The Folk Prophet

fairmormon.org has a fairly clear explanation of the LDS view of this scripture: God is a Spirit

I think Sherlock may well have knocked Walking Dead off my top list. Don't know if BBC shows count though.

I think it can be taken further. Part of the baptismal covenant is that we relinquish our sins. Clearly, we will sin again and need repentance. But to go into baptism knowing full-well that one plans to continue a specific sin makes a bit of a mockery of that covenant.

What an incredibly interesting and unique take on it. Dinosaurs had no souls!

I do this but I don't think it's because of promptings. It's because of ADD and I forgot to look at any notes I have.

How conniving and manipulative of you. (Just in case it isn't entirely clear, Suzie, I'm completely joking).

I would also content that being baptized is not required to "have the arms of the Church around them". I would certainly hope not.

They're out there a-plenty. It's just hotly contested nowadays what constitutes a valid "revelation". Vort addressed this, but I'd like to point out that you will never find any material anywhere from the church that proclaims "one" man and "one" woman. They all use the word "a", which allows for Vort's explanation. What if having a spirit child is instantaneous? Then with 10 wives one could have 10 spirit children instantaneously, theoretically. As much as your we-don't-know-how-it-all-works point is valid, the rest of your reasoning doesn't demonstrate, logically, what you're trying to demonstrate. This is why, I agree, that child bearing, at best, can only possibly be part of the puzzle. For the purpose of number of children, yes. Another reason that I suspect there is more to it than that. The idea of changing spirit-baby diapers pops into one's head. But I digress. This idea is invalid ratio-wise. 1 wife = 1 billion spirit babies. 2 wives = 2 billion spirit babies. The taking-care-of ratio remains. Of course I'm piling assumptions onto assumptions, but you get the point, right? ...according to a fallible, mortal, self-centered, and -- indeed -- blind, logical processing of the information we have. (Please note: I am not calling you self-centered, just in case this is misread. I am saying that mankind, relatively, is inescapably self-centered because he/she is limited by a mortal perspective.) Isn't that about saying the same thing? We are spiritually blind in this matter. No need to be concerned about it though. We are spiritually blind in any matter where we don't have complete revelation and/or a perfect understanding. Yeah...so in all matters, to some degree. Except, I would contend, in the simple acceptance of, "Thy will be done" in all things, no matter what they be, be it polygamy or killing one's own son or leaving your family behind or whatever. Thy will, not mine, be done. This general attitude we need to worry about. In fact it should be our prime worry.

I appreciate this legitimate response, though it proposes a more concrete conclusion than merited. The 'study', in particular was an agenda driven joke and hard to take very seriously. I also think your statement, "whereas synthesized chemicals are suspicious by nature, given their engineered background." is just silly. What does engineered have to do with it? Why is does that inherently prescribe suspicion? As to the "diet" pop not being a weight loss item...um... What are you saying here? Weight loss is about calorie reduction. Diet pop is low calorie. Regular pop is high calorie. How should that not be taken as useful to weight loss? I have no real interest in defending Aspartame, so I do appreciate this sort of reply rather than the, "my neighbor said so" sort. But, really, what this report read as was, "a whole bunch of neighbors called and complained to the FDA, so it must be true", rather than giving any solid evidence. I'm not really buying the whole, "I went off Aspartame and it cured all my diseases" thing. To be fair, I'm also not emphatically demanding that Aspartame has no health risks.

Hmm. You have a curious way about you. Fair enough. I was wrong.

Exactly my point. Most anti-artificial-sweetener rhetoric is by folks who have never bothered to actually study the matter, they just heard from a relative, friend or co-worker that it was bad and bought into it hook, line and sinker. And then, once so convinced, often nothing will convince them otherwise. We had one lady in our ward tell us that the reason my wife hadn't been able to conceive was probably because we used Splenda. Uh....right. That must be it. While I'm complaining, what' up with "all-natural", as if being "natural" is, in and of itself, a valuable quality? Sorry. Rant over (for the moment, at least). I remember one time coming across free-range cashews. It took me a few minutes to figure out that "free-range" was the brand name. Funny as stink either way.

Right. Point being...the benefit of food is relative. Leaf and romaine lettuce is healthier than iceberg? Does that make Iceberg lettuce bad for you?

Hmm. The wife and I pretty consistently call it pop. I guess we're Canadian at heart. ????

Through their obedience could be read to mean (as you are presenting), because they were obedient (as little children are in this life). Through their obedience could also rightly be read to mean, if they are obedient (in the next life). It does not follow to suppose that because they were obedient in the past they must therefore be the same in the future, or, rather, that because they were as little children (actually being little children) that they will continue to be as little children. Now, I don't necessarily disagree with you. And this is a single line in a single comment from one person (albeit from a prophet...though I don't know if he was the prophet when this was spoken). I just don't take it as a foregone conclusion. Why? Because God will not force anyone. The concept that all children that die before the age of 8 will be in the top tier of the Celestial Kingdom implies that they will have no choice in the matter. I think it more logical to presume that they will have no need for baptism (having no need for redemption from sin, having never sinned) but the other ordinances and the like will still have to be chosen by them (through obedience). How can this choice be taken away? What we don't know is when and how these choices will be made. We don't know how much knowledge they will need first, how much faith will be required, how thin the veil will be, if it will come before or after resurrection and judgment, etc., etc... We just don't know. Once again, I do not disagree with you. I think your presumptions are fairly viable. But I do think they are, in cases, presumptions.

Do you have any legitimate studies to back this up, or does this fall more under what might be called bandwagon jumping?

Hi mnn727, You've honestly got me confused here. What, exactly, are you contending? Here's what transpired. Crash said mankind has been on the earth for 6000 years Then you said: ...which is false, unless you're claiming that the D&C is 'man's interpretation'. And then you said: ...which is irrelevant. I contend bringing getting your temple recommend into it is argumentative and defensive, enhanced even more by the "guess what" phrasing. So what are you thinking I read into your post? Because what I did read into it, as noted here, is that you are wrong about man's 6000 years on the earth being "mans interpretation" and that you being able to get your temple recommend has nothing to do with it. You, of course, are free to view it however you want, and correctly, though unnecessarily, point out that one may believe differently and get a temple recommend. But you are dead wrong on it being "man's interpretation". Within this conversation, I have no idea where you were "pointing out that there were no questions about dinosaurs, age of the earth, etc."

I've often wondered about self-medicating in this regard. In some ways I think, why not? Usually ADHD (or ADD, in my case...no H for me) treatments are guess work anyway. They try you on the medicine and see if it works. So why not do the same yourself with caffeine? But then I started getting migraines from so much caffeine use, so I kicked it. Surprise, surprise, I've learned that I can handle life now without any medicine, prescribed or self-prescribed. But I still wonder about the idea of it from a Word of Wisdom p.o.v.

Music (primarily composing, but also play guitar and sing). My main interest in this is writing musical theater. In that regard I am also a playwright and a lyricist. Braiding bullwhips (Indiana Jones style), cracking them. Weightlifting. LDS Theology. Photoshopping (not quite as much as I used to when it was related to my work). Photography (though not as much nowadays). Writing. Have written a few books. Mostly Harry Potter wannabe stuff. I used to ballroom dance with the wife (competition) but we haven't danced in years.

Bench Press, by far. I hate running (but do it to try and stay trim). I hate working my legs (and am not very strong at it, but do it because I should). Lately I've moved to a pretty straightforward compound only lifting routine. Bench, deadlifts, squats, rows. 4 set of 5 each, as heavy as I can go. I've been enjoying this fairly well and pushed up my weight ability on all of them. As mentioned in the other thread, I've pushed up 280, but since I've been sick for a month, so will be working back up to it when I'm better. Something about benching heavy that's pretty awesome though. I used to do ballroom dancing with my wife too (not as exercise, but it worked as exercise nonetheless). We haven't in danced years though.

I presume you mean bench? Good grief! How much do you weigh (if you don't mind me asking)? I put up 280 the other day (I'm around 180). I thought that was pretty good. 360 is a long ways off though.

You know, now that I think about it, there are several examples of concourses of angels visiting the earth prior to Christ. Prior to Christ means no resurrection yet, so all of them were pre-existence spirits. Still doesn't say for sure if they observed prior to visiting...but.......

Not sure Christ's visits sets a precedence for what the rest of our pre-mortal experience was. But I've heard such stories too. That being said, doesn't mean that we are "observed" by them. Which is, I believe, the question. Are my unborn children watching my life? It's a very interesting question. According to Saturday's Warrior they are. :)

I very much agree. Take control of yourself. We are not slaves to our passions. Be an adult. Attractive and interesting people will pass through our lives. We can control our thoughts and, certainly, control our actions. I remember once I went to a video game convention with my brother. There were playboy models there, dressed in sexy clothing, at certain booths. I remember gawking a bit and then telling my brother that I thought it would be funny to get a picture with one of them to send home to my wife (my wife would appreciate my humor in this regard). My brother told me, and it has stuck with me since, "They are daughters of God and you should not be seeing them as anything else!" This story is not directly applicable, obviously, but the message is. See this young man as who he truly is. He is a son of God. He is a full-time servant of God. We should always see each other in this light first and foremost. This has helped me deal with attractive people I come across. Hopefully it will do the same for you.

This thread was an interesting read through. But the debate within didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Everyone seems to basically agree and yet there's still this battle going on. I've been guilty of the same, of course. But it seems a bit strange. What, exactly, is the contention here? Is anyone arguing that we should be out nuking the whales? :) What's this really about here? I'm sinning if I don't recycle? Just my observations.

Sure. Pointing out that an opinion is irrational is fine. Claiming temple worthiness as support of a point of view is defensive, not to mention that it fairly fully defines the phrase "beside the point".