The Folk Prophet

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "a spiritual gift".
 
Without doubt, it comes from revelation through the Holy Spirit, and by pure definition of "gift", yes, it is.
 
Is it an official "Gift of the Spirit", as in the gift of tongues?
 
*shrug*

I agree with the beginning. Just read the thing straight through. :)

What SemSnoozer is saying is correct. But it is, I believe, disregarding the importance of individuality -- something that I believe matters...though why or how, I don't know.
 
But (imo) God is God without others, in spite of the fact that, accurately, God could not become God without others.
 
Of course, that's irrelevant, because God will never actually be God without others (specifically a spouse), and so putting it in terms like SemSnooz does is logical.
 
But, yeah...it sounds weird. I guess I'd be more inclined to get on board if any prophet or apostle had ever explicitly taught the same interpretation in the same way. It's a fine interpretation of things. But it is, ultimately, only an interpretation.

I've heard others with similar concerns. I don't get it. What difference does it make if we're carbon copies of each other. Seems like such a mortal, worldly concern.
 
I seriously doubt our current leaders not having beards has anything to do with conformity.

So...interesting thoughts.
 
Some questions according:
 
A: the quote doesn't talk about becoming rich because we promise to use the richness for good.
 
B. If one were to become rich through the means given in the quote, would one really be likely to be destroyed by it?
 
C. If the Lord keeps us from being rich by looking out for our souls, then why the promise from Brigham?
 
D. Does the Lord not, generally, try us, rather than protect us, to see if we will be and do as He asks?

Priesthood and witchcraft?

Tolerance is a form of acceptance. Very much. Clearly. Blatantly. Yes. It is.

Well, to me, that's the beauty of the gospel. Hope in hopelessness. The hope is personal. The world, by prophesy, is doomed. But even so, we can all find peace and joy through Christ. So the hopelessness of the world is a natural opener for the hope in Christ. The hopelessness in the world leads to the natural question -- what can we do about it. The answer, is to come to Christ.

Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. - 1 Cor 11:11

Maybe more accurately... some are.
 
 
Based on the growth and needs of the church then, I expect we'll all be getting richer very soon.

FunkyTown and anatess --
 
I'm not disagreeing...just conversing....
 
Who says it doesn't mean earthly riches? Promise after promise about prospering in the land for obedience.  Moreover, the quote at hand says, " there is nothing on the face of the earth that they could ask for, that would not be given to them." On the face of the earth = worldly to my thinking.
 
I mean, clearly, it means eternal and spiritual riches as well. But I'm not so sure it's valid to entirely disregard the literal meaning. 

I believe that is (you slippery lawyer you) besides the point.

Since when? I accept many, many things that I don't agree with in any regard.
 
Obama as President comes to mind, for one.
 
I think you're the one confusing things. Acceptance does not mean the embracing of.
 
The only difference between tolerance and acceptance is that tolerance, by definition, requires disagreement whereas acceptance does not. Tolerance is, literally, accepting something that you disagree with. With acceptance you may or may not agree. If you do not, it is tolerance.
 
In other words, acceptance is not always tolerance, but tolerance is always acceptance.

I believe President Young was voicing the same sentiment taught by the ancient Nephite prophet Jacob:
 
And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.
 
This looks to me like it's saying that if we walk up to our covenants and desire riches in order to perform good works (and not to buy nice cars or live luxuriously), we will be given riches. Just now, for the first time in my life, it occurs to me that both Jacob and President Young use the plural form, "ye" (or "you"), and not the singular "thou". I had never noticed that before. It makes me think that, perhaps, this is a societal covenant and reward, and not a personal one. We as a people will obtain riches if we live up to our covenants and seek those riches to bless others.
 
I am not and never have been a man of great wealth. I have sometimes wondered if this is a de facto commentary on my state before Christ. Taking at face value the truthfulness of these teachings, I see four possible reasons why I and others like me don't have these riches:
We have not yet obtained the requisite hope in Christ. We do not seek riches, either for ourselves or to bless others. As I just now realized, this is perhaps not an individual promise, but a collective promise to the people of God as a whole. The fourth is a personal reason. When I was younger and quite sure that I would make lots of money in my life, I prayed very fervently to God for many years that, if lots of money would harm my children or my marriage, that I not be cursed with it. Now, I personally suspect that my lack of financial success is due to my not playing the game -- or in LDS terminology, not following the laws upon which making lots of money is predicated. It's not one of my gifts, and the ability to make scads of money has never been something I've sought to develop. So I've always sort of defaulted to Reason #2, but a sneaking suspicion that Reason #1 has something to do with it, too. But I grant that it is possible that God heard and answered my prayers as a young husband and father (prayers which I still hold in my heart, even if I never bother to vocalize them any more, given that being a rich man is not a burden I carry). And if that is the case, my heart swells in gratitude to my Father for loving me and my family enough to keep us from the harm and destruction that would otherwise await us.

Exactly. You can be both loving and tolerant. But you can also be loving and intolerant. And, moreover, you can be tolerant and not loving, but claim you love because you're tolerant. This is the counterfeit of which I speak.
 
Tolerance is used as a tool to turn people away from right principles, of which love is the real core, by accepting things that they should not be accepting.

In my mind I like to think of myself as wealthy.....with all that I have been blessed with I consider myself a wealthy man. What more could I ask for. My wife and I enjoy our jobs. We have four awesome kids. We have 3 son in laws and one daughter in law. We also have 4 grandchildren. All kidding aside I am very serious.
That's my 2 cents worth.

I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong PC, that the point here is that it doesn't make much sense to imply a counterfeit to something that is not related. Like if we just throw out good gift being, say...Christmas and a counterfeit being...say...people driving too slow in the fast lane. At least throw Halloween in there or something. Or...here's another bad example:
 
Good gift: Worshiping God.
Counterfeit: Christmas.
 
They aren't equivalent. They can be, of course, but they aren't universal, so the application fails somewhat. Some people use Christmas to worship God very well. Some use it as a counterfeit. Therefore, Christmas fails as a blanket counterfeit because it is not, universally, so.
 
Well...that's what I read into PC's point anyhow. Maybe I'm way off.
 
Here's mine addition to the list:
 
Good gift: Love
Counterfeit: Tolerance

There is the famous quote, "Preach the gospel by all means--if necessary use words."  It is clever, and it contains truth.  Yet, did not Jesus exhibit perfection in his words and deeds?  Did He not bare the light as best it could be borne?  Yet, when he ascended to the Father there were perhaps around 500 followers.  And why?  He not only demonstrated Truth, he spoke it.  He confronted sin and unrighteousness and spiritual hypocrisy.  He did cry over Jerusalem, for its many sins.  He called religious leaders white-washed tombs, and a generation of vipers.
 
Godly living does not compete with godly, prophetic speech.  They are companions.
 
I'd further contend that, while godly example preaches loudly, a life that is anointed and directed by the Holy Spirit is even more effective.  Peter preached one sermon and 3000 converted.
 

Since when?
 
That's like saying,
Good gift: Horse
Counterfeit: Car
 
I call them both good gifts.
 
This whole natural = better trend is nonsense.
 
Good gift: charcoal from a fire to write on the cave wall (because it's natural!)
Counterfeit: Word Processor. Evil. Man made. Not natural.
 
edit (or...maybe a better relation: Good gift: gold plates and a sharp item to scratch words in. Counterfeit: computers/word processors)

Since when?
 
That's like saying,
Good gift: Horse
Counterfeit: Car
 
I call them both good gifts.
 
This whole natural = better trend is nonsense.
 
Good gift: charcoal from a fire to write on the cave wall (because it's natural!)
Counterfeit: Word Processor. Evil. Man made. Not natural.
 
edit (or...maybe a better relation: Good gift: gold plates and a sharp item to scratch words in. Counterfeit: computers/word processors)

But, herein is the problem: If a church isn't "feel good" then what's the use? Right?
 
The problem is what's been trained into us that the "good" part of "feel good" means. It's become associated with pleasure and comfort rather than with "right".

I have no idea what you're talking about PC. You mean people get offended by religious talk? I've never encountered that. 

Which definition is that?

probably the same thing that prevents depressed, addicted, or angry people from pursuing such, would be my guess.

I have no idea what you're talking about PC. You mean people get offended by religious talk? I've never encountered that.