The Folk Prophet

Too true. My least favorite Mozart opera, Così fan tutte, is widely considered to be one of the best, if not the best, opera ever written. But it's all about the hilarity of two young men convinced their finacees are models of fidelity, and one old guy disabusing them of such silly naivete by having each seduce the other's girlfriend. Har de har! What a riot!
 
Everyone knows the powerful Rigoletto aria La donna è mobile. But many don't realize that it's sung by a despicable cad, the Duke of Mantua, who uses women like toilet paper. He is singing about how changeable and fickle women are -- this, while a sweet but foolish young woman dies in his place because she is in love with him, and her father (the duke's servant) is left to grieve for her.
 
Maybe that is not a good example of what you're talking about, but it is certainly an example of how many songs promote ideas that we are not even consciously aware of. I don't know how many times I've heard an old song from my childhood or young adulthood, perhaps even a song I really liked, and been struck by how openly vulgar that song was. Sometimes I am shocked at how I didn't understand the song's real meaning. Other times, I'm shocked that I did understand it, yet still listened to it anyway. I am not naive enough to think that incorporating those lyrics into my mind had no effect on my spirit or outlook.
 
With the amount of filth we take in from the world, it is literally a miracle that we can repent and be cleansed. We would most surely and hopelessly be lost without the atonement.

Which is actually sort of the point. It's only important if people make it important. Stop making it important and it's not.
 
I'm fairly confident that with enough faith and humility, such things are truly non-issues. Without faith and humility (insert pride) there's no hope for the person any way. What's important...what the church/gospel's objective is, what all our objectives should be, is to help people find faith and humility. With that, none of this nit-picky sniveling that's so trending right now would hold any bearing whatsoever on anyone's eternal welfare.
 
The key is not to fix the organization. It is to fix the hearts of the members.
 
Replacing all the pictures in the church library with 100% historically accurate depictions would do NOTHING towards the salvation of mankind. Nothing! Those with humility would plainly accept the new pictures. Those without would complain anyhow.

No...  Its important because church members ASSUMED it.  Then when their ASSUMPTION got challenge instead of taking the correction and moving on they choose to instead blame the Church and ASSUME that the Church lied to them.
 
Basically if the church didn't spoon feed them the "True History" then the Church lied to them.  That is were the error lies

When I was running the Society for the Prevention of Anti-Mormonism, I was particularly interested in documenting the process by which a faithful member of the Church turns into an anti-Mormon apostate.  There are people who drift away from the Church because of depression, unworthiness, discouragement, worldliness, or because life's trials overwhelm them, just as Jesus described in the Parable of the Sower.
 
However, there is a peculiar process that I documented whereby many exMormons fall away and try to take others with them.  Like Prisonchaplain said, it begins in college for many of them.  A very typical case was a guy who joined the S.P.A.M. social network back around 2009 who went by the screen name "Ishmael."  Ishmael wrote on our site:
 
"Fast forward a few years. I'm home from my mission, I've graduated from BYU, I'm married with a couple of kids. I'm a little battle-worn, some of my illusions about the mission, BYU, and the Church itself have been shattered, but that's all part of growing up. My testimony is still strong. I probably don't need to tell you that it wasn't long before I was delving in the world of online Mormonism and anti-Mormonism."
 
Ishmael became a sort of case study because he evinced a pattern that showed up over and over.  He had some illusions about his faith that were challenged and didn't hold up.  Instead of praying and studying for further understanding and truth to correct his errors, he begins to let go of the iron rod.  He allows men to instruct him instead of the Holy Spirit.
 
You have to realize that, when S.P.A.M. was functioning, it became a target of anti-Mormons.  Many former members joined us with the intent of either trying to shake us in our faith or justifying their own apostasy.  Ishmael was one of them.  When you give these guys a chance to tell their story, they start "monologuing" and it always falls into this pattern.
 
1. Establish rapport
2. Establish credibility
3. Build sympathy
4. Tell of an "awakening"
5. Rationalize the loss of commitment, disobedience, etc.
6. Reveal the deception that snared them
7. Issue either a disclaimer that excuses them or a hateful rant that vindicates their choice to leave, blaming others.
 
Very often, these former members seek out those who are struggling and try to take them down with them.  You have to understand that there are people who are active "wolves" who are seeking to prey on the flock.  When an innocent person who might be struggling with some doubts encounters one of these apostates, they are unaware that there is a careful, manipulative process being worked against them.  
 
What amazed me is how consistent this pattern was.  I had to wonder if the consistency of it was because of the adversary's influence over them or whether it was rehearsed.  
 
If you want to read the whole article called, Ishmael's Monologue, check it out on the S.P.A.M. archives at:
 
http://spamldsarchive.blogspot.com/2010/05/ishmael-monologue.html
 
It's not my intent to "pimp" my old blog, but I think it's an important aspect of understanding "shaken faith syndrome."  There are over 800 anti-Mormon parachurches and ministries out there.  They publish web sites, videos, and distribute their products (often for a profit) through Christian bookstores and pastors of other denominations.  There are also atheists who are dedicated to undermining all faith and they seem to take a special interest in destroying the faith of people who claim belief in modern revelation.  When you realize that the opposition is active, it takes on a whole new dimension.

Here's a late recollection by William Smith:
 
 
I think Lucy Smith also said it was made for a very large man--too big for Joseph.  The Urim and Thummim were something like four inches apart, per Martin Harris' recollection.

Well now, that would shut this thread down entirely.

If anyone believes all artistic depictions need to be 100% historically accurate....

What's next, are we going to complain about Jesus' skin color in our depictions? Are we sure the clothing is historically accurate? The sandals are correct? What about the nephite / lamanite depictions!? I've seen Nephi wearing a leopard skin in one picture, does that constitute official endorsement of a location for BoM events?

For the love of poo throwing monkeys come on! Don't be ridiculous.

I sure hope your career isn't dependent on your comprehension of proof. Or...worse...other's lives, health, or fortunes.
 
 
Without my head in the sand, I might run the risk of seeing something, which would put a serious dent in all the following blindly I'm involved with.

Don't sprain your ankle while backpeddling so furiously.

A very strange accusation, particularly for anyone who knows me. And I think you know me better than that. Which makes it fairly clear that your just being a...smart alec (oh how I wish I could use a different word here) to be contrary.
 
So...overall you agreed with....pretty much everything except #2.
 
Hmm.

Talks and words and speeches and the like are never "doctrine". Doctrine is ideas. At best you should have asked, "I bet you guys think that this talk contains doctrine as well..."
 
Stop trying to pick fights.

In a very real sense, the current prophet's words are more important than any other precisely because they are current.  This is what God would have us know here and now, tailored to our current circumstances and events.  For those who have prayed and received the witness of the Spirit that the current prophet is indeed the mouthpiece of God to His church, this is fairly straightforward and simple.
 
This is a nice talk:  https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/04/faith-obedience?lang=eng

Obviously we could go back and for on this forever. But you have not proved your point, in spite of the adamant repetition. For you to be successful, you must give concrete evidence that masturbation does not too often lead to homosexuality. Even if I took your logic at face-value (which I see no reason not to), all it shows is that masturbation does not always lead to homosexuality. Well that's obvious. Who would argue that? But you seem to be conflating the two ideas. They're not one and the same.
 
For now I think I'll keep Kimball off of my "When prophets are wrong" list.

You know...that does intrigue up the riddle a bit. Insert President Obama, Bill Gates, and Thomas S. Monson.
 
Heheh.

Mine as well. I'm not killing two people on anyone's say so without something more compelling than just their claims. :)

Yeah...and just think what their poor kids are gonna be like!! 

My position isn't relevant. I'm not the one making claims that he was wrong -- or right. So I don't have to back anything up. I have no claim concerning the matter, except that if you are going to make such a bold claim as, "he was dead wrong", you'd better be able to back it up.

I like something CS Lewis said - I don't have the referrence to quote exactly so I have to paraphase - "One cannot say they know the ocean by standing on the shore with a map."  He was addressing those who seek to find spirituality without belonging to a faith (Church). 
 
I would venture to say, 2RM didn't even get wet. Religion and faith are more than intellectual arguments. You have to dive in. 
 
As expressed earlier, if you think the LDS faith isn't about sacrafice, you haven't been paying attention.

That's because every generation since the 40s has gotten more and more scandalous. 
 
A spade's a spade. What can you do?

No, but just wait five years.  At the rate we're going, that information will be routinely posted on people's Facebook accounts and can be easily tabulated.

Respectfully, I disagree. The two concepts are totally incongruous. If you have the strongest of faith then you cannot feel you've been misled. They simply do not align, imo.

He did not say "will lead". That is false. He said "too often leads".
 
 
Conversely it would be better to die having broken the law of chastity?

I think it fair to point out that there have been various statements made that "doctrines do not change!" over the years. (Boyd K. Packer was particularly fond of this sort of declaration). Therefore, it has to be conceded that there is a way of defining "doctrine" that excludes the priesthood ban.

I think it fair to point out that there have been various statements made that "doctrines do not change!" over the years. (Boyd K. Packer was particularly fond of this sort of declaration). Therefore, it has to be conceded that there is a way of defining "doctrine" that excludes the priesthood ban.

Do: Keep the commandments.
 
Do not: Not keep the commandments.