Marlin1

Your spouses feelings may not always be right, but you will never be right when you play the trump card in regard to your spouses feelings, that is terribly demeaning. You can act independently from your spouses feelings while still respecting and validating their feelings and concerns. You should always do what is right, sometimes that means honoring your spouses wishes over your own feelings of what is right. Each situation is unique, and if there is ever a question, you know where to turn.

Anybody heard of laughing yoga? If not, you should check it out on youtube. It is so great! You can't help but improve your well-being by doing it. Even Hinckley famously said to "live well, laugh often, and love much." There is nothing inherently evil or wrong about strongly audible laughter. I think Skippy740 was on the right path by looking at alternative definitions of the word "loud".

God's commandments are the means by which we love God and our neighbor as ourselves, or he would not have given them. God's commandments are the means to an end - love. The commandments are "literally" how we love our neighbor as ourselves. If you are not living them, then you are not loving others as Christ literally taught us to. Living the law of chastity is loving others the way God taught us to love them. We have all seen the harmful effects that pornography, infidelity, etc. have on others. Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of true love if you are unwilling to obey the law of chastity. Not living the law of chastity seems more selfish than self-less. The law of tithing allows others to be sealed to their families for time and eternity in Holy Temples. What greater love offering could there be? Again, not paying tithing seems more selfish than self-less. By not fulfilling these basic commandments, you are not loving others as God has taught. I am sure that you do much good for others, but you can offer more good and better love through receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost after baptism. You can offer a better and higher love through being sealed in the temple for time and eternity to your family. Tithing and chastity make all of that better good, and higher love possible.

That's a cool way to look at it Traveler. The scriptures say that God's glory is found in our immortality and eternal life. Elsewhere in scripture, God's glory is defined as intelligence. These sound like two different definitions for God's glory on the surface, but with the concept of hive mentality, they are really the same thing. If God's glory is intelligence, our salvation (God's glory) must in someway increase God's intelligence. This hive mentality is a good explanation of how that might happen. Our motivation to take part is the same as God's - it is family and love, which brings greater intelligence and thus glory. Love seems to be the principle that makes it all possible and worthwhile. If God's glory is our salvation and His intelligence, to glorify God mean's nothing more than to give him of ourselves. It is through giving glory (ourselves) that we receive glory (our children). We could not ourselves take part in glory (intelligence through continuation of the seed) without first giving God the glory (ourselves).

The ordinances are in part to teach us of God's love for us - Think of the symbolism of baptism, the sacrament, etc. They also show God our love for Him through covenant, our willingness to put Him first. It's all based in love and entitles us to abound more fully in His love. "That they may always have his spirit to be with them." We can more fully fulfill the command to love God, others, and self when we have His spirit to be with us always. It all points to love.

What is obedience if not done in love?

That's the only commandment that I follow. It is the underlying principle or commandment of the entire law. Love is in essence the only law that exists. To love God, others, and self, is all that exists in the law. All other commandments teach us how to love God, others, and self, and are fulfillment of that primary commandment. Christ said, the second is "like unto" it, which in scriptural language means it is of equal importance or in similitude. He couldn't even answer the question without including the second part to love others, because it is the same commandment in essence. People often forget the third part of this great commandment. It is to love yourself. He said to love others as yourself. That is enough Pete, so when are you going to get baptized?

If I misapprehend your logic it is only because you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You completely changed your stance to suit whatever point you were trying to make at the time. That my friend is illogical. I can grab the direct quotes if you want.

I have already agreed that I was oversimplifying terrorism. I never made the following argument that you accused me of: "If terrorists didn't believe they were justified by god then peace would ensue." Re-read what I wrote, it's not there anywhere. You are putting words in my mouth. I am not calling rectangles squares, you are seeing square rectangles. You like the word obtuse about as much as we like rash, moot, and non sequitur. That's quite the collection of favorite words. If you really think that I have a neurological condition - who has the bigger problem, the guy with the neurological condition or the guy formally debating with a guy with a neurological condition?

I thought you were done? I never made that argument.

The antecedent of "he" is the "someone" that you were referring to in your example. I am not referring to Satan. Your premise - Satan believed that he was justified in seeking God's glory. Your conclusion - He became Perdition. Non sequitur, affirming the consequent to be specific. Changing your premise from one statement to the next makes me question your logic.

Sorry to oversimplify terrorism but, That's Besides The Point

I am perfectly capable of listening to you, it's just that I'm getting tired of hearing you. So, thank you for making this your last ditch effort! Thank you also for educating me on the doctrine of addiction recovery. I didn't realize you were as familiar with it as I am. Your argument is absurd. Because the stimulant doesn't create an addict doesn't make it right to be a negative stimulus to others! Will a parent have no accountability before God for the treatment of their child? You said, "Its not being called bad that creates an addict." I never said that that's what creates an addict. I distinctly recall mentioning my beliefs about myself that created the addict. Do I take accountability for those beliefs, absolutely! Secondly, I am not the one who is oversimplifying the matter. Good or bad?!!! Really?!!! That's it? That's all there is when it comes to a man's being? Thirdly...wait what else did you say, sorry I got tired of listening. Something about pedophiles, xyz variables, chemical neuronal something or another, and oh wait, yes that there is more than one truth.

I think you like the phrase non sequitur as much as we like the words moot and rash. Rash statement and moot point, I know. In your example, he was never evil to begin with, nor did his being change through his evil actions. Satan believed that he was justified in rebelling against God? Who is non sequitur now? He rebelled against justice himself, thus becoming the devil. He knew that he was not justified in God, he simply thought that he could win. Terrorists on the other hand do believe that they are justified in God.

You might not use the word BAD that way, but others do. There is potential for someone to begin to believe that they are bad if they hear it enough, even if you are not using it in the way that they understood it. That is one reason why we should exercise caution with the use of our words, even if we are not truly judging other's beings. I perceive Abu Sayyaf the same way you do it sounds like. I don't think you are commenting about his being so much as you are judging his doing. His being is not, and cannot be evil until God places judgment on him of evil. Judgment is a perspective of heart more than a choice of words. There is a difference in perspective which can have a profound effect on our outlook and actions toward others in a positive or negative way.

Ya, I'm about burnt out as well. Thanks for your wishes. I apologize if I have been passionate to the point of being sarcastic and offensive. Just to make my point clear. Our enemies still have their agency, so wars would not cease if we stopped viewing them as evil. That is not my claim. Imagine, however, if terrorist never viewed us as evil beings, and instead viewed us as lost or deceived. Perhaps the word terrorist would have never existed. Instead of sending bombs, perhaps diplomats or missionaries. My claim is that there is no good in calling, or even perceiving them as bad. It only fosters more evil. Terrorists are deceived, they are not evil. They do not believe that they are fighting Satan's battle. They believe that they are on the Lord's side. They are fighting for their God, that is what makes them so dangerous. Truly evil beings (sons of perdition) are not deceived , they know what they have denied. Truly evil beings are not fighting agains a perceived evil as terrorists are, they are fighting against good. My point is that we don't need to perceive another person as evil or bad in order to protect ourselves. There are no good fruits in judging another man's being.

I think you like the word moot as much as I like the word rash. I was a child.

To answer your question as to why, would require me to share my experience with you. That is something I am not going to do. Any child psychologist can explain to you how a child can feel unlovable without making bad decisions. Not to mention, should a child ever be called "bad" when Christ calls them good?

I have argued that people are neither good nor bad. I never said they are good people that do bad things. I can view my enemy as deceived, lost, blind, etc. leading them to do evil acts. I can and will protect my family and country in war against evil powers and principles, and people who are blinded by the deceit of power and false principles. That mindset of viewing your enemy as bad has fostered racism and prejudice with almost every nation we have been at war with. It fosters hate and prejudice. Even in war we are taught to love our enemies, to even pray for them. If these people are truly evil, I cannot love them as Christ taught, I try not to love evil. Don't get me wrong, I will kill any man that is a threat to my life and liberty when at war or self-defense. Again, I can protect myself, my family, and my country without judging another man's being. I have explained that bad to me means evil.

I don't know what you mean by inartful, can you explain.

You make a good point on linguistics. The nuances in this case can have heavy consequences for both them and us, so we should perhaps be a little more careful in our wording in regards to other peoples beings. The words perhaps are not as damaging as the underlying perspective of another's being.

You are assuming that my bad choices led to my feelings of being unlovable. What happened was not of my choosing, nor was it a consequence of my bad choices. You can't make an accurate assessment based on "general statements", that would be rash.

And Chicago isn't located in the middle of the Atlantic. Of course you didn't say that and I didn't say the above which leaves us in a curious place doesn't it? You are right, bad can be applied to someone who has good in them and vise versa. People do it all the time, that doesn't make it right. That is what is in question here. As I said previously there is a far more accurate way to judge. Judge the deed, not the person. Deeds can be entirely good or bad, people cannot (with a small exception).

If someone can please show me the good in judging someone (rather than their actions) as bad, than I might be willing to consider that I am wrong. If you can't convince me that there is good in it, than I will not partake. What good does it do me, them, or anybody? I can teach my children who to avoid without placing judgment. I can see harm, but no good.

Anddenex, you truly have no clue what caused my pain. I don't even know where to begin with you. Bad choices?! You have NO CLUE what choices I have made.