The Folk Prophet

It's not advise.

He will instill in us a fountain of living water that shall never run dry conditionally upon our following Him. I don't know of anywhere that Jesus taught that we may continue to turn away from him, revel in sin, fail to do as He asked us to (repent), and still be filled. The promise to the Samaritan woman was conditional upon her actually drinking the water He offered. I dunno. Getting back to the essential--to Jesus--is to follow Him, keep His commandments, and feed His sheep. I'm not sure how one can get back to Jesus without doing as He asked us to do, including the visits, tithes, church activity, etc. We cannot accept Jesus and ignore Him at the same time.

I was with you until this. Really...that's the question? Is that the way you'd react if they were all smoking and teasing you about not smoking? Drinking? Sleeping around? Good grief. Of COURSE not. I agree with the "just laugh" suggestion.

Perhaps. I'd call this a half truth, as obesity is unhealthy, and maintaining a healthy weight is part of being healthy. I understand your point, of course. Eating nothing but Twinkies with strict calorie control (even if you were successful at weight loss, which is questionable because eating foods that your body processes correctly for health is a big part of metabolism, muscle growth, etc.) would be a bad idea. But the OP is, after all, about weight-loss, not health.

Why does a differing viewpoint have to come across as arguing? I find my feelings hurt a bit. I'm saying that I believe the anomalies still fit within the 'calorie out' model. Whatever reason behind why someone doesn't burn calories as efficiently, it's still about calories out. The solution may differ vastly, but it's still a matter of how the body burns calories relative to the way the body stores calories per consumption. The point I'm trying to make is that using psychological (or even satiety signals that may be physiological) issues to decry calories in vs. calories out is poor logic. Like the reports you see that claim artificial sweetners will make you fat because they might make you crave sweets more. It's bad logic. Cravings do not add calories. Eating does. That is my only point. Not that everyone who struggles with weight loss is a lazy slob.

Incidentally, I disagree with this even though I understand what you're trying to say. It is, actually, as simple as calories in vs. calories out. But calories in is not simple, and calories out is ridiculously complicated. But it is still that simple. I've also never been one for accepting a psychological component in a physical equation. If you work out you might want to eat pizza more is not a legitimate algorithm in my book. The fact that some struggle harder to discipline themselves than others is reality. But it still comes down to discipline in the end.

Especially when people are likely lying about their calories in. :)

This is a deep and dark secret, and I'll probably get excommunicated myself for letting it slip, but we have an endless maple bar buffet each week in our priesthood meeting. It's part of the oath and covenant.

Not strictly true. Sealing to parents is. Edit: Unless born in the covenant, of course.

Or, "Get out!" ...wait...no.

Right on. The teacher's response is easy. "That's none of our business." As far as disruptive members, seems like there's always one of them, right? If one feels strongly enough about it, mention it to the bishop. Otherwise, ignore it.

Hmm. And yet we are commanded to believe. But you're saying we have no choice in the matter. So God has commanded us to do something that we cannot help. So we have no agency after all. Or maybe belief is a choice.

I wonder if more will be sons of perdition than we think. We like to excuse ourselves. You hear strange things like only men can be sons of perdition, only apostles can, only those who have seen Jesus, etc. None of these are fully scripturally supported though (not without interpretation and bias). In truth, the idea of being cast off forever is prevalent throughout the Book of Mormon. It's comfortable to think we aren't in danger as we betray our covenants, defile our priesthood, etc. I wonder though.

Oh come on. Did you read my explanations? How can you possibly read that implication into it?

Keep saying it and it must be true. But until it's "clear" to everyone, it's clearly not clear, despite your repetitions.

You're right! Let's ordain all women to the priesthood tomorrow! It is clear. How have I been so blind?

I think it's too early. There's too many prophecies that need fulfilling before that time to start seeing the end of the world in every political battle. But maybe. Here's an interesting thought I've had. I used to think when the big battle at the end of times came that America would be the good guy (possibly fighting alongside Israel or whathaveyou). But based on the current political culture and the way America is quickly heading, I cannot help but wonder if America (as a political unit) may not be the bad guy. This is entirely disheartening to me, incidentally (especially on a day like today - ).

Um...no. "Stupid" was the word used to describe all humans relative to God.

That's not the definition of murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of someone. Whether it's inhumane or barbarous is irrelevant. I suppose it depends on by what means it is justified. But I mean legally. Whether by the law of the land or the law of the God, legally justified is not murder.

If it's justified it's not murder.

I think it's interesting that, as Pam pointed out, the expression seems to have softened on it. Of course we still have: D&C 42:18 "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come." It does specifically say it's speaking unto the church, and perhaps that plays into it somewhat -- as in "If you know better" then no forgiveness. Maybe? Per NeuroTypical, it's the Lords business. I think per ourselves we should treat it like it isn't forgivable. Of course if one has murdered then I'm not sure how one ought to feel about the potential for forgiveness. I suppose that's between the person, their ecclesiastical authorities, and the Lord. But if others have murdered, we should forgive them as if it is forgivable.

It is NOT clear. If it was clear, it would be clear and there would be no questions or debate as to it's meaning. That is simply not the case. There are many, many debates as to it's meaning. The LDS church, having access to modern day revelations, and the actual restoration of truth as intended by God, knows it's meaning though. She was not ordained to a priesthood office, whatever Greek word was used to describe her.

I love it when a blog feels they have the right to lecture the church leadership on how to run the kingdom. The whole thing reads to me like, "The church should compromise with the devil so they look like nice guys." (Note: I'm not saying Kelly is the devil, but that OW principles stem therefrom). A few specific responses to the article: I find this statement underhanded. It's nice and "Kumbaya" of them, but to imply that if one doesn't find the church leadership's statement's insensitive then that person must not be fair-minded. I'm sure the reverse could be said of those supporting OW. What the author means is his/her idea of fair-mindedness sees it that way and they're arrogant enough to presume that means everyone should see it that way. Half-truth warning! Alert! Alert! The command to "be one" was never intended as a mandate to compromise with evil. This falls to what Elder Holland spoke on last conference. Everyone wants the gospel and their God modeled after their idea of a "comfortable" God, a comfortable gospel. The wicked take the truth to be hard. But it is not the truth that wounds them. It is their wickedness. Since when can the church not choose whom it deems worthy of being listened to? So they should have no choice in the matter? If I start a campaign to start using wine in the sacrament again they should set a meeting with me or they're insensitive? What if I'm determined that the law of Chastity be repealed? If they don't meet with me then they must not be concerned with their members needs. Right? Ridiculous. It really doesn't have anything to do with weakness or strength. The church has no responsibility to reconcile with evil. It doesn't matter if the world views it as strong or weak. Yeah. This writer determines what qualifies as "the prophetic gift".

I didn't bold the rest because I read the bolded part as an interjection. Meaning, without the interjection it reads... Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins or in transgression, having rejected the prophets. Which is the only way to reconcile it with the other scriptures. The interjection alters the meaning of the rest of the sentence.

Tesla? Nah...let the McLauren P1 rip it to shreds!