MeIRL

At least you have quit trying to veil your insults. I prefer honest hatred to lying brotherhood. At least that way I know my enemies. Strange how, after openly and directly insulting me, you told me I need not take things so personally. More hypocrisy? Or did you have something else in mind?

But I'm sure you mean no criticism in saying that. Reminds me of our favorite high-school backhanded compliment: "For a fat girl, you don't sweat much." Really? Even when it is intended personally? Or perhaps, "I have no good responses to your points, so therefore I'm going to cut bait." I have indeed read slowly, carefully, and critically. This is false. I did not "portray" the talks in any way. Rather, I quoted from them and provided the links so others could read them in their entirety. I merely pointed out that President Benson had, in actual point of fact, said "don't see R-rated movies". In other words: I stated a truth, and you objected to that truth, claiming I was misrepresenting it (which I very clearly was not). You then claimed: Does he give any indication that he is focusing on depictions of realistic war violence, or depictions of Holocaust cruelty, or portrayals of the brutal torture inflicted upon our beloved Savior? If you say yes, you are injecting your own opinions into the words of our General Authorities. Enough said. Very obviously, you are indeed criticizing my media choices. There can be no other interpretation of your words. My choice in media, reflecting my interpretation of prophetic counsel, constitutes (in your words) "injecting [my] own opinions into the words of our General Authorities." (You also went on to offer supposed "mutually exclusive possibilities". I am still waiting for you to explain how the possibilities offered are in any way "mutually exclusive", or for that matter why they might be the only two possibilities.) This is a false characterization. I did nothing of the sort. I merely pointed out that our leaders had in very fact told us not to watch R-rated movies. Period. I made no other claims and imposed no other interpretations or restrictions on their words. This is possible. As far as I can tell, this language originates from Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 3:6-8. Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which glory was to be done away: How shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glorious? In context, it's obvious that Paul is speaking of Christ's law superseding the law of Moses. Perhaps you can explain where your apparently unique interpretation comes from. Agreed. If obeying prophetic counsel does not improve your spiritual condition, then you need not obey prophetic counsel. But I don't believe that. Interesting, then, that the scriptures uniformly urge obedience to God and subjugation of one's own will to his, and rarely or never speak of how "one size does not fit all" and "everyone is different" with regard to the commandments and obedience to the words of the prophets. What do you make of that? Taking it as you intended, then, it is a faulty example. No court in the US would uphold a conviction in the circumstance you cite. In short, it's not illegal in that case. False. That is merely a part, like "don't smoke tobacco" is part of the Word of Wisdom. In which case, following what you have identified as "the letter of the law" does the spirit no harm at all. Please note the overt hatefulness and judgmentalism displayed in the bolded portion above. In fact, those who think that we ought to obey the prophets in the counsel about avoiding R-rated movies are not all "like some shallow Pharisee incapable of complex thought and personal decision making", as you suggest. And yet, you did. I provided a quotation, backed up by reference, of a prophet explicitly saying, "Don't see R-rated movies". You may hand-wave away any meaning you wish to, but all your dancing does not change the plain meaning of words. But of course, this is false. I did no such thing. You perhaps ought to follow your own advice, given how badly you have missed what I have been saying (and quite clearly, I thought).

Since the result of Adam's sin was the Fall, and since the Fall was necessary to bring about the Atonement and our possibility to return to the heavenly Father, we do indeed reap all the benefits of Adam's sin (no sarcasm). There is no difference. Two ways of saying the same thing. How do we have faith in Christ? By keeping his commandments, the laws and ordinances of the Gospel. Claiming to have faith without the works that inevitably go with faith is meaningless (or, in Paul's word, dead). Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

As you, apparently, will never be guilty of actually responding to the points I made. Let's test this claim, based on your previous statements: Too bad you only decided to apply the bold typeface to the phrase "Don't see R-rated movies" because what came after expanded on and clarified what he meant when he said "Don't see R-rated movies." Again, too bad you cherry-picked this quote out of context of the entire talk. If you say yes, you are injecting your own opinions into the words of our General Authorities. Anyone can pick one sentence or paragraph from a larger body of work and use it as evidence to support any number of conclusions. Truth twisters draw conclusions and then gather supporting evidence. [This was clearly targeted at me.]Huh. No, I'd have to say I don't believe your claim about not criticizing me for my personal standard of media consumption. I have noticed that when someone wants to do something we have been counseled against, they very often will invoke the "letter of the law" vs. the "spirit of the law" argument. This is a non-starter, of course, but people continue to try it. The fact is, the spirit of the law is almost always far more constraining than the mere letter: The letter of the law says to love your family and friends; the spirit says to love your enemies and do good to them that hate you.The letter of the law says not to smoke or drink alcohol; the spirit of the law says to avoid anything and everything that makes you unhealthy or that is addictive.The letter of the law says to give your wife a bill of divorcement if you don't want her any more; the spirit of the law says not to divorce her.The letter of the law says to give to the poor and help the less fortunate; the spirit of the law says to dedicate your life and your means to helping those around you.So when you suggest that the letter of the law is to avoid R-rated movies but the spirit is to go ahead and watch R-rated movies as long as they aren't sexual, I think that is a ludicrous falsehood. If the letter of the law is not to watch R-rated movies, the spirit of the law is to avoid any and all "entertainment" that offends the spirit, that deadens our sensitivities, and that does not bring us closer to God. If such avoidance means we might occasionally miss out on the decent and even edifying movie, what of it? I don't think Nephi was greatly hampered in his search for eternal life by not having access to motion picture technology. Refusing to watch an R-rated movie, even a really really really really really good one, will never undermine the goal of achieving eternal life. That is absurd. Lovely. Now please provide an example where avoiding an R-rated movie will immediately result in the physical or spiritual death of a person. Nonsense. Nor did I ever claim such a foolish thing. But you were doing much more than merely pointing out the above obviousness. You were, in point of fact, criticizing me and others who avoid R-rated movies and who claim (correctly and truthfully) that the prophets have counseled us to do so. What a pity to eschew prophetic counsel and the chance to demonstrate to God and to oneself that one will seek to be obedient in all things, just to see a movie that one enjoyed only slightly more than a short discussion-list conversation.

Not in the least. You want babies to be "born sinners" yet not be sinful. Nonsense.

Your remarkable mind-reading abilities notwithstanding, my point remains. We have indeed been counseled against watching R-rated movies. This was done by the senior apostle (a.k.a. the president of the Church, a.k.a. the Prophet) during General Conference. Spin it however you wish; those facts remain. It's only "too bad" because it doesn't support the conclusion you wish to reach. Immorality consists of more than merely sexual sin. He gives indication that he is talking about R-rated movies. It's really not that hard. Not quite enough said. Consider: The prophets say, "Avoid R-rated movies and other immoral and sexually suggestive entertainment." Here are two responses: MeIrl claims: "The prophets told us to avoid R-rated movies."CrimsonKairos claims: "The prophets didn't really mean ALL R-rated movies, only the sexually suggestive ones. There is nothing wrong with watching an R-rated movie that depicts people getting blown to pieces."Given that neither of the two completely represents what the prophets taught, which of the two more accurately represents what they did say? Which of the two actually injects his own opinions into the words of our General Authorities? Enough said, finally. I have no idea whether it was Satanically inspired or produced. I did not watch it, nor did anyone in my household. Do you know what "mutually exclusive" means? I suspect you do not, because the choices you offered above are in no possible sense "mutually exclusive". Not everyone is as gifted as you are in mind-reading. When the sentence is, "Don't watch R-rated movies" and the conclusion is, "We should not watch R-rated movies", it's really not that hard of a connection to make. Well put. If a prophet says "Don't watch R-rated movies" and someone says, "What he REALLY meant was not to watch R-rated movies that are sexually suggestive, but other kinds of R-rated movies are fine and dandy," I think we can be confident that that person is a truth twister. Agreed.

This contradicts your assertion that "I believe that we are born sinners, inherited by our earthly father, and ultimately from Adam." Infants and the mentally retarded are also children of Adam.

So the infant who dies is condemned to eternal hell. Nice.

I think the best thing to do is to be direct, forceful, and even blunt. I envision a scenario like this: "Look, Frank, you've been hounding us for too long. You're a deadbeat! Get OUT! Right now! And here, take your billy club, your brass knuckles, your sawed-off shotgun, and your SKS rifle with the loaded 30-round magazine and the illegal fully automatic modification to the firing mechanism! And don't come back, or we might have to get rough with you." The final threat might seem a bit over the top, but trust me, such people need a firm guiding hand.

You wrote: "I have a special unique love for my daughters as opposed to my son." May we also therefore assume that you have a "special, unique" love for your son as opposed to your daughters?

Not so. A "plain reading" of the scripture, not imposing anachronistic cosmologies on the words, leaves no room for a "global" flood. I would love to see your evidence that the ancient Hebrews believed in a spherical earth and understood these verses as you claim. Again, this is false. Saying "the earth was divided in Peleg's days" is not remotely the same as saying "continental drift on the earth's crust all took place during the lifetime of an individual named Peleg." Then you are conveniently ignoring other scriptures that speak of "all the earth" without literally meaning "all the earth". Or do you believe that Caesar Augustus set out to tax the Nephites? Why? Is the earth a human soul, a child of God in a literal sense? If not, please demonstrate the LDS doctrine teaching that immersion baptism is a saving ordinance for any creature other than a human soul. False. It is what you think happened. Those two things are not the same. Someone said you couldn't believe it? Please render the citation from this thread showing where someone -- anyone -- claimed that you couldn't, or shouldn't, believe as you do. I think you will find it nonexistent. And many of us further believe that God doesn't intentionally mislead us or put false records lying around to deceive us. The geological record is unmistakably clear. Say, that reminds me of a scripture, too: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness. Regards, MeIRL

The fact that God can regrow hands doesn't mean that he will. The statement with which you disagreed -- "We counsel you, young men, not to pollute your minds with such degrading matter, for the mind through which this filth passes is never the same afterwards" -- is nevertheless true. Frankly, I am not completely convinced that God can override a choice that we, exercising our agency, have made. If we choose to allow pornography to reshape our minds, how can a just God simply undo that, even if we ask him to? No, this is not at all obvious to me. It seems rather that if we choose to allow such filth into our minds, it must be our own choice, exercised through our lifetime, that finally rids us of that deformity. Perhaps Christ's atoning blood does enter into the equation -- indeed, it must -- but not just by saying, "Okay, now that I've repented, it's exactly as if I had never engaged in pornographic exploration!" I think the original quote is exactly right.

If you cut off your friends hand, is there any way you can possibly repent of that heinous act? Yes. Will your friend ever be the same, even if you repent? No. You can repent of indulging in pornography, but don't pretend that you can somehow remain untouched by it. It changes the very biochemistry of your brain. Complete, sincere repentance can remove the stain, but don't count on it to remove the effects of the evil you do to yourself. Some scars stay with you your whole life through, even if you repent.

Do you really believe that personal insults are warranted? You made a statement. I questioned your statement. I marshalled evidence to buttress my claim. You are refusing to answer. The fact is that all of us have been present in classes like yours, where people who hold a minority or otherwise unpopular opinion keep their mouths shut. Many of us have been that person. If your opinion is that plural marriage should be reinstituted, then you are right to keep your mouth firmly shut. But if your opinion is that evolution occurs in human beings or that the flood of Noah did not literally cover the face of the globe, why should your opinion be shouted down? More to the point, why are such nondoctrinal elements being discussed in class at all? Feel free to let fly with some more personal insults, bytor. If that's how you run your class, it's no wonder you don't get a lot of dissenting opinions from your own.

Actually, I didn't bring it up....a class member did.Really? Interesting, then, that you said: I opened the door to discussion about a local flood vs. a global one or an allegorical story, etc. Sounded to me like you were taking responsibility (perhaps credit) for allowing the discussion, if not for actually originating it. But you don't really know, do you? But no, I was not there. I was basing my comments on what you wrote. Maybe or maybe they enjoyed the discussion.Did the non-global-flood-believers tell you that? Hmmm. I suspect not, given that you said: Nothing doing....my class was firmly in the literal camp. Based on your statement, it is clear that if there were any people who disbelieved the "global flood" theory, they didn't make their opinions known. If they had, you would not likely have been so firm in your pronouncement of your class's supposedly unanimous opinion. And you know this -- how? By how freely those who don't believe non-doctrinal dogma speak right up and disagree with the global flood believers? No.....but Erik seems to exercise some courtesy...unlike your condescending post that really has nothing to do with what I was asking Rameumpton.Condescending? How so? To quote the inimitable Inigo Montoya: I do not think that word means what you think it means. I am trying to do no such thing. But this is a discussion list, with much different rules and expectations than a Sunday School gospel doctrine class.

Is that in the lesson manual? Because I'm pretty sure that bringing up contentious and tangential points of doctrine is not what gospel doctrine class is intended for. Maybe the non-global-flood believers in your enthusiastically literalistic class were simply too intimidated to voice an honest view -- or maybe they just had the good sense not to invite disunity. Are you happy to have been the instigator of such potential intimidation and/or disunity? Edit: Ironically, I note that ErikJohnson thinks contention is wonderful and Godly. Do you agree with him?

How delightful... you have devoted a full 20% of all your posts to criticizing me. Oh happy day.Glad I could make your day. If you believe my post constitutes criticism, then you are admitting your own post to be just that. In that case, I'm not sure I understand what you're whining about. I have only posted here a very short time, but I have been reading this group for over a year and have read a lot of your posts. I speak as I find. I don't disagree.

Correct.

Justice: I am.

Brother Lee was excommunicated for apostasy. The Church didn't specify any other reasons, though some of Brother Lee's statements and unsubstantiated gossip suggest that his other activities were not entirely unknown to the Brethren and may have had some impact in his excommunication. But we don't know. Maybe Brother Lee will yet repent and return to Christ's fold. We can pray for him, right along with his victims and any others negatively affected by his actions (and teachings).

In "good company" with fellow continental-redistribution believers who added non-canonical footnoting to the scriptures, perhaps. They certainly are not in company with any reputable geologist, archaeologist, or anthropologist. The physical evidence for continental drift having taken place a very long time before any human beings ever walked the earth is overwhelming. Of course, you can say we're just misinterpreting the evidence, as the Roman church told Galileo. Or you can insist, as do many Evangelicals, that God simply created things to look like they do. In which case, we might as well believe the Earth came into existence 45 seconds ago, with all our "experiences" and "memories" just programmed into place at that time. Whatever.

You mistake my meaning. I was joking just exactly as much as HEP was. I was serious only to the extent that he was serious.

What does "Metaphor" mean? WHOOOOOSH! That was the sound of your example sailing far over my head. Perhaps you misread my original comment. Let me reiterate. Yeah, I'm funny like that. The combined authority and beliefs of the principal, the superintendent, and the National Education Association still isn't enough to convince me that a bad teacher should stay. I daresay that even if the Sierra Club and the American Communist Party joined in, I still wouldn't change my opinion. You know, I have never really considered whether I am the granddaughter of that woman. I can't say for sure. I suppose I should ask my mother. Or my wife.

I'd like to call for sources here, because I've heard very little counsel on the subject of the ratings of movies.Explicit, blunt instruction given by Ezra Taft Benson, the prophet and Church president at the time: Don’t see R-rated movies or vulgar videos or participate in any entertainment that is immoral, suggestive, or pornographic. Here is another reference: Again I say, leave it alone. Turn it off, walk away from it, burn it, erase it, destroy it. I know it is hard counsel we give when we say movies that are R-rated, and many with PG-13 ratings, are produced by satanic influences.

If you showed my high-school child an R-rated movie without my consent, I would actively seek to have you fired. I would complain to the principal and the school board and would hire a lawyer, threatening to sue unless you were terminated. So if you really are a high school teacher, remember there may be parents like me among the guardians of your students.