The Folk Prophet

That depends on what you mean by regret I suppose. I expect that anyone who doesn't receive exaltation will always have an understanding of that, and always know that had they chosen differently they could have had it. And we know they will never have a fulness of joy. But if we're thinking of regret as simply never coming to terms with something, then I agree. I think it plain that whatever state anyone is in, eventually, they'll have to come to terms with it (well...maybe not outer darkness...but that isn't a kingdom of glory...so....) That being said, I'm fairly sure that for the most part, we have no idea what we're talking about.

I cannot imagine why anyone would presume such a thing. First, we all knew, full well, what God was all about prior to this life. We knew what God did and we desired it already. By implication, you're saying that if someone actually experiences the Celestial Kingdom they might change their mind. Which also means that theoretically God could change His mind. But we know that is impossible.

Wouldn't the answer be, "baaaaa"?

And you won't find greater merit from an intellectual point of view. We do not claim greater intellectual merit. What we claim is the truth by revelation that each individual has a right to. And that merit cannot be debated away, intellectualized away, or otherwise discredited to said individual. That is the great difference. See if you can get a Jehovah's Witness to put intellectualism secondary to spiritual witness and you'll see what I mean.

Maybe. But the video you posted was awesome. Thanks.

Morality is strictly defined by what is right and what is wrong, which in turn is defined by God, which we know God's purpose is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man, which the point of is our joy. In other words, our best chance for happiness. But, whatever. It was just an idea. I'm not married to it.

You say it's not, per se, a morality issue, but then you go on to describe exactly what makes a morality issue a morality issue. As in, "they're about us having the best chance for happiness that we can." <-- the whole point of morality.

Here here. However, it's not so simple as just tasting the dark and the light and then saying, "Hmm...I think the light tastes better." If it were, there would be lot less confusion. The sad truth is that if I was just going on what tastes better (based on my ever so limited experience) the carnal and the sinful tastes better to my natural, carnal self. That sort of thing seems to be across the board for most people. Not going to church tasted better than going to church. Not doing my home teaching tastes better than doing it. Not serving tastes better. Etc., etc... I have had relatively few experiences in my life that have been concrete !!!! Oh - righteousness IS happiness !!!! moments. When they come, they're stunning, of course. But for the most part, we have to act on something other than a concrete, "Ah yes, the light tastes better " -- experience. What am I talking about? FAITH. We have to act on Faith. We have to trust that the labor, the long-suffering, the service, the challenges, the poopy-diapers, the discipline, etc., is worth it. If we simply compare the taste -- literally -- the natural man is, well, natural to us. Without faith, we would choose the darkness. The challenge of life is not to see if we'll choose the good over the evil with the immediate reward laid right before us. If that were the case (as it was in the pre-existence) then we would choose the good. We've already proven that in our first estates. Rather, the test of life is to see if we will choose the good on faith alone. This is where I struggle with parts of your ideas. It strikes me that you're claiming that even when the veil is removed, and we no longer have to make the choice on faith alone, that we'll all be on equal footing and simply be able to choose at that point which tastes better. But that is in opposition to the whole plan of Salvation. If that were the test, the the only reason we'd have for mortality would be to get a body - and the veil would not be required at all. So, as I said, we're not in complete opposition to one another on the general idea (how could we be...the thoughts are based on the same gospel) but I feel like you're missing part of the equation in your ultimate conclusion.

I'd be less worried about church discipline, and more worried about why the church strongly discourages it, and therefore, more worried about what God thinks.

That's not really my beef. See my above thread. I'm more worried about the reckoning that is promised by the Lord to the wicked inhabitants of this continent.

Yes. My feelings are hurt. That's exactly what I meant. People want to relegate every issue to the lowest simplistic common denominator. But things are just, plainly, not that simple. Cause and effect reaches fairly wide. I'm reminded of the Economics of Sex video skalenfehl posted the other day: http://lds.net/forums/topic/56350-any-matt-walsh-fans-here/?p=810002 Cause and effect. Now can I draw a conclusive cause and effect prediction that will convince everyone of the danger? No. But I have enough trust in the warnings and teachings of our prophets and apostles to feel quite confident. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets. - Proclamation on the Family But, of course, those calamities won't affect me or my spouse, so why should I worry?

I'm glad you got to read it before I whimped out and added the not-funny-anymore disclaimer then.

Gay marriage is the answer. Edit: I know explaining one's joke makes it not funny...but as I'm primarilly concerned with other things than being funny... I'm KIDDING! Just in case.

I, on the other hand, cannot imagine how anyone can think that it won't affect all of society, including heterosexual marriages. One can argue that the effect will or will not be bad for society, but to claim that it won't have any effect at all seems fairly socially amaurotic*. * I confess to having used a thesaurus for this word. I was looking for a better word than just "blind"...more along the lines of something that mean sticking one's head in the sand or wearing blinders than all out "blindness", but when the thesaurus pulled up amaurotic as a synonym, I couldn't resist the garrulous superciliousness** of it. **

Lest you think I am 100% at odds with you on this, I should clarify that I am not. I do think there is some merit in what you are saying. But I think it is, in some ways, a bit beyond the mark, so to speak. There are plenty of scriptures that warn us against believing lies. And everyone who follows Satan is being beguiled, deceived and lied to. By your reasoning then, no one would stand accountable and our salvation is sure, because we are all, who sin, deceived. It just doesn't fit, your prayers and fasting argument notwithstanding, the teachings in the scriptures. Matt 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Lest you think I do not know my scriptures and don't know where you're pulling your ideas from, here's Alma 41:5: The one raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil; for as he has desired to do evil all the day long even so shall he have his reward of evil when the night cometh. But where I think you're astray, a bit, is in applying this "desire" invalidly in reverse. I'll give an example of what I mean. A man who is poor because he has never taken the appropriate steps to earn, never did well in school, never bothered to try for good jobs, never bothered to save, etc., etc., etc. Now some would say that this man never desired wealth, because if he truly desired it he would do what was required for wealth. On the other hand, it is perfectly valid to say that a lazy man sitting around watching TV all day and never showing any ambitions still desires wealth (presumably to support his sitting around watching TV all day.) I think the first of these two ideas is mistaken. A man who desires one thing more than another (laziness over wealth) does not logically equate to no desire for the other. It simply means he desired the first more. It's like the son who didn't do his homework and then is not allowed to go to a party or something, and he says, "But I really wanted to go," and the parent replies, "Obviously you didn't really want to go or you would have done your homework." Every teenager knows that this is bull. They still want to go to the party. Duh. Of course they still want to go. Their stronger desire to not do their homework does not mean they no longer wish to have their cake and eat it too, so to speak. I think that is a much better explanation of the eternities. Those who fail to achieve Celestial glory will desire it...they will desire the joy, the power, the glory. But they will, ultimately, just as the lazy man in front of the TV, have desired something else more. That doesn't mean they don't want the joy, power, and glory. Even Satan is a prime example of this. His entire downfall was based on desiring God's glory. And I think it fairly safe to presume that he still desires this. But not enough to have made the hard and humble choice to do what it took to qualify for it. He, ultimately, chose what his true desires were, based on his choices and actions. That is where I believe your ideas fail. You are applying desire to sin to mean a lack of desire for the rewards of righteousness. But that is invalid. It simply means they desire to sin MORE than they desire the rewards of righteousness, not that they despise the rewards of righteousness. I hope you can see that our thinking is not entirely at odds. Obviously a wicked man does not desire to do righteousness. And that is valid. If a man stands before God on judgment day and truly and honestly desires to do nothing more than righteousness, then yes, I cannot see God telling him to go jump. Of course this desire will have manifested in the man's life choices, but in theory we can agree there. If, on the other hand, the man desires to do righteousness, but just not when the going gets tough, or when it actually means sacrificing or humbling himself, etc., then clearly the man desires evil more, and his desire to righteousness and the attending blessings is insufficient and he will be cast off.

Are we headed back towards the 1000 year life spans of the early biblical years? -- once they get the cost down of course. Perhaps this is part of the restoration of all things. Heheh.

Heheh. Next time use a pointer...as in: I understood it to be this ^^^ :) Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's rather odd, in my opinion, to view God's justice as a trick or beguilement. What you're essentially saying here is that if God gives to anyone their just desserts that he's being dishonest with them. A claim that God will only give us that which we want is incongruent with scripture. You are, essentially, arguing that mercy can rob justice. But it cannot. God has established the rules by which we will gain salvation and He cannot deny His word. He has established that our salvation is contingent upon our repentance, faith, and obedience in this life. Frankly, your theory smacks to me of 2 Nephi 28:7 And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God.

Then you are understanding his post differently than me, because what I read was... Wailing, gnashing teeth... They'll be pleased as punch to be on their way to outer darkness because it's what they desire, and the only reason they'll be gnashing their teeth is because they can't take everybody with them.

Because sushi is one of the few things I've learned to appreciate with some heat.

This thread makes me want sushi.

I'm a really big fan of Jos. A. Banks shirts. But they're SO expensive (relatively...I'm sure there are more expensive shirts out there). The distribution shirts I got I hardly ever wear. They are "cheap" in all senses of the word. But that doesn't mean they are not a good choice if one needs new inexpensive shirts. As a potential compromise, consider Kirkland brand shirts from Costco. They run around $15 I think and they're much higher quality.

That may be so, but your personal experience does not define how the eternities work. Of course, the theory only matters insomuch as it might drive someone to choose or behave differently than they might have otherwise. I'm not sure the theory you have is detrimental to anyone -- though I worry slightly that it is. There is, in my opinion, a distinct danger in the, I am what I am and that's just the way it is, but that's okay because I'll be happy being who I am so I don't need to worry about it, sort of interpretation that could easily stem from it.

That, and that any so-called restitution efforts by someone who tortured, raped, and murdered your child are going to fall a bit flat. That last thing I would want is that person mowing my lawn or something.

I believe that is part of it. I think it entirely inadequate to explain the warnings given throughout the scriptures. Why warn if everyone is just going to be pleased with their lot? That makes no sense to me whatsoever. When the scriptures teach us that wickedness NEVER was happiness...I take it as literal. And the opposite of happiness is not...happiness. There is opposition in all things. The opposition to a fullness of joy is a fullness of sorrow. And everyone who fails to attain a fullness of joy must therefore have some measure of sorrow in their state. Yes, they choose their own fate by their character. They are what they are, and they are rewarded accordingly. But that doesn't mean they're happy about it, pleased by it, glad it turned out that way, or even okay with it to any degree. But they will confess that it is just.