"Christians" obtaining the Celestial Kingdom

[The Folk Prophet]

6 hours ago, Jojo Bags said:

My wife is very fond of saying this simple truth: we each have a preference for either good or evil.  For that matter, we also have a preference for apathy; an "I don't care" attitude.  Ultimately, through the exercise of our agency, we do choose what we prefer: God or Satan.  I say it in this very black and white way because there is no luke warm with our Heavenly Father.  You are either progressing or regressing; there is no sitting still.

Unfortunately there is a great trend for people to believe that they have no choice in their preferences.

[The Folk Prophet]

44 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Part of me believes it could be different for each person.  

I think this is true.

However, I think when we approach the world we need to do so with an attitude of complete trust in the Lord that He will be just, and a complete determination to instill in everyone  a complete and thorough testimony of the full truth of the gospel. That is our obligation. If we approach our fellow man with a they'll-be-fine attitude there is danger.

I don't necessarily believe that danger is to them -- each man will stand accountable for his own choices -- but to us.

It's like raising children. Is it really fair that some people will be damned because they had crappy parents while other people are saved because their parents taught them truth, held family home evening every week, etc.? But we know that if the parents fail to teach their children, the sins are on the heads of the parents.

In the long run, that gets complicated. I mean what if the parents were taught badly by their parents in the first place. And where did it begin? Cain? Does all the blame for bad parenting all go back to him?  And what about parents that try but still suck as parents because they just don't get it...but they honestly do their best?

Yeah...there's good reason we leave the judging up to God when it comes to who qualifies for salvation and who does not.

But we are commanded to speak the truth, plainly, diligently, and boldly. We are commanded to encourage, exhort, and strive to set the example. To be missionaries and bring the gospel to the world.

[Traveler]

On 2/27/2016 at 6:13 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

What do you think? Why are you so condescending sometimes? I could understand it if you didn't know me. But you've interacted with me enough to know darned well that I'm familiar with these concepts. Stop patronizing me.

And I think your understanding is mistaken at best and entirely contrary the whole plan of salvation.

Interesting that you think so (that your understanding is not condescending - ever) - what is your understand of D&C 93: 30-31?  Why do you think the object of that scripture has noting to do with the plan of salvation?  The scripture even defines agency and tells us exactly that our agency is an expression of something that defines us from the very beginning.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Interesting that you think so (that your understanding is not condescending - ever)

I didn't say I wasn't. I'm saying that I'm not going to sit and take it when you are to me.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

what is your understand of D&C 93: 30-31?

What is your understanding of it?

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Why do you think the object of that scripture has noting to do with the plan of salvation?

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The scripture even defines agency

No it doesn't.

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

and tells us exactly that our agency is an expression of something that defines us from the very beginning.

No it doesn't.

[Traveler]

On 2/29/2016 at 11:37 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

I didn't say I wasn't. I'm saying that I'm not going to sit and take it when you are to me.

What is your understanding of it?

Did I say that? I'm pretty sure I didn't.

No it doesn't.

No it doesn't.

It appears to me that you are not cognitively reading my posts before you respond.  Note in your second statement you asked me what my understanding of D&C 93:30-31 is - then in your last two statements you disagree with my understand of that scripture - that the agency of man is an expression of something in man that existed from the beginning.  I know you and I disagree on some things - but to be honest I cannot understand what that difference is.  What do you think the scripture is telling us about the agency of man.  And do not worry - I will not respond with a statement like - "No it doesn't".  But rather I will give a honest and clear opinion of where I believe our cognitive talents result in different opinions -- Unless you have some aversion to the idea of "come let us reason together".

[Guest]

"If you don't see things the way I see them, it's just because you're dumb."

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 I know you and I disagree on some things - but to be honest I cannot understand what that difference is.

Traveler,

I've often noted how many times FP seeks to disagree with me but never explains what the disagreement is.  I find that many times, he didn't really disagree with me at all.  So I'm left wondering about it just like you are.

[zil]

(Written last: It is entirely possible that this is not followable.  Nonetheless, I leave it, FWIW.)

D&C 93:30-32 (link to text without my commentary).

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

I suppose you could argue that "able to act for itself" is the definition of agency.  I'm not sure that's complete (or perhaps expressed clearly enough), but it'll do.  One needs to consider the verse for a while to pull that out of it, as it doesn't appear to be presenting itself as a definition of "agency" so much as describing a necessary condition - that intelligence must be independent (that is, able to act for itself; that is, it must have agency) within the sphere in which God has placed it, or there is no existence*.  (In other words, "Intelligence must have agency within its assigned sphere, or there is no existence." - the definition of agency is subtext, not the main point of the verse.)

Note the period at the end of above verse**. IMO, it ends the thought.  IMO, verse 30 is NOT what verse 31 refers to as "here" or as "that which was from the beginning" (which I shall refer to as [that] - with brackets, hereafter).

IMO, "that the agency of man is an expression of something in man that existed from the beginning" is subtext from these and other verses in the section, and is not so obvious as you suggest.  However, the "otherwise there is no existence" makes it pretty clear that agency must have existed from the beginning (if not longer).  One could spend quite some time pondering this in light of these verses about spheres and the scriptures where God says he gave agency to mankind.

However, I do NOT believe [that] from verse 31 is agency.  (And if you didn't mean to imply it is, then the similarity your wording and the wording of verse 31 can account for the confusion. If you do mean to imply it is, I disagree, with caveat below.)

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

IMO, the part of this verse before the semi-colon is saying "here it comes", "we're about to describe something".  I do NOT believe the remainder of verse 31 is defining "agency" any more than it is defining "condemnation".  Rather, it's saying that because [that] is plainly manifest unto mankind and mankind refuse to receive [that] (which they have the agency to do), they are condemned (because they refused to receive [that], despite having the ability to do so - had they not had the ability, there would have been no condemnation. subtext: agency is a required prerequisite for condemnation):

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

Which leaves us with the question, what is [that]?  "that which was from the beginning" really could include pretty much everything, and probably should include the entirety of the plan of salvation.  In the verses prior to these, the section describes how Christ progressed from grace to grace until he inherited all that the Father has, and that we can do the same (subtext would be that we were taught this from the beginning).  It also mentions that mankind was with God in the beginning (thus giving hints that those who followed Satan are some of those who refused to receive [that] and were condemned).  Thus, [that] is a lot more than agency.

Now here's my caveat, mentioned above, Satan clearly (claimed to have*) rejected agency.  So one could argue [that] is indeed agency and the condemnation is because of rejecting agency.  However, IMO, agency is only part of [that], and thus far, only Satan and the sons of perdition have entirely rejected agency (though they still have it, oddly enough).

*Off-topic: Ponder Satan's plan in light of _that_ revelation... (I think he knew full well there is no existence without agency, and didn't much care.)

**IMO, those who versified the scriptures and let full sentences trail across multiple verses did us a disservice as, in my experience, people tend to give too little attention to the punctuation in scripture, and punctuation changes the meaning of things...

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Traveler said:

It appears to me that you are not cognitively reading my posts before you respond.  Note in your second statement you asked me what my understanding of D&C 93:30-31 is - then in your last two statements you disagree with my understand of that scripture - that the agency of man is an expression of something in man that existed from the beginning.  I know you and I disagree on some things - but to be honest I cannot understand what that difference is.  What do you think the scripture is telling us about the agency of man.  And do not worry - I will not respond with a statement like - "No it doesn't".  But rather I will give a honest and clear opinion of where I believe our cognitive talents result in different opinions -- Unless you have some aversion to the idea of "come let us reason together".

When you say that  D&C 93:30-31 defines agency and then don't bother to explain how, I'm not sure how I can address it further than simply disagreeing. I don't see a "definition" of agency there. I see an explanation of it. I suppose that could be considered a definition, but the two are not one and the same. At any rate I cannot respond beyond my opinion that it doesn't. If you are determined that it does, then please explain yourself. Otherwise, I'm afraid, "No it doesn't" will have to suffice.

You also say it says something about agency being an expression of something that defines us from the beginning. I don't see it. You're going to have to explain yourself, once again, or the best I can offer is a disagreement. My read is that the word "beginning" is referring to the things manifested to us.

As to what the scripture is telling us about the agency of man, I believe it means what it says:

Intelligence and truth is independent to act for itself. The agency of man is the independence to act for itself as an intelligent being based on things plainly manifested.

Laymen's terms - Man's agency depends on the right to act upon knowledge given him.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Traveler,

I've often noted how many times FP seeks to disagree with me but never explains what the disagreement is.  I find that many times, he didn't really disagree with me at all.  So I'm left wondering about it just like you are.

I have no idea what Traveler's point is. What he's trying to get at is cryptic and baffling, and instead of speaking plainly, he continues to respond to me in cryptic terms. Maybe If he'd clarify, speak plainly, and get to the freaking point then I could actually address his point. I know sometimes my answers are cryptic. This is intentional with the point being that I expect the response to be "What do you mean?" whereupon I usually intend to expound. More often than not that is due to time limitations. Traveler's cryptic approach in this particular thread, alternatively, seems to be a way to set himself up as more knowledgeable like he's *wink wink*ing at me waiting for me to arrive at the grand illumination he's achieved in his superior understanding. I'm not playing that game. Say what you mean Traveler or my engagement will remain shallow.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

FP seeks to disagree with me 

Incidentally, I do not "seek" to disagree with you. I just disagree sometimes.

[Guest]

On 2/27/2016 at 7:13 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

And I think your understanding is mistaken at best and entirely contrary the whole plan of salvation.

 

10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have no idea what Traveler's point is. What he's trying to get at is cryptic and baffling, and instead of speaking plainly...

If you have no idea, how did you make this judgment earlier?

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

 

If you have no idea, how did you make this judgment earlier?

His initial point was plain. His explanation is cryptic. Perhaps I misspoke using the term "point".

Edit: specifically I was referring to this quote by that conclusion:

"As I understand – the natural man is in opposition to intelligence (the light of truth) and those that pursue the “natural man” will do so – not because it is something that all (all including Jesus?) will do but something that was from the beginning - even before they were mortal."

2nd Edit: Which should be pretty obvious since it's the quote I'm directly responding to in that post.

Edited March 3, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

FP,

I'll accept what you say about yourself.  But I'm still reading through both your posts and I'm wondering what you're arguing about.  But it is appears that you are both annoying each other.

[Guest]

32 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Incidentally, I do not "seek" to disagree with you. I just disagree sometimes.

"Seek" was a figure of speech, admittedly.  But sometimes I look at what you're saying and think,"I pretty much agree with him.  Didn't I state that?"  And think you're saying the same thing I am, yet you are arguing with me as if you disagree.  I just shrug and think "whatever".

[The Folk Prophet]

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

it is appears that you are both annoying each other.

I'm not sure why do you feel the need to get in the middle?

18 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

But sometimes I look at what you're saying and think,"I pretty much agree with him.  Didn't I state that?"  And think you're saying the same thing I am, yet you are arguing with me as if you disagree.  I just shrug and think "whatever".

Maybe you miss the finer points of what I'm trying to say. Maybe I'm missing the finer points in your messages. I'm not sure why that's a problem. If you agree when I expound on something, even if it comes across as if it's "arguing", why not simply reply, "I agree" or the like. Then I'll know I misread you or that you still agree with the expanded thought? That doesn't strike me as something to be complaining about.

Generally I agree with your comments, generally I feel "on the same side", as it were, with you, etc. Sometimes I do not, of course, and sometimes I'm trying to expand on ideas. 

Either way, I do not understand why you feel the need sometimes to make it personal and start pointing out my flaws as you see them.

[The Folk Prophet]

25 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm wondering what you're arguing about.

Because this is a long, ongoing debate about agency that he and I have been involved in for some time.

Edited March 3, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure why do you feel the need to get in the middle?

Because it's just so much fun...

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe you miss the finer points of what I'm trying to say. Maybe I'm missing the finer points in your messages. I'm not sure why that's a problem. If you agree when I expound on something...

Maybe that's it.  And I don't have a problem with the discussion as long as you are indeed expounding.  The difficulty is when you just post an accusation or question (and sometimes even your innocent questions feel like an accusation which compounds the problem) without expounding that there is a monkey floating in the air between us.

I really am trying to understand you.  But sometimes you give so little to go on that I just can't.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

your...questions feel like an accusation

Which makes it an interpretation on your part. Maybe it's your problem, not mine.

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I really am trying to understand you.  But sometimes you give so little to go on that I just can't.

Then ask. You simply say, "What do you mean by that?" Easy. No contention. No accusation. No making it personal. Instead if feels like often when you aren't understanding me you turn it into an accusation. Which, of course, gets my ire up.

Edited March 3, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[zil]

FWIW, in this particular sequence, I tend to agree with TFP that Traveler has more than once appeared to be beating around the bush, or deliberately vague, like the way a Sunday School teacher might try to coax answers out of the youth in his class...

It's gone on long enough that I've probably forgotten half+ of what everyone's written, but I think Traveler could have offered the detailed explanation that TFP was asking for, instead of repeating "it means X" or "it's obvious" - he could have laid it out (or just flat out, explicitly refused).

That observation was part of the reason I posted my overly long post analyzing the verses in question - to demonstrate that one can tear those verses apart, comment on possible meaning, and explain one's interpretation.  Whether there's any value in any given person's interpretation, or whether anyone agrees, is irrelevant; the point is, it can be done...

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Which makes it an interpretation on your part. Maybe it's your problem, not mine.

Of course.  On a forum like this, most things are.  Maybe it is.  Maybe it isn't.  I honestly wish there were a good way of figuring that out.

When you state your position and someone else says "Why would you think that?"  or "Where are you getting that information?" That usually implies that they think it an alien idea or "I doubt that."  Sound like an accusation?

16 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Then ask. You simply say, "What do you mean by that?" Easy. No contention. No accusation. No making it personal. Instead if feels like ofent when you aren't understanding me you turn it into an accusation. Which, of course, gets my ire up.

I'm not sure if this would be effective.  If I truly don't understand a single statement.  I would certainly ask.  But often it isn't that it is unclear.  It is that the plain and most obvious way (for me) to take it is one way.  But you happen to mean it in another way.  I trust that you are saying things in good faith.  But one of the dangers of internet communication is that the written word that seems obvious to one is not so obvious to another.

By the time we get far enough in a debate where I am completely confused (because apparently there was some major miscommunication) I am tired and not really interested enough to ask.

Other times I've asked early on. Yet you simply say that you addressed it already without additional information or help.

But I'll also grant that Traveler has done his share of giving you the same treatment.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Of course.  On a forum like this, most things are.  Maybe it is.  Maybe it isn't.  I honestly wish there were a good way of figuring that out.

When you state your position and someone else says "Why would you think that?"  or "Where are you getting that information?" That usually implies that they think it an alien idea or "I doubt that."  Sound like an accusation?

So let me get this straight. When I ask a clarifying question it's an accusation?

If someone asks me where I'm getting my information I usually tell them...you know...where I'm getting my information. Shouldn't that be how communication works?

11 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not sure if this would be effective. 

If you ever ask me "what do you mean" I promise I will do my best to tell you what I mean. I'm not quite sure why you would presume I'd do otherwise. I have no history of tip-toeing around things. If I have a source, I provide it.

13 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I trust that you are saying things in good faith.

The fact that this even needs to be said implies you may well think otherwise. That's hurtful. What on earth could possibly be "bad faith" about what I say?

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So let me get this straight. When I ask a clarifying question it's an accusation?

No, it's the tone of the question, the wording, that comes off as, well, rude.  Example:

"Where did you get that from?" vs. "Could you provide a reference for that?"  Much different.

8 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you ever ask me "what do you mean" I promise I will do my best to tell you what I mean. I'm not quite sure why you would presume I'd do otherwise.

The fact that this even needs to be said implies you may well think otherwise. That's hurtful. What on earth could possibly be "bad faith" about what I say?

Yes, I do think otherwise because you've done it to me.

Look, I don't want this to be a bunch of back and forth about this.  It's beginning to feel like an intervention.  But I'm trying to see if 1) you would like me to change something about how I communicate with you and 2) you might do some introspection about how you communicate with me (and others).

You've asked me to ask for more clarification.  I will endeavor to do so in the future.

[The Folk Prophet]

53 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

No, it's the tone of the question, the wording, that comes off as, well, rude.  Example:

"Where did you get that from?" vs. "Could you provide a reference for that?"  Much different.

Yes, I do think otherwise because you've done it to me.

Look, I don't want this to be a bunch of back and forth about this.  It's beginning to feel like an intervention.  But I'm trying to see if 1) you would like me to change something about how I communicate with you and 2) you might do some introspection about how you communicate with me (and others).

You've asked me to ask for more clarification.  I will endeavor to do so in the future.

Why is it that when others critique me for being so "rude" that I always walk away from it feeling like people are being rude to me?

Maybe you need to do some introspection about how you communicate with me (and others).

Edited March 3, 2016 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why is it that when others critique me for being so "rude" that I always walk away from it feeling like people are being rude to me?

Maybe you need to do some introspection about how you communicate with me (and others).

I thought I said that.  "You've asked me to ask for more clarification.  I will endeavor to do so in the future."

But you read that and still felt like you had to get that barb in.  ok...

As for the rudeness.  I'm somewhat aware of that dynamic going on here, and I hoped that I did not appear hypocritical in my endeavor.  But apparently I did.  Sorry.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Guest

[NeedleinA]

Peace, love and fluffy bunnies - happy thoughts!