The Folk Prophet

If I was offended it would be my sin and weakness to deal with. Offense is always based in pride. Pride is sinful. No, that doesn't justify judging others unrighteously. However, there are plenty of people who are offended by righteousness. That is my simple point. To be fair, I do not entirely disagree with you. I think we need to be very, very careful how we judge. I'm not 100% in line with Matthew.Bennet, though he makes some good points. As I have made clear, there is a distinct difference between viewing actions and judging them as inappropriate and viewing people and viewing them as sinners. Whereas we can make mistakes on both (being incapable of perfect understanding, as has been well pointed out by anatess and the like) if we are mistaken in judging actions, but have used that judgment for righteous ends then it is for our good. If we are mistaken in judging people then we are guilty, plain and simple. As I have also pointed out, I do not look down on someone for their spending choices. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I can certainly see how my comments may not have come across that way. I tend to flippancy sometimes. But I judge the purchase of a 50k watch as inappropriate, and therefor will not do so myself even if wealthy (understanding, of course, that my perspective could change). I do not, nor have I ever said, that the 70 named is a sinner, should be stripped of his position, needs to repent, or anything like that.

Agreed. Irrelevant to the point though. There are those who are not spiritually ready to be baptized. Doesn't mean it's not a commandment to be baptized. And so forth... Already addressed in post #26. Why thank you. Thank you very much.

You say this as if it's the only standard whereby we may judge right and wrong.

The Savior experienced both deaths upon the cross. Hence - "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" From Jeffrey R. Holland: I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

A. Being unable to serve is very different from choosing not to serve. B. Repentance is repentance. Even if one of our leaders simply blatantly chose not to obey, they have just as much right to have repented as anyone, whereupon their sins are washed clean as if they had never been. C. Then you must belong to some other church. Are you FLDS? They don't believe missionary work is mandatory (as long as you live "the principle").

I know I'm just jumping in here...but...... Of course it can. First of all, we ALL die spiritually when we are separated from God coming to earth and physically no matter how righteous we are or are not, and none of us sinned to earn either of those. Death is punishment for sin does not equal sin is the only reason for death. And, as has (I believe) been pointed out (I haven't read every word of the above posts, but I think this was said), the Savior experienced death with no sin (both physically and spiritually). Who says death is a punishment in every case. It's obvious that it CAN be used as a punishment. But we all die physically, regardless of our worthiness, and the Savior, once again...ergo...death cannot possibly be ONLY a punishment. So...Jesus transgressed? Adam? Abraham? Isaiah? Joseph Smith? All transgressors in the pre-existence? I'm not buying. This is doctrinally unsupportable. It's a logical fallacy that depends on an unsupportable conclusion. C is only true if A and B are true. A. No one is punished for someone else's transgression = true. B. Death only comes as a result of transgression = FALSE. The entire philosophy herein is based on the idea that death is only a punishment. But the idea suffers from a variety of problematic logical turns. The biggest being the Savior's experience.

There's no question that 20k a year is poor. But it can be done. And, keep in mind 3 things. 1. it's only a starting point (worse case) and 2. More likely it would be at least double that with husband and wife working...at least for a bit. No question it is less than ideal. We're really talking worse or the worse, bottom barrel qualification for marriage theories. But it is doable. Edit: And the third thing is..... ....shut up..... so there were only 2 things.

I'm going with the best debate technique I know on this one. Wrong.

I pretend to work from home...

Well...

So I went back and read your OP more carefully. I expect you felt guilty that you made her cry. But it implies that she darned well knows she has problems, and by not calling her on it you are passively supporting her. I do not mean to say by that, in any degree, that you are responsible for her negativity, but along the same lines, you are also not responsible to support it. Point being (IMO) draw the line in the sand. When she gets negative, shut her down! Period. Be kind, of course. But don't put up with it. It may do nothing to help her (though it may, alternately, help) but you are not responsible to support her un-Christlike behavior. Moreover, you are in the right. I know you said you've already talked to her about it. So, really, what I'm saying, is don't give up -- and perhaps be more firm. The second she crossed the line. "I'm sorry. I'm not going to listen to you complaining. I would love to chat, but it has to be positive." She may storm off mad or cry. She may turn worse or better for it. That's up to her. But you are not her therapist. Alternatively, as you do this, you might consider seeking her out sometimes to initiate conversations that are positive so she knows you love her and can still be your friend if appropriate in her talk. Above all, follow the Spirit. If you feel it directly you exactly opposite of what I'm saying, then don't listen to me at all. Maybe what she needs is just someone to put up with her for a while and it will be her saving grace. Pray for her, literally (I know was say that all the time, but how often do we really, specifically, pray for someone by name this isn't a close friend or family) and that you'll be guided to do as the Lord would have you, and then...go and do. You know, that's much better advice than my first part. Incidentally...referencing D&C 121:43-44 for my thoughts here: "Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death." Incidentally, just in case you've never heard this before: Reprove means to correct. Betimes means quickly. Sharpness means clarity. So in laymen's it reads, "Correct quickly with clarity, when moved upon...."

I dunno...your using a Mac?

Do you find that they sometimes start considering you their best friend since you put up with them better? I try to be nice to everyone (not always online...gotta work on that), even the annoying ones, and consequently, surprise, surprise, they like me and come talk to me all the time. (Complain, complain, complain...) Part of the price you pay for Christianity I suppose.

All things we are counselled to do by our leaders. Hmm...

Not at all. One of these days anatess will learn that I get huffy when my "thinking" ability is questioned or when I'm called judgmental. Both in the same thread... Okay...okay...that's blaming her for my weakness. I'm sorry again. But it had nothing to do with you Suzie.

It is not judging someone. It is judging an action. And there is ABSOLUTELY potential value in doing so as we struggle to learn and choose who we will be from our judgments. This is the big fallacy of don't judge and it is mistaken. We are supposed to judge! Not people. Not to condemn. But absolutely to assess situations, choices, values, decisions, etc., and to use our brains to make ourselves better. This whole, "don't judge" trend is mindless and useless. If I am to say, "That guy's not going to the Celestial kingdom unless he repents" then feel free to call me on judging. Otherwise, it's so much jibber-jabber. Man...I just threw down my mic.

Since we made up I'll respond. Baloney! :) That is not what I said. I don't have an emotional reason for thinking 50k is too much for a watch. I am perfectly willing to invest in a 50k watch if there is a good and viable reason that helps to build the kingdom of God on the earth. Particularly more-so than not having bought it and using the money otherwise would have. My motivations in these matters of opinion are driven by something different than you are assuming. That being said, I really do not want to get back into it with you. Agree to disagree. Or not. Whatever. TFP out (again) *throws down the mic*

<-- Major emoticon missed opportunity. But I'm still fighting with others in the thread...

Sure. Absolutely agree. Eventually. It's a lifelong effort to get there though. Okay...so I get you. 10 for commitment to COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE SELFLESS SERVICE. Though I'm still iffy on "requirement" for it, as I know, for example, that my parents were NOT there when they got married, and spent years and years and years...well...they're still working through it. But they have a good marriage and are continually making it better and better.

Well, if it helps, your apology made me laugh. I'm sorry it was funny to read your inner struggle...now I feel bad too. Here...let me teach you how to properly apologize... I'm sorry. I did not mean to laugh at you. .....THAT IT! Stop right there. No more explaining. Incidentally, while I'm at it: I'm sorry I got huffy and threw a tizzy fit.

And, we save up our extra money that our parents sent us and buy CDs (hopefully approved ones), new shirts, souvenirs, and A&W root beer from the specialty store (what a glorious day that was). We also bought a gallon of ice cream (per missionary) every P-day and lived off of soda when proselyting (whereas we couldn't drink the water and soda was "cheap"). Yeah...Americans...not spoiled at all...

You're changing your parameters. Originally, "...commitment to COMPLETE AND ABSOLUTE SELFLESS SERVICE ". Now you're talking commitment to the marriage. Per your altered parameter, I agree. 10.

The one offending doesn't feel offended. Strange how that works.

20k is self-sufficient if it is (circular logic, I know, but the best way I could think to make my point). You can't put a number on self-sufficient. Use anatess's build your home for nothing video as an example. There are, without a doubt, a multitude of ways to be self-sufficient on 20k. And most of them don't involve building a solar powered cabin in the middle of nowhere.

*shrug* It still implied perfect commitment to it. I'm sticking with 8.