The Folk Prophet

You're inserting a whole bunch of garbage into what I said that I did not. That is not useful. I did not say no one but an LDS person has seen the light. The spirit speaks truth. There is truth outside the LDS church. Anyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ may have the spirit witness this too them. I don't much appreciate your reading a bunch of ideas that weren't mine into what I said and then accusing me of arrogance. I never said the OP couldn't feel the spirit because they aren't LDS. That is a crock! What I said, and I stand by it whether you think it's arrogant or not, is that warm fuzzies are not the spirit. If you had bothered to read my answer with a bit more care you'd clearly see that I was talking about LDS people too who have never truly felt the spirit. So who's on the arrogance train here?

We're not disagreeing. You're just leaving off the "of what to be and do in life" part. And, as all things, it's not black and white. Solomon set some good examples and some bad. My point was simply--and I think this the key point--the wisdom of Solomon was insufficient. As is the wisdom of intellectuals. We must not fall away from the grace of it, as you put it.

While you're at it, see: Mosiah 5:52 Corinthians 2:9D&C 105:3Genisis 6:22Matthew 7:21D&C 130:21 and, of course, Abraham 3:25 Plus a myriad of others.

I believe the word you are looking for is forbidded. If he "forbidded" Adam and Eve...

My wife's hair looks an awful lot like this. I really like the undercut hairstyle in spite of the fact that it's become the "Miley Cyrus" look.

My wife has always wanted to do pink hair. But...not gonna work out as we are temple workers and it just wouldn't be appropriate. Her hair already pushes the limits on that matter (she has it undercut). It ties into the modesty thread, doesn't it. Not drawing attention to oneself and all. Pink hair isn't exactly modest.

It doesn't take intellectualism to come to that conclusion though. God pretty much laid it out for us. :) (Side note: Solomon ended up turning away from God, of course, and disobeying him, so perhaps not the best example of what to be and do in life.)

I also suggest looking into time travel...oh wait...

Haha.

I used to only like long hair. As I've gotten older that's changed. I actually encouraged my wife to cut her hair off short. Of course not all short haircuts are equal. But neither are all long hair cuts. A cute cut is a cute cut. Short or long is less relevant, except in that it may be relevant to how it looks on a person (some people's faces take short/long hair better than others).

It's sort of funny if you think about it. One of those gospel paradoxes. We are commanded to not be commanded in all things. As to your point. The logic is askew. The idea that God does not command us in all things does not alleviate our responsibility to obey in all things. The scripture you quote is really more about the details. At the broadest level, God has commanded in that which we must do. But He does not detail out how. For example. Serve. But how? Make cookies. Work in someone's yard? Read to them. Babysit? The details are left to us in most cases. But the principle is commanded, and we should obey. And by obedience we gain salvation. I mean, really, if there is something we are supposed to do that God has not commanded us, what is is? Anything you come up with would fit within His commands. Love God. Love your neighbor. Have faith. Keep the commandments and ordinances. Serve. Worship. Teach. Etc., etc...

I would contend (I think we have a theme running in separate threads) that all mortal intellectualism is pseudo intellectualism. Which is exactly why it is a problem.

We're really back to the same debate we've had before. We don't entirely agree. I do not believe mankind is equipped to interpret God's justice. So we obey. Yes, God cannot be just. But that doesn't mean He never does things that WE think are unjust. The scriptures and doctrines are full of examples of this. God does things that seem unjust to man all the time. And man, being foolish, therefore ignores God, relegates something He did or said to unimportant, or turns away from Him accordingly. But, like I said, we don't really entirely disagree.

That's not really my objection. There are other fundamental differences, even secularly, to them. But, really, when you introduce the condition of a perfect people, then capitalism is perfect too. And so is monarchy. It really defeats the whole point of discussing it to throw that variable in. The real discussion needs to be, what works best for an imperfect society, which is what we live in.

Is that what happened? I'm not so sure. You're equating intelligence and the use of logic with "intellectualism", which could be seen as the same thing, but it is not, from my reading, what the author was talking about. Moreover, and more to the point, the argument was not that intellectualism as a whole was flawed. It was pointing out problems in the way many intellectualists approach the gospel. If one points out flaws in they way one uses words does it mean language is flawed? See...intelligence and intellectualism is not being used to mean the same thing by the author...so you defining them as equivalent is decidedly unfair as a rebuttal. That being said, I do agree with the idea you're presenting of focus on some things to the exclusion of others being the problem. I do not see it (nor do I feel the article presents it) as the entire problem. There are also half-truths taken out of context in these "overemphasized" things. And, there is, undoubtedly, a reality to being able to overemphasize things -- moderation and wisdom being components of the whole truth of the gospel. So you're point is valid, but it does not completely capture the problem, imo.

Bull-oney. That's like comparing tithing to taxes. It ain't the same thing.

Thanks. Your wisdom has made me a better man.

Um...I need to repent...a lot...apparently. No one ever told me I can't think about my wife that way in Sacrament meeting. Dang it!

Irrelevant. We don't know how much of the pre-existent knowledge Adam and Eve retained. God commands. We obey. Elsewise it is sin. Whether we understand it to be inside, outside, or upside God's plan is not the issue. God says to cut off Laban's head do we say, "But, that's against thy plan." No. We do as God commands regardless of our logical sense of it. Trying to put action and choice within the scope of God's plan rather than obedience to God's word is a half truth. We cannot understand. We can obey. This is a good point and valid to the discussion. If the fall had to be chosen, and thereby Adam had to eat the fruit, then what about all the rest of us who ate no fruit? Uh... What?

This is somewhat in contradiction to missionaries wearing suits and ties, particularly in certain areas of the world. Undoubtedly part of why missionaries dress as missionaries is to draw attention to themselves. It's the "why" we draw attention to ourselves that matters. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Matt 5:16 So I partially agree with you, but partially not. :)

I've been thinking about it and came up with pretty much the same idea. God had to forbid it because it led to death, and God's purpose is to bring to pass life, therefore He forbids that which brings death.

As per the thread from a few weeks back -- the fruit and the trees may or may not be literal anyhow, right? :) It may simply have been a choice between continuing on in innocence, or stepping into opposition. That, of course, still leads to Semsnoozers question, maybe phrased a bit more simply. If the plan of salvation was that we face opposition, then why did the Lord forbid Adam to choose opposition? I cannot help but thing it comes down to the word. Forbid. We think of this in terms of laying down a mandate. But if we tweak it a bit and see it as laying down a warning instead, perhaps it makes more sense. Instead of "I don't want you to do this," it may have meant, "I am warning you that if you do this it will both suck and blow at the same time."

Where? Show me where Americans bash other countries and the thread doesn't get locked. Sheesh. This forum's turned quite anti-American in the past few days. It's funny how you caution someone to not say anything critical and then proceed to do just that. Awesome.

Well how do you know this isn't the way God presented the command to Adam? There's no reason to presume (assuming we accept that Adam made a knowing choice) that God did not lay it out that clearly to them. All we get is "I forbid it", but that's from how long ago through how many writers and translators, etc.? I know we get the same from other scriptures, but that does not mean that all God said was "I forbid it". Seems reasonable to me that God gave Adam and Eve exactly the knowledge they needed (as He does with all of us) to make choices.

I haven't completely read the rest of your reply yet (I have attention issues) but off the top of my head on this sentence...what's the difference. Choice with attached consequences pretty much sums up life and the test there of (as understood by agency). Commandments are simply Gods means of warning us against negative consequence and guiding us towards good ones.