The Folk Prophet

...and, therefore, it is logically in-congruent to make a statement that works are not necessary and only faith is. :)

Even if we take it at face value that we have such a culture, why is it "much to our detriment". Can you support that? I don't recall "critical thinking" being a principle of the gospel. Once again...how is this harmful spiritually. Speak for yourself please. Obedience to any and all of the commandments (and repentance upon failure to obey) is necessary for salvation. Then we are damned. No unrepentant sin will be justified. Mercy CANNOT rob justice. There is no nuance to this. The church is either led and directed by God or it is not. You are coming here and testifying that it is not. But it is. You are wrong.

Walking under a ladder or not will not deprive you of the ability to go to the temple, is not a breach of covenants if one has been to the temple, and really has no bearing on anything. The Word of Wisdom, on the other hand, will keep you from going to the temple, will keep you from being able to make covenants required for salvation (including baptism), and defies said covenants if one engages in disobedience to it after baptism/temple covenants. So go ahead, exercise your agency to deprive yourself of exaltation. That is, after all, exactly what agency is for.

All camping canceled! Problem solved!

I, on the other hand, see success, day by day, bit by bit, influence won, thinking changed, etc. The dog, little by little, is responding to the tail.

I haven't read through the thread yet, but the question itself is based on a faulty premise. Are LDS as judgmental as evangelicals? Sure. Are evangelicals as judgmental as atheists? Yes. Are atheists as judgmental as Satan worshipers? Yes. Are people, on the whole, regardless of what they believe, judgmental? Yes. As to the maybe we should be -- it depends on what judgement are being made. Righteous judgement is good. Wicked judgment is bad.

I find this surprising.

If you truly believe that impressionable kids cannot be influenced, that there is no decision in the process, or even that a kid might think he has one proclivity but simply hasn't discovered the other until it's placed before him...then maybe the first part of this might make sense. As far as the second part....um......teenagers and emotional wherewithal?

I understand that from your clarification. But I was merely explaining what I meant.

Hugh Nibley agrees (via Joseph Smith). https://www.lds.org/ensign/1976/12/a-strange-thing-in-the-land-the-return-of-the-book-of-enoch-part-8?lang=eng It is the Joseph Smith Enoch which gives the most convincing solution: the beings who fell were not angels but men who had become sons of God. From the beginning, it tells us, mortal men could qualify as “sons of God,” beginning with Adam. “Behold, thou [Adam] art one in me, a son of God; and thus may all become my sons.” (Moses 6:68; italics added.) How? By believing and entering the covenant. “Our father Adam taught these things, and many have believed, and become the sons of God.” (Moses 7:1.) Thus when “Noah and his sons hearkened unto the Lord, and gave heed … they were called the sons of God.” (Moses 8:13.) In short, the sons of God are those who accept and live by the law of God. When “the sons of men” (as Enoch calls them) broke their covenant, they still insisted on that exalted title: “Behold, we are the sons of God; have we not taken unto ourselves the daughters of men?” (Moses 8:21), even as “the sons of men,” reversing the order, married the daughters of those “called the sons of God,” thereby forfeiting their title, “for,” said God to Noah, “they will not hearken to my voice.” (Moses 8:15.) The situation was, then, that the sons of God, or their daughters who had been initiated into a spiritual order, departed from it and broke their vows, mingling with those who observed only a carnal law.

Did you even read the rest of the thread?

You must be right! I never realied that the problem is that I have no idea how to progress in the gospel. Man...all those talks on obedience...all the scriptures. They were full of it! I never knew! What a fool I've been. We've been commanded to exercise faith. This is obedience. We've been commanded to humble ourselves before the Lord. This is obedience. We've been commanded to pray and ask for strength and other things. This is obedience. We've been commanded to desire and plead for the Spirit. This is obedience. The strict Jews in Christ's time were not obedient. If they were then why was Christ constantly telling them keep His commandments, do His will, etc.? Because they weren't doing His will...which means they weren't being obedient. Partial obedience is not obedience. One can't pay their tithes and offerings but fail to visit the sick and needy and claim they are obedient. One can't do their home teaching but fail to love his/her neighbor and claim obedience. One cannot go to church but then come home and work and play all the rest of the Sabbath day and claim obedience. Being obedient is being fully obedient. It's not just conforming to the basic letter of the Mosaic law.

Agreed. If God tells you to build an ark, you do it. The covenant, however, is not to build an ark. It is to obey.

I was going to debate the issue until I read this, whereupon I agree. However, THIS ^ (meaning the need to do so) is, at the very least, a consequence. And that is my plain meaning. Of course the new trend is that this isn't even necessary...just be whatever you happen to feel and as long as you don't do it you're fine. Regardless. Struggling with ANYTHING is consequential, and to say otherwise is naive. I struggle with many, many things. They are all VERY consequential. So I stand by it. Overcome-able? yes. Inconsequential? Hardly.

The means whereby we do this is through obedience to His commandments (and, I will include for the sake of clarity, repentance for those commandments we have broken).

Everyone's requirement is the same. Complete and absolute submission, obedience, and consecration. If you mean in the details (a.k.a. one guy gets called on a mission to Ireland and another gets called to the Philippines...or...one guy is a bishop and the other is a ward librarian....sure....) No. The covenant is the same with everyone. Obedience = eternal life. The directive is plain in the scriptures. Obey.

My question for you skalenfehl, is -- what you are implying needs to be done to seek the Second Comforter? There seems to be an implication that whatever that is either isn't being done, in which case, what needs to be done needs to be specified, or else the point is moderately meaningless -- like saying in response to a post such as John Prathers, "What you need to be doing is seeking for the Celestial Kingdom." Well...duh. But how? The Second Comforter talk as a recommendation falls flat because it is not a how. Moreover, it's a bit of horse-before-the-cart talk. Don't you think that we ought to be seeking the First Comforter first? Wouldn't seeking the comfort, assurance, and guidance of the Holy Ghost be the first order of business. And to that...is not the means of qualifying for the Second Comforter THE EXACT SAME METHOD as seeking for the first? And can one know Jesus the Christ without having it revealed to him/her through the Holy Ghost. I think not. Is not the Second Comforter more of a promise for faithfulness than a directive? Correct me if I'm wrong.

This always makes me chuckle. I expect the record was less than clear in this point, missing several details, etc., of what went down. An example, methinks, of their weakness in writing, etc. :)

This is actually incredibly insightful.

I know this is off-topic for the thread, but this particular statement strikes me as inaccurate. Incosequential? Hardly.

Inside joke...not fair to sklenfehl. :)

I find the idea that Christ will leave us comfortless until we qualify to receive the Second Comforter a bit....what's a nicer way to put this than all the words coming to mind? ....I find it a bit...um...a bit.... Well...fill in a word that isn't too offensive that means what I mean to mean.

The implication is invalid -- that a degree or career is the only, or even the best, way for the brain to develop. In point of fact, the Lord has specified that the best way for us to develop, including our brains, is in families. The best course for a woman's brain to develop is as a wife and mother, just as the best course for a man's brain to develop is as a husband and father. This development is much more important than any academic based schooling we'll ever have. Moreover, the church has always recommended that women marry soon, become mothers, and then do not work out of the home. Of course this thinking has primarily become passe. That's the nature of agency. People are free to disregard whatever advice they want, and the Lord lets us.

Shocking to who? Not to me. Shock is a relative thing, more related to the receiver of information than to the information itself. I think it a bit misleading to imply the correlation itself is "shocking", and the emotive language is probably deceptive.

In this case, I can't speak for anatess...but...I'd say "so concerned" is WAY overstated. I'm not concerned at all. Just talking principle. But I do appreciate that you (at least one apparently) appreciate my approach.