The Folk Prophet

What is shallow, after all? It's all relative. Good, better, best. Enjoying nature is fine. Relative to true, eternal joy, I call it shallow. God's work and His glory, after all, is not to enjoy nature. It is, explicitly, to bring immortality and eternal life to man. This is true glory, true joy, and where true value lies. All else is shallow in comparison. That doesn't mean it's wrong to enjoy nature. But it will not bring us true joy. Perhaps, just maybe, true joy comes from being about our Father's business. Don't you think?

Haven't you two been over this before (What inheriting all God has as it relates to Gender)? I'm having major deja vu. SemSnooz's views on gender in the Celestial Kingdom are wacky. I seem to recall that from before too.

I'll put it the way Christ did in the King James: Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures Of course in the newer translations, it's: You do not know the Scriptures

You don't know the scriptures.

Right. I don't necessarily disagree. My point is simply that the idea that true happiness comes from shallow ideas like creating art, hanging out with buddies, or skipping through the daisies is silly.

This.

Exactly. I, for example, spend around 16 hours a day on a computer. At least 12 of that is earning a living. That does not, in any way, justify a child spending 16 hours a day on a computer.

Oh...and I think this state will be very rare. Exaltation without Eternal Life (no marriage and eternal family progression)? Those who chose to follow all of God's ways but said, "No thanks" to marriage and family? Not common, imo.

I'm sure you'll get all sorts of views on this by various LDS folk. And every one of them is probably nothing more than opinion. So here's my opinion. I, personally, think that a lot more LDS folk are going to end up in outer darkness than we think. A fair number, indeed, will be in the Terrestrial, and a fair number more, indeed, will be in the Telestial. As to the non-LDS making the Celestial Kingdom...sure...but only if they choose so...which also means choosing to accept the gospel at some point, whether it be in this life or the next. There are some concretes requirements we can point to for Celestial glory, and the ordinances of the priesthood performed by proper authority are undeniable requisites. No one who has not taken upon themselves the ordinances required will enter therein. So, from a certain point of view, no one who hasn't joined some form of the LDS church at some point will qualify. But specifying it as strictly "LDS" is invalid. (The LD stands for Latter-day, after all. Surely those in previous days who took on the gospel and followed the proper ordinances, etc., will qualify as wall as those in latter-days, and yet they did not belong to the "latter" day church in any regard. )

Really though? You've never heard about depressed, addicted, or angry artists?

Which definition is that?

Angry Jesus...brown robe. Check.

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".

Now, here's the real question? Where is the line between standing firmly for truth in spite of the offense it might cause, and just plain tactless and rude delivery. Many of the prophet's expressions in the scriptures were, moderately speaking, somewhat tactless and rude. Even many of Christ's words could be viewed that way. (They took offense at Him and crucified Him for a reason, after all). And yet, Christ, being perfect, was able to clearly understand and choose His words in such a way that, although they were viewed as rude by some, were the right thing to say. He, and the prophets as well (I suspect by the power of the Holy Spirit) were able to draw that line. That line has been pushed harder and harder by society. And in some ways, I suppose, it behooves us to accommodate that line, because rudeness is, after all, a cultural thing (things are only perceived as rude -- it is not a concrete reality). I don't know. It's a challenging thing for sure.

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

It is not argument by assertion. We don't claim we have the truth because we just do, or that our interpretation just happens to be more valid than anyone else's (as you well know by countless discussions you've had with us). We claim knowledge of truth by a specific process of qualification and testing -- a process you deny as valid, which is your right -- but it is not simply argument by assertion any more than me claiming knowledge of any individual I've had personal contact with. It is nothing more or less than a witness of something we have directly experienced, which witness is considered valid in any circle unless there is reason to suspect the witness to be erroneous by deception or malice. Claim we're crazy or underhanded and I'll take it as a valid response. Claiming we're just arguing from assertion is ignoring our actual premise.

Hmm. I think I'm going to go with parental failure.

Right. God gave Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, and Adolf Hitler their unique perspectives just to add variety to the world. How can we possibly understand truth without serious discussion and consideration of their opinions, because every opinion is just as valid as the next, and it's just plain arrogance to assume that we understand something better or have a greater grasp on truth than Jeffery Dahmer did. And God just made us all different, so obviously difference is good and we should embrace it all. There's no universal truth. I'll say it again -- just not to Paulsifer -- I did not even imply in the slightest that we should folllow blindy or discontinue all discussion. Such an interpretation of my comment is ridiculous.

I'll say it once more (and for the last time) I didn't say that. You're determination to be antagonistic to me is wearing thin. I'm done.

Speak for yourself.

You have read into my statement that we shouldn't talk about it or discuss it. I did not say that. I said that in believing that we have truth, we are in a position where we aren't going to say thing just to appease someone else's thinking. Your determination that I mean no discussion or debate should be had is invalid.

Blindly? Who's the one jumping to conclusions about meaning? My comment suggests nothing of the sort. Nothing about blindness (very clearly the opposite, actually, as it directly addresses seeking truth), and doesn't speak to debate whatsoever. The context was quite clear. He said that if we convince him that our views align with his then he's ours forever. I say in response that we're not interested in making our views align with his if they don't fit God's truth. If you disagree, then you're more than welcome to make your views fit his so he'll be yours forever and you can skip off to happy la-la land content in your self-satisfaction that you have found mutual agreement. Go for it.

Since "ungrateful and entitled" pretty much sums up people in today's day and age, if we don't serve them, then who? As to your situation, just ignore it. You do what you have to. If they're offended, that's their issue.

No...the suggestion seems to be that we stop earning money (or that any excess we earn is ripped away from us forcefully). And, of course, if we earn less (or have less) money, by default, we spend less too.