so presented and ratified, of which the LoF were merely a part.  You can't make the LoF immune from further editing--or even redaction--unless you give the rest of the 1835 D&C--including the Article on Marriage--the same degree of immunity.  In which case, you set up a fundamental conflict in the LDS canon between that now-reinstated article and D&C 132.
 
 
 
I agree with you about the Second Comforter generally; but what specific idea is in the Lectures on Faith that isn't taught elsewhere in our scripture?  Obedience?  Spiritual gifts?  Abrahamic sacrifice?  The more sure word of prophecy/Second comforter?  No; all those concepts are in the scriptures at least as clearly as the LoF presents them (and the Second Comforter isn't even mentioned in the LoF, except (possibly) for one reference to John 15:26).

a couple of things that come to mind immediately upon reading the OP:


In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin:
but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
(Proverbs 10:19) 

But you, you are to be feared!
Who can stand before you when once your anger is roused?
(Psalm 76:7)

But the LORD is in his holy temple:
let all the earth keep silence before him.
(Habakkuk 2:20) 
 
this last one, yeah, not at all scripture. but i think the artist makes a good point:
 
"i want to be more like the ocean - 
no talking, man, all action" 
- Perry Ferrel

 

I will attempt to clarify by presenting the argument that I think you should have made to avoid the misunderstanding about if you believe that we have modern Prophets as leaders of the church.
 
It appears to me that you are trying to make the claim that the LoF is Greater Light and Knowledge that was lost to us (at least in the sense that by de-canonization would cause it to drop off the radar for most LDS in their studies.)  I am a sucker for gaining Greater Light and Knowledge so this discussion has great interest to me.
 
I have no problem letting you, JAG and whomever else is interested discuss on if it is greater then we currently have.  The problem I have is one of the pillar you use to support your case is essentially that the Leaders of the Church made a major mistake in removing it.
 
Since "We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority..." it doesn't matter what keys the committee held.  Either those that had the Keys call them to do it or they did not.  It seems safe to say that those that called them to do committee had all the authority they needed to make that calling.  And by so doing the committee was delegated the necessary authority to do what they were called to do.
 
Then there is the simple fact that whatever action the committee recommended would have to be approved by the first presidency and the prophet.  The idea that any one involved would do/approve such changes to the scriptures without seeking God's approval first is just absurd.  Because of this there is no way you can bring up what you think are irregualities in the process that removed the LoF from the D&C without also accusing the church leaders of not being (or being willing to be) lead God.  And there is no way such a statement will get a pass around here.
 
Basically any hint that the original addition of the LoF and then its later removal was done because anything less then the Will of God spikes this conversation in a directly you state that you did not wish it to go.
 
That leaves us with God adding it and then taking it away.  The question then becomes why would God take it away?  If you addressed this I missed it, because of the above.  I know those countering your argument propose that it was basically redundant and not needed.  I could see the Lord doing that and it would explain the lack of Common Consent vote...  After all they were not asking the members to agree to any new doctrine or convents
 
A different possibility (and the one you might have taken) is that the Lord Removed it because we collectively as a group were not living up to it.  The whole line upon line obey and the Lord gives more disobey and he takes away what he gave you. Its hard to prove if in the Lord's judgement we collectively as a group are advancing or falling.  But if we were falling and the Lord removed the Greater Light (of the LoF) from us, then it would also explain the the facts as we know them.  The Leaders of the Church didn't make a mistake they followed the commands of the Lord to our condemnation.  This would also fit nicely with the non vote.  The Lord is not going to allow us to vote away the penalty
 
If the above argument is true... the leaders would know it and they would be striving to remind us to follow the Lord in all things, to try to avoid further losses and maybe regain some.  If it not true then our leaders would still be striving to remind us to follow the Lord in all things to keep us from backsliding and hopefully gain more.
 
Thus this is a path you could have taken to make the case that LoF are still important that would have avoided the distraction of the whole leadership thing.
 
Of course there are holes in my idea as well...  But it might have been fun to see if it held up.

Holy freakin' long post batman! :)

Taxes can be theft just as someone in an emergency charges exorbitant amounts for good and services to far exceed the value can be seen as theft.   In the USA we charge 6 times in taxes what is necessary to lift all in poverty - out of poverty.  There are records of hammers costing $3,000.00 in tax payers funds.  In England the richest lady in the country lives on welfare check paid for by taxes - and you do not think that is a kind of theft of forced tax funds????
 
Some would argue that the beggar that stands at a corner begging for money claiming to be a homeless veteran of war that in reality is gathering funds from those more "poor" than them selves and that the beggar in reality has a nice home but uses the funds to party every night - is in their lies a thief at heart.
 
I contend that a government officials that take $100 dollars promising to take care of poor and build roads and such that keeps $50 for themselves then gives $25 to their friends and finely gives $10 to poor and $15 to build roads and such things - is indeed both a thief and a lair in their heart and their actions.

My thoughts stem from my experience with friends.  Some of my friends have never been married and I wonder how pleasing is it for them to hear the joy of having children and yet this blessing has been withheld from them.  
 
The doctrine is pleasing, and yet I am sure brings some sorrow for individuals in this situation.  I remember, while attending BYU and we had that annual Law of Chastity discussion.  The bishop was forward and blunt about keeping the Law of Chastity.  We were given the pleasing word of God; however, one young lady who had broken the Law of Chastity (although she had repented at this time) felt like daggers were placed in her heart.  The words were pleasing and they were spoken in the spirit of love for God and for his fellow brothers and sisters.  This lesson focused on the importance of keeping the Law of Chastity and consequences we face when we break the Law of Chastity.  She had hoped to hear the pleasing word of God regarding the joy of repentance.  This was mentioned, but was not the focus of the discussion.

This is an interesting reading of this scripture. I have never translated it to mean that the pleasing word would be daggers to them. I have always read it as the pleasing word would not be given at all, and instead daggers would be given. But what you're proposing, actually, makes a lot of sense.

How is it that we preach leaving judgement to God but then feel comfortable judging someone?
 
Saying someone isn't going to hell is just as judgmental as saying someone is.
 
I say we leave such judgment to God...good and bad...righteousness and wickedness.

I wouldn't even approach the issues of the marriage from a sex-filled or sexless point of view. The issues of the marriage seem much deeper than that. A sexual relationship will not fix the marriage. Fixing the marriage will generate the sexual relationship.
 
Where would I start? Fix this first:
 
 
Then work on this:
 

:)

Some things that creep up in religiously liberal Mormon conversation:
Don't pay your tithing if you don't feel like it/prefer the money spent a specific way.
Feel free to consider all scripture as mere myth.
Covenants aren't necessary.
Use your temple recommend as a bargaining chip.
Liberal Mormons seem to me as the "do what you want if it feels good and doesn't harm too many others" crowd that crop up in other churches.
I'm all for being a good person, but I disagree with the push to declare it as full superior to being a good person AND following law and covenants.

Don't follow the prophet if you disagree
 
It's okay to use social pressure to try and change church doctrines and policies
 
Don't worry about wearing a white shirt to church even if you've been directly asked to by your local leadership
 
Local leadership is inherently flawed and may be generally disregarded in anything you dislike
 
Porn isn't that big of a deal
 
Homosexual families are just as beautiful and capable of loving as hetero
 
Joseph Smith (although a prophet) was actually a womanizer and a con man.
 
Polygamy was just a big mistake that the church will surely correct some day.
 
...and on and on and on it goes...
 
Heck, pretty much anything that used to be prescribed only to antis can now be openly declared my the liberal "faithful" Mormon.

Let's see. If I were applying Merriam-Webster to the matter I'd go with:

 

4 :  not literal or strict :  loose <a liberal translation>
5 :  broad-minded; especially :  not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
 
As I think I've said, if this is only socially or politically, then so be it. If it in any way bleeds into doctrinally, then there's trouble. I have yet to see it not bleed into the doctrine, however (from my, admittedly, limited perspective).

You may enjoy reading President Kimball's talk Tragedy or Destiny (included in the Church manual). He starts with a whole list of specific cases and asks why. He never answers the question for specific cases.
 
 
He then explores some general principles that may or may not be relevant for a given case.
 
In your professional practice, just because you can't preach doesn't mean you can't minister. I would encourage you to remember your covenants. When someone comes in mourning, mourn with her. When someone comes in needed comfort, comfort him.

I'm not meaning to just argue...but the idea that every "apostate" is going through one of the best experiences of their life seems a mighty stretch to me. The idea that you could possibly know that she will exercise her agency as you describe also strikes me as entirely unknowable.
 
 
This, however, is spot on.

The American political Left co-opted the term "liberal"  as a positive self-description. Indeed, in the classical sense of the word, who would not want to be considered "liberal"? But the Left's deception did not work long-term, as most Americans, having figured out that "liberal" simply meant "leftist", started using the word "liberal" as a term of disparagement.
 
So now the Left has switched to "progressive". Hey, who would not want to be seen as "progressive"? That's progress! Good stuff! But it's just a word game, trying to marry a positive adjective to the same old awful sociopolitical view. In another ten years, when "progressive" is used as a derogatory word much like "liberal" is used today, the Left will doubtless have seized onto some other adjective, like "perfect" or "awesome" or "totally sweet" or "what all the cool kids are doing" or the like.

I am speaking of the "axe" ground by those who want to remake the kingdom of God in their own image, who want to change both the doctrine and the way it is taught to emphasize some gospel aspect they personally find important -- what President Joseph F. Smith called "gospel hobby horses".

I'd say "exclusively" is probably taking it a bit too far.

We ought to be careful when we associate with any social-political movement.
 
There has been great progress in some aspects of our social condition and also great retrogression in other aspects. Regardless of where the ideas come from (Right or Left) the closer they are to true, correct principles taught in the gospel the better they are for society.
 
 That said, it's also important for us to step back look at our values and ideas and ensure that we are holding fast to the iron rod and not being swayed by the ridicule, social pressure and enticements constantly raining down on us from the great and spacious building. 
 
In my opinion, within the United States anyway, the mocking, cynicism and calling good evil and evil good seems to be exclusively coming from those on the Left (the "cool kids" club) now days. Perhaps that is why it seems like those who associate themselves with the Left seem to have a tenuous grip on the Iron Rod.  
 
..and just as an edit, I try not to treat people differently no matter what my opinion on their ideas or how strong their grip on the Iron Rod.

Then such a proclamation must come from those with authority to speak for God, and not from individuals grinding their own axes.