The Folk Prophet

Well, there goes Nephi's salvation. And Captain Moroni. And Ammon. Oh...and Moses. Let's see...who else did you just condemn?  
 
*sigh*
 
I weary of this. If I truly am speaking past you as badly as you are TOTALLY misunderstanding and ignoring pretty much everything I say, then I apologize. But I'm done. What a waste of time.
 
It's Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh *STAH*wah!

What...where am I? How did I get here?!

LiterateParakeet, on 24 Nov 2014 - 03:18 AM, said:
 
I'm interested LitPara. You're applying personal experience to ALL the world. That strikes me as a stretch. As much as I accept that any of us can fall away if we do not remain diligent in our obedience, study, faith, prayers, and the like, the context of your post seems to imply that it can hit anyone in spite of these things. I would be interested in hearing more about your experience (if your comfortable sharing) and how you have come to this conclusion, assuiming I'm not reading too much into it.
 
As a broader discussion, I'd like to discuss the causes of shaken faith syndrome and what we can do to avoid or overcome it.

What, check again.

"Should I see the bishop after [engaging in some activity] and feeling enough distress about it that I'm seeking public anonymous counsel online?" is a different question from "should everyone who [engages in some activity] see the bishop?".

What, no link?
 
You lazy...
 
:)  Heheh.
 
So I don't know. Shaken faith syndrome doesn't necessarily mean we let go of the rod of iron. It may mean we're considering it. But...I dunno. Thoughts?

I fall somewhere between SemSnoozer and Windseeker. I see no value in variety. I also don't think we'll all be "exactly" the same, but I can't source that or support it with any logical doctrinal ideas. So I'm forced to side with SemSnoozer on this one (though, as I've explained, I think the descriptive phrasing she uses is lacking and ends up sounding too hive minded).
 
Windseeker, there is no logical path to apply your quotes to the eternities. We know we're born unique in this life. That does not automatically lead to we must all remain unique forever more.
 
Though I do wonder about our physical beings. There are quotes stating we'll look the same as we do in this life. In God's image no more than I'm in my earthly father's image, perhaps. But character-wise? How can there be variety in perfection? Some of us will make tigers with orange stripes, others with purple? Why? Just for fun? Does a perfect, all powerful being do things just for fun? Is whimsy even possible when you're all-knowing? And...is there truly neutral in anything? God is perfect in every way. If there is no neutral, then every choice He makes can not vary, because it must by nature of who He is be the best and most perfect choice in every case.

I hope everyone is enjoying the discussion. I'm enjoying it. It's not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings, but this discussion is reminding me of something that happened between my wife and one of my granddaughters, Hailey.
When Hailey was a little younger and was learning to speak she would sometimes pronounce things in cute and funny way. One day she was singing the song "Twinkle twinkle little star." This is what happened:
Hailey singing: "Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh stahwah.. How I wondoh whatchoo ahwah.."
Mimi and Grampee both start to laugh. (We just couldn't help our selves.. It was just so dang cute!).
Hailey gets a little upset that we're laughing.
Mimi: "Oh, sweetheart.. Don't be sad. We're laughing because we love how cute you sing.."
Hailey's not quite convinced.
I try to give Hailey some encouragement: "It'll be ok, Hal. Why don't we all sing it together?"
Hailey stops sniffling and thinks about my offer and then nods, ok.
We all begin singing: "Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh STAHwah.. How I wondoh whatchoo AHwah.."
Hailey bursts into tears again.
Mimi and Grampee stop singing.
Grampee: "What'sa matter, Hal pal?"
Mimi: "Oh, sweetie, what's wrong?"
Hailey looks at us with exasperation, then points her finger at my wife accusingly: "Mimi! It's NOT Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh stahwah! It's Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh *STAH*wah!"
.. Kinda resembles some of our discussions in this forum..

I know I shouldn't get my feelings hurt at this. Pumpkin pie is my favorite.

I thought it would have been clear from my original post concerning the matter that I was pulling your phrase out of context. As in...
 

Missionaries are there to serve and to bring souls to Christ. Missionaries are not there to visit casually for a few hours or come over for bridge. (That's what I'm here for.)
 
A missionary is to teach the doctrine and so lead people to Christ. The way to Christ leads through baptism; it is the door to enter into the kingdom. If a person does not want to be baptized. the missionary will politely (we hope) take leave of the person and go in search of someone who wants to walk the path of salvation.
 
I have never heard of missionaries having a literaly checklist of commitments -- I certainly never had one -- but they do keep track of how their "investigators" are progressing. If an investigator stops progressing, the missionaries try to find out why and to remove the impediments. But if the investigator makes it clear that s/he just isn't interested in pursuing baptism, the missionaries will probably move on to more fruitful labor.

Missionaries' primary goal is to serve God. God's will is to have us return to Him. Therefore, missionary's goal is to help God's children return to Him. That means convert. But it's not one or the other. One is a means to the other. Missionaries are there to teach in order to convert. The goal of the missionaries is to bring people to Christ through the principles and ordinances of His gospel.

Though if you come to ski you get above the inversion and the mountain air is wonderful (albeit a bit thin).

From Mosiah chapter 16:

1"...The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just.

 2 And then shall the wicked be cast out, and they shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord;…"

 

This is how I envision myself if I should go to the lower kingdoms.  I know the truth.  I know the commandments.  If I don't attain the Celestial Kingdom, I have no one to blame but myself.

I cannot disagree more.
 
Our responsibility to do right is our highest priority. Not even our marriage and families supersedes this. My loyalty and faithfulness will always be first to God, second to my wife. ALWAYS. And there is nothing I can do for my wife that is more loving, more loyal, and more committed to her than to be loving, loyal and committed to God first.
 
I seriously cannot possibly disagree more with something than the idea that the covenant of marriage is not about what is right.
 
I'd say it more strongly, but it would certainly come across rudely and I'm working on being more courteous.

I personally find it both unsatisfying and unconvincing to answer such questions by saying, "Oh, we're already rich, because we aren't starving to death and we have lots of electronic toys." In the context of the statements, this is very clearly not what was intended. The intent of the word "rich" is "having lots of excess means that can be used either to feather your own nest or to bless others". That is much different from saying that you have a warm apartment and a smartphone, so therefore you're rich.

I hear this idea voiced fairly often in the Church. I could not possibly disagree more.
 
Satan is not a poor, slightly ignorant, and misunderstood being. His goal in his so-called "plan" was the subjugation of mankind the the usurpation of God's honor. He had no other goal. He had no real idea that he could "save" people with some stupid ersatz replacement "plan of salvation".
 
He lied.
 
Wow. How about that. Satan lied. Who'da thunk?
 
Satan never believe he could save people's souls without their effort. There is no scripture that suggests any such thing. Rather, Satan offered smooth words and lies to incite rebellion against the Father, which is exactly what happened. He sought the Father's honor and glory. There was no speck of good intention in his Satanic "offer". It was unadulterated hubris and selfish disdain of God's plan.
 
It's dirty pool to isolate one small part of a long post in order to pick on it, but...that's what I'm doing. Please forgive me, Seminarysnoozer. :)

As I was reading through the posts and speculations, I started to get the feeling that this life wasn't so dire after all. I can see how easy it is to take a single scripture and take it out context, even from the Book of Mormon! However, I remembered those scriptures you quoted from Alma, and our time on earth is critical, and with eternal consequences. We could forever speculate, and subtly be lead into a false sense of security. I appreciate your post. Perhaps, I am one of the lesser minds.

Yes, thank you, LiterateP. "Not necessarily agreeing but understanding.."
Now if this were the army and my commanding officer gave me an order, it would indeed be my job to understand the order and do it. Whether said officer gave the command politely or screamed it at me is not relevant.. Especially in the heat of battle.. It is my duty to say, "yes sir!" and then do it without delay. I don't have to like it or agree with it .. That's not how the military works. All my commanding officer needs to hear and understand from me is that *I* understand and will do it. There is value in this when circumstances merit it.
Sometimes The Lord speaks to us like this... As in the scripture cited at the beginning of this topic.. It is the Lord's right to do this and not excuse Himself. When The Lord commands us or prompts his servants to speak after this fashion then we'd all be very wise to obey and not question why. The Lord doesn't always give us an explanation for His own reasons.
That being said.. Consider this: "And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;" (D & C 50:10) .. The Lord, more often than not, condescends to reason with His children.. Not because he condones our bad behavior and willful disobedience.. But hopes to persuade us gently so that we'll use our agency, follow His will and learn what we need to learn without His having to smite us every time and speak with a voice of thunder.. The still small voice of the Spirit is usually the preferred method rather than Cecil B. Demill's whirling tornado of fire.

I think our goal only very rarely is (or should be) to change someone's opinion. I think our goal is to preach the truth with the Spirit bearing witness. Whether that person changes his/her opinion is up to that person; if s/he feels the Holy Ghost but chooses to deny the witness, that is the inherent right of agency given to all children of God. I agree with TFP; our goal should be to teach the truth with clarity and with the Spirit.

Blackmarch is right. Grace doesn't contradict the law. It's not in conflict with the law. It balances the law. It works within the law.
 
The law is the law. It's factual. It simply is. It amount to something like: If I lie to you you won't trust me any more. The goodness of God and His grace and Atonement make it possible for the law to be satisfied and for God's great mercy to come to those who choose to accept him, repent of their sins, and take up their crosses and follow Him.
 
Mercy doesn't rob justice. Christ paid the utmost farthing for our sins. He PAID for them. That is the key. Justice is satisfied because He did this for us. In return, He makes our path plain. Come follow me. If ye love me, keep my commandments. Feed my sheep. Etc.

Can we include secular music? It's still part of the family fun feeling of the season, right? :)
 

Wait...what about eloquent and impatient?

^^^ these two thoughts seem in conflict, and I remain highly skeptical.
 
Of course, I wouldn't put it past local leadership to do such a thing somewhere in the world. But one would be hard pressed to convince me that the decision was appropriate, right, or inspired in any way in our current world. Moreover, it is irrelevant to the covenants we make.  My bishop giving me a temple recommend in spite of my disobedience does not mean my disobedience went away. I will still stand accountable before the Lord for the commitments I have made that I ignored, would not keep, or otherwise disregarded. I, and everyone who has gone to the temple, have made sacred covenants to obey the commandments. And where there was a time when the Word of Wisdom's "commandment" status was ambiguous, it is not ambiguous to any degree nowadays, at least not when it comes to the standard 4 (coffee, tea, alchohol, tobacco).
 
The commitment to the Word of Wisdom is one of the key tenets that is used to determine commitment to conversion and a willingness to put ourselves aside in favor of the Lord's will. If it is, indeed, viable that certain people can (nowadays) get a free pass on this particular commandment, it throws the whole system out of whack. I simply don't buy it. No way, no how.
 
John can only go to the temple if he is committed, worthy, willing to give up all his sins, but Bill can go to the temple in spite of not doing these things?
 
It is indeed a different age than it was a few generations ago. I have a pipe on my shelf for decoration purposes that belonged to one of my great grandfathers. As near as I understand, he smoked it his whole life, and was a worthy member. That is non-applicable to me. Were I to smoke said pipe I would not be worthy. No getting around it.

Why is there always this comparison between the "loving same-sex couple" vs. the horrible heterosexual couple.  All the arguments I see in favor of homo adoptions are that the child will be raised by two people who "love each other".  Why the portrayal of the loving homo relationship vs. the horrible heter. relationship.
 
Here's a hint, every single couple in the world has issues and problems, some issues are bigger than others, but they are there. And here is another hint, statistically speaking homo. relationships end up breaking up more than heter. relationship.  The relationship that statistically breaks up the most is female & female.
 
This flawed idea is promoted in the movies people watch and the shows people watch.  Most heter. relationships are portrayed as deeply flawed while most homo. relationships are portrayed as blissful.
 
So the very premise of your argument is flawed, statistically speaking you will have a better chance of being raised in a loving environment with heterosexual parents vs. homosexuals guardians.