Third Hour Forum Rules - Please be familiar with these rules before posting
Log in changes to forums

The Folk Prophet

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    12428

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    197

 Content Type 

Everything posted by The Folk Prophet

  1. The Folk Prophet
    There's a reason for that. It certainly wasn't to uphold sin. It is, in fact, the same reason why we send out missionaries all over the world. I don't recall Jesus visiting Pubs. Let's see...mountains, fishing boats, weddings, homes, fields... Yeah...not remembering the beer halls.
  2. The Folk Prophet
    Traveler, what filter are you using to determine what is "prejudice" (as you call it) and what is revealed truth? It's easy to say that we all have prejudices. But if we simply label other's thinking as prejudice as an argumentative device it's less useful. To say, for example. that one's testimony as revealed by the Holy Ghost is prejudice is, from a certain perspective, valid, and from another perspective entirely invalid. So I'm wondering, what filter do you use in determining these things? I'm not disagreeing with you that we have prejudices (including inspired, righteous leaders of the church), but how do we determine what is and is not prejudice? Rather, how do you determine this?
  3. The Folk Prophet
    It's an entirely logically deficient argument -- totally circular, and a frank waste of time to debate. The fact that things aren't as explicit in the Bible is exactly why we need to Book of Mormon. It does little to prove that the Book of Mormon is wrong to point out that there is detail in the Book of Mormon that isn't in the Bible. We Mormons are well aware that the Book of Mormon provides clarity that the Bible lacks. Pointing out that something isn't in the Bible does little to persuade us. That being said, asking to receive from God IS in the Bible. It's just less explicit. So...whatever...enjoy your interpretation Jungler.
  4. The Folk Prophet
    Well, Matt 7:7 comes to mind. Also James 1:5. Although I suppose your perception of these scriptures will lead you to explain them away as meaning something entirely different. You can call it vague allusion. It's hard to see James 1:5 as vague. It's pretty straightforward. Either way...no conflict between these teachings and the Book of Mormon. None.
  5. The Folk Prophet
    The majority agreeing on something is irrelevant. What I mean, unquestionably, is that desire itself is a matter of volition. It is choice. Plain and simple. Sure, there's a default if we don't choose. There's no neutral. But we can, absolutely, without any doubt, choose what we desire. The "I can't help what I feel" is bull. It cannot be. It is totally incongruent with the gospel. I can't help anger. I can't help jealously. I can't help lust. I can't help laziness. I can't help...I can't help...I can't help. I do not believe it. We can help it. We can control it. We can choose. Let's be clear. Drive is not the same as desire. We are naturally driven to all sorts of depravity. And by this we are all enemies to God. We are capable of choosing to desire otherwise.
  6. The Folk Prophet
    What you're saying, though you refuse to admit or accept it, is that we can follow what your human perception of what the Bible teaches, or we can follow what the Book of Mormon writer's human perception (as we Latter-day Saints perceive with our human perception) teaches us the Bible teaches. There is no conflict between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. There is only conflict between your human perception of the Bible and the Book or Mormon.
  7. The Folk Prophet
    Impossible. Human perception is all we have. We are human.
  8. The Folk Prophet
    Anyone who doesn't believe that desires are a matter of volition denies the principle of agency. If we cannot choose what we desire, a matter upon which we will be judged, then we are not accountable.
  9. The Folk Prophet
    We have no idea. That's between him and God.
  10. The Folk Prophet
    Now that would get in the way of his masculinity.
  11. The Folk Prophet
    Which is Penn's definition of morality. What if another disagrees? How can one know this if one is an atheist? Who says being respectful qualifies as good? Get my point? It's relative. And not all agree. Without a higher power, Penn and his kind are just spouting off politically correct, popular ideas. To make the point extreme... Did Hitler believe himself immoral? What about Stalin? What about slave owners in the pre-emancipated South? Etc., etc... Without a higher power, morality is relative. And morality, is not relative. Without a higher power there can be no true morality. Just a bunch of people's opinions.
  12. The Folk Prophet
    I accept that women find masculinity attractive. I do not accept that doing the dishes is not masculine. I agree with this too. I think where I disagree is in what defines the roles of each gender. It's not the stereotypes.
  13. The Folk Prophet
    That if you have an opportunity to commit adultery and then murder to cover it up that you might want to pass on it.
  14. The Folk Prophet
    I flatly disagree with this. Morality is not relative. Without religion, it must be relative, because there is no all-knowing being to strictly define it. It goes to man's point-of-view as to what constitutes morality, which is no morality at all. Without God telling us what is and is not right and wrong, we are lost. Sure. we may get some basics moderately right when they're popular. But...nope... Penn Jillette is full of it. Sorry...thread jack over.
  15. The Folk Prophet
    Living the gospel is obedience. Plain and simple.
  16. The Folk Prophet
    I also call hogwash. Masculinity and gender roles has absolutely nothing to do with washing dishes or not. There are way too many skipped and missing variables to draw any sort of conclusions from a study like this. For example, there's no reason to presume that the less masculine man is a result of the feminine chores, rather than the feminine chores perhaps being a result of the lesser masculinity (I'm not arguing this is the case -- as I pointed out, I don't think masculinity has anything to do with dishes or vacuuming, just pointing out the inconclusive nature of the points being drawn). Also, the same can be said of the traditional interpretation often seen in the reading of Kimball's "sex is one of the primary causes of divorce" statement. There's no reason to presume that statement is because the husband and or wife is bad at sex, doesn't engage often enough, or is based in other worldly, self-centered views of sex. In point of fact, there's every reason to presume that it is just the opposite of that. That sex being one of the primary causes of divorce is because people's attitudes about sex is messed up and self-centered. The messed up self-centered attitude will lead to sexual problems regardless of the frequency of supposed quality of relations. A translation of this statement to mean we need to ensure we're having higher amounts of quality sex is totally invalid, and the frequency of people's interpreting it this way is indicative of the problem.
  17. The Folk Prophet
    This is a great example of how the term is not a one-sized fits all, imposed upon us by "the man" to keep us scared into...uh...futility. I am a big-time "clean" eater...and yet I have no interest in natural unprocessed foods. I only care about macro-nutrients. Natural or unnatural. Whatever. So clearly "clean" means something different to Pam and me. Which is exactly the point. Sticking to whatever eating plan makes sense and works for an individual and staying true to it. Stepping outside of that plan is the "dirty" eating. It's not the food itself that defines the meaning of clean and dirty. It's the commitment to the plan. You do it cleanly or you don't.
  18. The Folk Prophet
    Really? Conspiracy theory much? The diet/exercise/industrial complex is out to get us? This seems just a bit paranoid. The term "eating clean" simply implies sticking to an eating plan that will render results. It's not used to manipulate or scare or anything like that. When we talk about eating clean it means, generally, staying off unhealthy fats and refined carb, and keeping one's calorie intake at the proper level. It doesn't have any implication beyond that. Scaring people into futility? That doesn't even make sense. But even if it did make sense, and some were scared into futility (whatever that means) by the term, what possible motivation could the diet/exercise/industrial complex have for wanting to scare people into futility?
  19. The Folk Prophet
    The only beings that need to be "given" agency are those who do not have the power to take it upon themselves. God is all powerful. He is the ultimate agent unto himself. We are given agency because we are not all powerful, and so the ability to be agents unto ourselves is given by one who is all powerful. Of course God has agency. He is his own agent. He represents Himself and no other. As for Sem Snoozer's idea, there is a distinct possibility that we, at some point, did not have agency. Agency requires knowledge and accountability. We may have not always had both of those things.
  20. The Folk Prophet
    What lies were being told? He seemed pretty upfront that it was about "supersizing" the meals and finishing them. I'm not arguing on behalf of the documentary or something (I tend to think many docs like that are misleading), just curious as to what you're specifically accusing it of.
  21. The Folk Prophet
    Right. I understand that. What I'm trying to say is that there is some relativity involved here. A few years back when I was extreme in my fitness and eating, and eating "clean" all the time, a cheat meal would make me feel horrible. Now that I'm steadily eating less "clean", the same foods that would make me feel bad a few years back do not. The body is two things: resilient, and varied. It does not strike me that a universal statement on how one would feel eating a certain food type can possibly be valid. For some people, yes. For some people no. Depends on a variety of factors. Age. Eating habits. Metabolism. Etc... That's my thinking on it.
  22. The Folk Prophet
    Regardless of how one felt, I don't think anyone could reasonably claim that eating Twinkies is healthy. The point, however, is simply that when it comes to weight loss, calories are king. That doesn't make eating Twinkies to lose weight a good idea. But...well...there it is. :)
  23. The Folk Prophet
    I'm not sure there's any valid reason to presume that.
  24. The Folk Prophet
    Very interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/ I'm not sure one man doing one experiment is conclusive, of course. But it's interesting.
  25. The Folk Prophet
    The church isn't telling you to throw away the relationship. That's a silly interpretation. Dating others as well doesn't mean you can't still be friends, hang out, and even date. Just don't date each other steadily.