The Folk Prophet

That makes no sense. Wine isn't against the word of wisdom. Alcohol is. Tea is different. Tea is tea...as in the tea leaf. And alcohol, tea, coffee, and tobacco are the list. Surely you wouldn't argue that tobacco processed differently is acceptable to use. You can quibble all day as to whether green tea is or is not against the word of wisdom. I have my opinion. But that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that green tea and black tea are both, decidedly "tea". If someone wants to justify green tea as acceptable, that's up to them.

Also not the same thing. Claims about knowing God come from personal experience with God. And while unprovable (testimony from others is not the test to know God anyhow), they are certainly valid enough to take up a position that God is real. Whereas taking up a position that, without any doubt, God is not real and that when life is over it's the end, is based on nothing more than conjecture. There is no (nor can there be, logically) personal witness for support, because you cannot prove a negative, or so the saying goes.

But logically that is not the same thing at all. A better example, though still un-perfect, is the thought of creatures that we haven't seen on this earth actually existing on some other planet somewhere in the cosmos. And any reasonable irreligious person would likely find it entirely conceivable that there are, indeed, creatures we have never seen before somewhere out in the universe, despite the fact that it is unprovable. It's is invalid to compare a general assumption based on knowledge we do have (the creatures of the earth have, for the most part, been discovered, and the rainbow-tooting unicorn hasn't been seen) compared to a general assumption based on knowledge we do not (the greater part of the cosmos hasn't been discovered yet). Moreover, the rainbow-tooting unicorn is an unreasonable, meaninglessly random idea, whereas there is clear and obvious (albeit not provable) indications that there may well be a higher power in the universe.

Well now that wasn't what I said at all. That's presuming a whole heap of stuff about how procreation of spirit children by exalted beings works. Still...as I said, not what I said. You stated that there is no reason to be more than friends without sex, and that without it you may as well not be married, and the context of the discussion clearly relates to this mortal life. As we have no idea how that will all work in the next life it would be pointless to discuss more than this life. D&C 131 clearly lays out the fact that in order to even get to the Celestial Kingdom where we will even have the chance to create spirit children (however that is to be done) then we have to be married for time and all eternity. It says nothing about having sex in that marriage in mortality (other than implied procreation efforts) whatsoever. That doesn't, logically, mean that sexless marriage is good. It simply means that there's more reason to be and stay married in this life than to have sex and/or to have children -- which is what I said. Your application of your limited mortal understanding of the way things work to an eternal, glorified, exalted realm notwithstanding, the fact of the matter is that we have no idea, as I have stated, how spirit children will be created. None whatsoever. Any presumption of celestial sex is pure conjecture and non-doctrinal. Regardless, as I've pointed out, our physical relations or lack thereof in the eternal realm is entirely irrelevant to our obedience in this realm. Marriage is a commandment. Sex is not. Now...to be fair, we are commanded to multiply and replenish the earth, and clearly that means some level of sex. But it certainly doesn't mean that if a marriage gets into a state where the sex is diminished or gone altogether that it justifies walking away from our covenants. And your contention that those who do not so engage may not be worthy of the celestial sphere is incorrect. The qualifications for exaltation are clearly laid before us. Obedience to the commandments and ordinances of God. As stated, that may mean enough sex to make an honest effort to procreate in this life (though in today's world and technology, that isn't even required with In Vitro and the like), but beyond that...your presumptions are unsupportable.

Green tea is tea. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. It is is the exact same plant. The exact same thing. Just a younger version of it.

If we struggle to be righteous, I feel confident that the Lord will put us down the paths He would have us down, regardless of our stupidity in prayer. Stay righteous. Stay faithful. And trust the Lord.

The only way to bring fairness and equality in this life is to preach the gospel of Christ. If everyone accepted it and truly lived according to it's principles, then all would be equitable. That's it. That's the only way. And so, we go and we preach the gospel. It is through this means that we strive to solve the world's problems. I'm not saying there aren't political ideas that might help here and there. But I agree that forcing everybody to be equal is a horrible idea. Add to that, it would never work. Not without people actually being Christlike. It would force poverty upon us all, and certainly lead to an uprising ultimately to throw off government oppression. If everyone on the earth accepted Christ's teachings and actively went about feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, etc., then the problems would be solved.

I doubt it will take 100 years. Maybe 30.

fairmormon may not be official, but it sources everything pretty well from official sources, etc...

In my opinion, all three of these ideas are beyond over-simplification of extremely complex things.

I want to change my answer to this ^.

Why are all your arguments semantics? Can you not see that? Who cares whether you call the pre-existence "exalted" or not. Yes, in one meaning of the word. No in another. Stop arguing about the meanings of words and pretending like you're discussing doctrine. :)

Interesting. Perhaps. Though, did we ever have the ability to communicate with Him on that level? Maybe that's part of what it's all about, eh? :)

The Great Debate has been settled. Some of us know that. :)

Being respectful is not how others perceive you. It is internal. If you are respectful but offend, that's on them. Our General Authorities are a prime example. They are always respectful in the way they addresses these issues. But read what the antis say about them. They may as well be a bunch of HItlers. The most evil, hateful men that ever lived. It is simple*. You speak the truth. Boldly. But you do so diplomatically, and with care in your wording. It's a skill -- one I don't have down yet, that's for sure. But when I have said something right and true and taken great care in how I say it, and I know I've taken great care, and then others come at me calling me arrogant, rude, inconsiderate, unkind, uncaring, and disrespectful, I know that they are in the wrong, not me. On the other hand, there are times (too many of them) when I have not taken great care about how I say things, and in those cases I am wrong too. But the solution is not to shut up. It is to take great care. The reality is that I see little difference in when I take great care and when I don't as to the amount of offense it causes when I stand up for truth. But I know the difference even if those offended don't. * edit: this is one of those examples of me saying things badly. It's not simple at all. I wish it was. But the idea behind it is simple. Do what is right, let the consequence follow...etc.

Not to be too nit-picky, but how can He miss us when he has past, present, and future always before him, sees all things, constantly hears us, knows us, sees us, etc., etc., etc...? I'm not sure missing us plays into it. But, I know, I know...nit picky.

For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. - Moses 1:39

I agree with your mom too.

Where does Elder Oaks say to not raise our voices?

This thread has turned too personal and I'm not enjoying it any longer so I will step out out it. The good parts of the conversation I have enjoyed. The attacking, accusing, holier-than-thou, "I'm just trying to help you be a better person" boloney...not so much. I apologize for those times when I have been guilty of the same. See you in another thread. TFP

I'm curious. Do you consider your comments to me respectful? You keep criticizing me because you disagree with me. What's your objective in this. Humiliation? Winning the argument? Just cutting me down? Hurting my feelings? Cow me into submission? I love how the liberals always feel they have something to teach me. The poor conservative who just doesn't understand, doesn't love people as well, has no respect for anyone, and just needs to learn to be a better person. Meanwhile they tear me apart, hurt my feelings, call me names, and accuse me of all sorts of horrible things. Hypocrisy anyone? Because a few people on a forum disagree with me? I'm of the opinion that you need to look a little closer at your opinion. Too bad I don't have a few others in the room right now on my side. Then I could make the same argument to you. Oh well. Respectfully, you are mistaken.

First of all, how do you know I haven't looked at other's experiences closely? Secondly, and more importantly, truth comes from God through Holy Spirit, not through corrupt mortal philosophies that call good evil and evil good. The whole world could come together and determine that murder is okay. I still know it's not. It simply doesn't matter what the consensus is. More importantly, and why your comment really was entirely irrelevant, is because the fact that there's two or three others being vocal and agreeing with you and none with me is meaningless. So we have a crowd (a very, very small one) that's favorable to your thinking. Another day the situation may be the reverse. So if there were more vocal conservatives expressing comments which agreed with mine would it make me more or less right? The answer is neither. It's irrelevant. Truth is not relative. Morality is not relative. It is what it is. Either I'm right or I'm wrong (or a combination of the two), but how many others join with me or not doesn't change that at all.

My thinking too. Which is the lesser of the two evils? Hard to say.

Then you should stick with your understanding of God's word. Nothing could be less relevant to truth.

That sounds like a decidedly dangerous challenge. I hope no one takes you up on it.