The Folk Prophet

@zil2 needs to draw a spiritual witch now. 

@zil2 needs to draw a spiritual witch now. 

And I'm not saying that the concern others have isn't natural. I'm suggesting a choice of determination in response. It's something I've had to consciously do in the past 5 years or so. I am naturally GREATLY concerned by these sorts of moves. But I choose to put that aside and trust in God. That is my response, rather than my natural instinct. If that makes sense.

The Jewish holocaust and the wars currently raging are not the very kingdom of God on earth. The two classifications are not comparable.
I'm sure Brother Reeves is a wonderful man. I bear him no ill will on a personal level. I find his arguments biased and utterly unconvincing. His book reads like that of a man who has made up his mind on the issue and is now looking to justify his position.
True enough, and this is certainly a fallacy. But we're not talking about evils in the world. We're talking about supposed evils within God's restored kingdom—and not just the expected evils of an imperfect membership, but evils of official administration and literally the doctrines taught in the Church for well over a century.
That's a pretty important claim. Such a claim should be established by a lot more than some philosophical armchair reasoning and fault-finding of supposed shortcomings of the early prophets and leaders of this dispensation, disguised as a simple and affectionate recognition of imperfection.
I appreciate your candor. Are you willing to consider that maybe God actually did institute that policy? Are you willing to grant that you do not know the mind of God well enough to base your opinion on what you believe God must think? Are you willing to concede that it's possible that the God who ordered his chosen people in the past to kill men, women, and children, the being who is the master and creator of life and death and who literally gives and takes life as suits his purposes, that same divine man who ordered Abraham to sacrifice his own son Isaac, may very well have good and sufficient reasons to give his Priesthood to whom he will and withhold his Priesthood from others as he sees fit, even if you don't now and probably never will (in this life) fully comprehend the reasons why?
I frankly don't care very much whether or not you agree with me on this. I'll like you either way. In fact, I freely admit I may be wrong. Strange that I have never found those on the other side of the issue willing to say the same about themselves and their opinions, though. They seem to have an urgency to encourage others to adopt their particular views. I don't understand this attitude, and when I perceive it I find it unpalatable.
Other than the fact that it seems distasteful, politically incorrect, and more than a bit embarrassing to you that the Church long had a policy of excluding black men of African descent from holding the Priesthood, do you have any particular and solid reason for doubting the divinity of the policy?
I mean, you can believe what you want, and I won't excoriate you for it. I enjoy our conversations, and don't harbor any ill feelings against you, either for this opinion or for any other that I'm aware of.
But I have had the experience more than just once or twice of being, in effect, taken to task by those who call themselves my brothers because THEY want to preach a version of restored truth that names early prophets of our time as "racist" and claim for themselves supposedly enlightened views on what they call "an erroneous and unfortunate policy". This they have done during Church meetings dedicated to teaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Saints. When I have dared to object to the characterization of our prophets and opine the view—taught in the kingdom of God for over 130 years—that the policy was established by God for reasons known to him, they have reacted condescendingly and with barely concealed contempt and have rushed to point out that the long-accepted teaching I espoused is "just an opinion". Funny that, to my recollection, they have never bothered to mention that their own revisionist history is "just an opinion", as well.

And I'm not saying that the concern others have isn't natural. I'm suggesting a choice of determination in response. It's something I've had to consciously do in the past 5 years or so. I am naturally GREATLY concerned by these sorts of moves. But I choose to put that aside and trust in God. That is my response, rather than my natural instinct. If that makes sense.

Maybe it's a gap in my knowledge. I really don't know what point you're trying to make.
I'm saying we shouldn't be concerned because God leads the church. God's plan is just. It'll all work out as it should. Etc.
And you're....I think....pointing out a time when there was concern from the people of the church....?? Meant as justification for and indicative that we should be concerned? Is that your point?
What's the actual fear here? Someone who deserved to be exalted now won't be?
God's plan is just. Those who should be exalted will be. Those who should be condemned will be. And in EVERY case that will be according to the agency of the individual.
The rest is interesting to watch and discuss. It's not worth "concern" though.

You had asked why there was a cause for concern.
I provided an example why there may be valid concerns even though the Lord still has overall governance of the Church.  At the same time, that very example gives a warning that our "concerns" shouldn't take us down the wrong path.  The warning being that we shouldn't use this concern as an excuse to leave the faith or stop listening to the Prophet.
One cousin (and her household) left the Church because of one bad bishop who was later called to be stake pres. Another cousin (and her household) left the Church because Pres. Nelson required missionaries to get the jab.  And no one in her house was a missionary. The thing about sifting is that the method of sifting is determined by the One in charge.
****************
I remember a general conference talk where the speaker (whom I believe to be one of the children of the household that he spoke of) told of a family who were verbally abused by the bishop in public because of something that the father had done.
The family went home feeling completely shamed and angry.  They were ready to leave the Church over it.  But when they got home, the father had them gather in the family room.  They all knelt and waited as the father seemed to be praying.
After a while the father opened his eyes and began to speak. 
(...to the best of my memory...)
"Children, this is not the bishop's church.  This is the Lord's church.  And we will do what the bishop is asking because the Lord wants us to, not because the bishop wants us to."
They eventually came back to full fellowship and all was well.

Yes, I got your point.  Let me put you into a situation.
You know that God is in charge.  At the end of all the tribulation of the end times, you know that the result is that the good guys win and the bad guys lose.  Then knowing that ahead of time means that we shouldn't have any worries or concerns, right?
Well, in a general sense, yes.  But the fact remains that during those times of tribulation, many people will still go through tremendous difficulty.  Some Latter-day leaders have said that the persecution of the end times will be more horrible than any we've seen in the history of the world.  Considering some of the horrors of history, that is pretty frightening.
With that in mind, is it a total, complete comfort that "all will be well in the end?"
Even Christ asked if there were any other way to do this.  Yes, He submitted to the will of the Father.  But He did "shrink that (he) might not drink the bitter cup."
Now, if you can keep your eye on the prize firmly enough that you can look forward to all the stuff that comes before it, you're a better man than I am.
I hope I can endure it.  But I know I certainly won't enjoy it.

Why?
God still leads his church, doesn't he?

Lots of things I could say.  The one that seems best is: I trust the Lord Jesus Christ.  He leads the Church.  This is outside my stewardship, so I will trust the Lord to deal with it properly in his own due time.

It's the referring to it as a permanent trait that I find random and strange. But like I said...if you mean God's way isn't to make things permanently blurry for his children who are faithful then.... yeah. Obviously.

I think that is the case sometimes.
I am confident that we as mortals, even in the church, only have a very small taste of understanding of the priesthood and what it actually means.

I don't believe this is the case for mortality. Obviously it's the case for the eternities.
Anyone who thinks they can see things as clearly as God in mortality is gonna get themselves in pretty big trouble pretty quickly.
We are meant to live by faith. We are meant to trust. We are meant to obey.
We are granted understanding and insight in small portions to help us with that, sure.
But the condition set forth for our exaltation is not understanding. It is faith and obedience. As far as understanding helps us with faith and obedience it's a good thing. But even the dumbest person alive has the same opportunities for salvation as the most brilliant.
I think setting up understanding as key to anything gets people into trouble pretty quickly. Obviously writing off understanding as meaningless would be wrong too. But it's so often the case that people set up understanding, knowledge, logic, and intelligence as the bases for their gospel journey.
I generally agree, but...
I'm not sure I can even accept that if someone became perfect in this life that they would/could then develop a perfect understanding of the eternities. But even accepting that as right...it's a non-starter because we can't be and won't be perfect in this life. God knew that. He set it up that way. He provided the Savior for us because he knew that.
I guess I agree with you "theoretically". It's just practically speaking...that's not the plan of salvation as I understand it. The plan was that we're going to fail and fail and fail and will we or will we not accept the Savior's atonement by way of obedience, repentance and faith. And as much as we improve in our understanding through faith, we're still going to be pretty blind overall and dependent on faith and obedience.
I mean I have no doubt that President Nelson understands the Priesthood better than me. I also have no doubt that there's a lot about the Priesthood that President Nelson doesn't understand and that he'd be the first to admit it.
I accept this is a part of it. I know it is in the case with parables, because Christ said as much. But I don't think it's the entirety of it. I think it's multifaceted.
Of course it also still fits quite nicely into the idea that God wants things blurry. It only adds a "why" (among what I assume are many whys).
But I guess what I'm really trying to get across is that we ought to be comfortable with the fact that there are going to be an awful lot of things that we may never understand in this life, and that failure to understand them shouldn't really throw us.

I don't believe this is the case for mortality. Obviously it's the case for the eternities.
Anyone who thinks they can see things as clearly as God in mortality is gonna get themselves in pretty big trouble pretty quickly.
We are meant to live by faith. We are meant to trust. We are meant to obey.
We are granted understanding and insight in small portions to help us with that, sure.
But the condition set forth for our exaltation is not understanding. It is faith and obedience. As far as understanding helps us with faith and obedience it's a good thing. But even the dumbest person alive has the same opportunities for salvation as the most brilliant.
I think setting up understanding as key to anything gets people into trouble pretty quickly. Obviously writing off understanding as meaningless would be wrong too. But it's so often the case that people set up understanding, knowledge, logic, and intelligence as the bases for their gospel journey.
I generally agree, but...
I'm not sure I can even accept that if someone became perfect in this life that they would/could then develop a perfect understanding of the eternities. But even accepting that as right...it's a non-starter because we can't be and won't be perfect in this life. God knew that. He set it up that way. He provided the Savior for us because he knew that.
I guess I agree with you "theoretically". It's just practically speaking...that's not the plan of salvation as I understand it. The plan was that we're going to fail and fail and fail and will we or will we not accept the Savior's atonement by way of obedience, repentance and faith. And as much as we improve in our understanding through faith, we're still going to be pretty blind overall and dependent on faith and obedience.
I mean I have no doubt that President Nelson understands the Priesthood better than me. I also have no doubt that there's a lot about the Priesthood that President Nelson doesn't understand and that he'd be the first to admit it.
I accept this is a part of it. I know it is in the case with parables, because Christ said as much. But I don't think it's the entirety of it. I think it's multifaceted.
Of course it also still fits quite nicely into the idea that God wants things blurry. It only adds a "why" (among what I assume are many whys).
But I guess what I'm really trying to get across is that we ought to be comfortable with the fact that there are going to be an awful lot of things that we may never understand in this life, and that failure to understand them shouldn't really throw us.

Why can't blurriness be a part of order?
Clearly God wants things blurry for us. That's the entire point of the veil. That's the entire idea behind living by faith. That's the whole concept behind the "mysteries of God". That's the very reason Jesus explained why he spoke in parables. Etc., etc., etc.
Obviously it's lack of understanding. That's synonymous with "blurry". But it seems pretty clear to me that man's lack of understanding in mortality is God's intent and part of His plan. Or, in other words, it seems clear that God wants things to be blurry for mankind.

I think that is the case sometimes.
I am confident that we as mortals, even in the church, only have a very small taste of understanding of the priesthood and what it actually means.

Why can't blurriness be a part of order?
Clearly God wants things blurry for us. That's the entire point of the veil. That's the entire idea behind living by faith. That's the whole concept behind the "mysteries of God". That's the very reason Jesus explained why he spoke in parables. Etc., etc., etc.
Obviously it's lack of understanding. That's synonymous with "blurry". But it seems pretty clear to me that man's lack of understanding in mortality is God's intent and part of His plan. Or, in other words, it seems clear that God wants things to be blurry for mankind.

Why can't blurriness be a part of order?
Clearly God wants things blurry for us. That's the entire point of the veil. That's the entire idea behind living by faith. That's the whole concept behind the "mysteries of God". That's the very reason Jesus explained why he spoke in parables. Etc., etc., etc.
Obviously it's lack of understanding. That's synonymous with "blurry". But it seems pretty clear to me that man's lack of understanding in mortality is God's intent and part of His plan. Or, in other words, it seems clear that God wants things to be blurry for mankind.

I think that is the case sometimes.
I am confident that we as mortals, even in the church, only have a very small taste of understanding of the priesthood and what it actually means.

I think that is the case sometimes.
I am confident that we as mortals, even in the church, only have a very small taste of understanding of the priesthood and what it actually means.

I think that is the case sometimes.
I am confident that we as mortals, even in the church, only have a very small taste of understanding of the priesthood and what it actually means.

I have an alternate take. Probably highly controversial.
Stuffing cooked inside the turkey is gross.
Stovetop is the best!

I'm not saying that just to be contrary. I legitimately prefer Stovetop. Every time I go to a family gettogether where they've done some fancy schmancy stuffing I don't like it as well. Stovetop is, however, good, and every time we do our cheap out-of-the-box approach to stuffing/dressing, I enjoy it and crave more. It's one of my favorite parts of turkey dinners.
Either way, what comes out of a turkey is slimey, disgusting slop.

We bought our home in 2009 at 225k. It appraised about a year back at 620k. We did finish the basement in that time, so that explains some small part of it. But we don't have a big fancy house by any means.
This made me think of the interviews I've seen recently with Michael Malice and his anarchism philosophies. He has some interesting ideas. I like a lot of his thoughts. But no government? Really? That's gonna work out.

You meant federal government, right @Emmanuel Goldstein?  Because otherwise...

I'm not sure government and taxes is sufficient to explain the fact that our house is worth 3 times the amount we originally bought it for 15ish years back though.