The Folk Prophet

I hope we all believe in that. :)

I would guess that it is a variable, but not necessarily the prime reason.

Personal revelation for the whole world or for the church is the part I rule out. God will reveal new truths (as you said) through the established priesthood authority. God will not give revelation for the whole church/world through some Joe Schmoe not even a part of His church. Not even through someone high up in the church. Only one man is authorized to receive revelation for the whole world.

One true church with exclusive authority is non-doctrine? What about the "racist" teachings in the scriptures? Are those non-doctrine? I agree with you that half-truths are effectively leading people away from God. You're interpretations of what qualifies as a half-truth seems a bit askew. How about things like, love your neighbor means total tolerance of sinful behavior, or the prophet is fallible so we can pick and choose what we follow, or following the prophet means your a mindless sheep, or the leaders of the church are fallible so that means the church is under condemnation, or nobody's perfect so we don't have to worry about it if we're not doing our home teaching, or pornography isn't that bad of a sin because it's so common, etc., etc. I have never known anyone that translated "the one true church with exclusive authority" into "we're better than you, neener neener" and the implication that there's a half-truth in there leading people away from God is a half-truth in itself. I am also not aware of anyone who took some of the mistaken thoughts about race and the priesthood once taught (now disavowed) and turned into the spawns of Satan from it. The imperfection of our leaders does not lead us away from God. If we humbly follow those He has set to guide us we will be blessed and brought closer to Him, in spite of imperfections they may have.

If someone found some documents and they were legitimate archaeological finds, I agree with you. Still wouldn't be scripture until accepted and canonized through the proper priesthood channels, etc. but could be useful (like the Dead Sea Scrolls). In the case of the Aklatan, a record that the author has only ever seen in a dream...??? I think it should likely be taken as nothing more than someone's fantasy fiction.

Right on! Mark 2:17 is not meant to exclude anyone. We all need Christ's grace. The idea that Christ somehow meant that some people did not need Him just doesn't work.

In a bit of a mood today there? I'm stepping out of this conversation. It is hurtful and not productive. I cannot help but feel I've contributed to the hurtful side of it, for which I apologize.

*shrug* You're probably right. I'll let you know how I feel about it in 3 years. I should rephrase a bit though. "Couldn't afford" isn't absolutely accurate. "Shouldn't" is probably more correct.

The idea that there is no degree to sin is entirely unsupportable. The very fact that there is a sin that cannot be forgiven means that there are, indeed, degrees to sin. I can hardly recall a more ridiculous concept than the idea that any sin is just as bad as murder. Some sins require church discipline. Some do not. Hmm...could that be because there are degrees of sin? The fact that all sins lead you away from God in no way leads to a no-difference-in-severity conclusion. That's nonsense logic. Clearly some sins lead you further away from God than others and are more difficult to repent of. Obviously.

O...k.... I didn't realize I was as evil as a murderer. Thank you for setting me straight.

So... The fact that I spent money going out to eat this weekend that I shouldn't have, thereby committing the sin of not living within my means, is just as bad as had I gone out and murdered someone? Abortion can be righteous? How can taking an innocent child's life be righteous?

When I first started looking into this, I sort of thought, "Hmmm...maybe." But the more I looked, the more I've concluded that it's garbage and that by even considering it I was allowing myself to ignore obvious and simple premises of the way God gives us truths. My opinion now is that it is a satan-spawned hoax perpetrated by someone who was probably LDS at some point.

Where in this thread is it not considered a good thing?

link is broken for some reason

Hey, Jedi's kill people too. Let's not forget that.

JAG and yjacket, I agree. Thanks for reminding me of my foolishness. Haha. Yes, it's true. I have buyer's guilt. But...well...there it is.

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFViewer.aspx?title=5321&linkURL=18.2LarsonKingFollett-788e0c92-f320-42a3-bccc-7bf232ab8432.pdf

How can any believing LDS person hold this point of view? By implication Adam and Eve's children had babies with ape-like creatures that weren't spirit children of God? Nonsense.

"...Pan, Cupid, Santa Claus, the Boogy Man, etc. Lilith us just such a figure from Hebrew lore." You forgot Michael Jackson in the list.

I deleted my reply as well then. No reason to push it if you felt like it wasn't expressed as you meant. I have no doubt that most are not perfectly doing as God would have them in full. But what God would have them do is keep the commandments.

. .

You're putting a bit more into what I said than I mean. Overeat or under-eat on any diet and you move beyond wisdom and health. Any diet has that potential. I'm not saying I don't see your point. A meat heavy diet is to be carefully considered in terms of health. There is a time and a place, of course. I think if an LDS member is going to utilize the Paleo diet they need to do so wisely. But the use of the diet itself does not imply automatic Word of Wisdom issues. You can go Paleo and still eat meat sparingly.

Because the Word of Wisdom has no indication that wheat is required for man. It's pretty simple. There is no "eat wheat or your sinning" implication whatsoever. That is reading into the WoW something that is not there. One can, certainly, abuse the Word of Wisdom with the Paleo diet. But the diet itself does not automatically equate thereto.

In other words: Keep the commandments.

Yeah...it's all about the depreciation. You pay on the assumed depreciation depending on the mileage agreement. If the car depreciates more than assumed, based on either going over on miles, beating the thing up, or just back luck due to the market, then you can owe on it. If you lease the likes of a Beamer that can add up to a pretty penny. On the other hand, if you take care of it, stay under on the miles, and have good luck, you can actually end up with positive equity. Just depends. The only way being upside down on the lease hurts is if you give it back and walk away. Then, yes, you pay for whatever you're upside down. If one's intention is to give it back after the end of the 3 years then this risk is run. If one knows they are planning on either trading it in for another lease, or buying it, then the depreciation overage does not matter. This is not fine print. It's the way a lease works. If you go into a lease without knowing this then it is foolish.