paulsifer42

Tolerance does not equal acceptance. I think this may be where you're mixed up.

I need to put this in the quote finding thread, but there is a quote by Joseph Smith that was in Truman G. Madsen's speech that basically said that when Joseph is criticized, or lied about, before being angry he looks inside to see if there is not some truth in the criticism and invited others to do the same. And I can think of no time where I offended someone when, later, upon more reflection, I could not think of a kinder way to say what I said.

I would answer with you with your final quote.

Counterfeit (and the OP can correct me if I'm wrong) as used in this thread is the tool of Satan to make us leave something good for something that looks similar, but eventually leaves us empty. For example, a counterfeit for love could be promiscuity. They look similar, and can, at times, even feel similar, but to be active in one makes you forgo the other. You can be both loving and tolerant (toward things that deserve to be tolerated).

It seems there is large disagreement on the forums as to what is good and what is not. What some see as counterfeit others see as good things. Like, I think tolerance is a great thing, TFP thinks it's a counterfeit to love.

TFP, I think a big part of the Christian community's being called 'rude' or 'bigoted' stems from what appears to be a lack of consideration for their audience's feelings. Now, it is possible they did consider their audience, but just lacked tact (try saying that five time fast). Though, it would seem that if they really were considerate, but tactless and someone called them out on sounding/being rude they wouldn't jump to Matt. 5:11 "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake." as if offending someone and getting chewed out for it were some badge of honor, but would actually think about better ways of saying it. Are there stories of people saying offensive (even intentionally offensive) things and good coming of it? Of course there are; people have been communicating for a long time. But Elder Oak's talk this last Conference seems to say we need to be honest AND kind with those we disagree with. It seems most problems come from people forgetting to do one of those two. https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng

Oh, I know you're not, no big deal. And sin, and consequences for sin are still very much taught by the LDS church. Maybe, to use your analogy, not at the same decibel, but the teachings are still there and are still actively taught, so those in the church are still hearing it, or, at least, I sure am. :)

TFP, I think where we diverge is in our definition of what is intentionally rude. I think rudeness is not taking others' perspectives and attitudes into consideration, or intentionally wording something in a way that you know will get a rise out of them. I agree that Christ knew when he would offend someone, but still said it in the kindest way he could while preserving the truth. Because he considered the listener's feelings, and didn't intentionally word what he said rudely, in my definition, he was not rude. Like I said, I think we only diverge on definition. And you may know what you say will offend, but if you attempt to say it as kindly as possible, I don't think you're being rude. And I added that last bit because people have a tendency to think "WWJD"=I can do anything Jesus did, including judge people, because, you know, I righteously know they are sinning. It's the same as when I tell people I'm against the death penalty for religious reasons: "But, they did it in the Old Testament. Do you think they were doing what as wrong?" "No, they had Prophets who could talk to God and get revelation to know who deserved the death penalty. Just because they did it back then does not mean we have the same situation now." Just because Christ did something, doesn't mean we can do everything he did, because we are not in the same all-knowing situation.

Good Gift: Self-Sufficiency Counterfeit: Selfishness and pure-individualism

You and I agree then. Christ was seldom (if ever) intentionally rude. When he called the Pharisees and Sadducees out, it wasn't to be rude, it was to be honest, and the wicked take the truth to be hard. Like Christ, we should try to speak honestly and with as much kindness as that honesty can hold. Will some get offended? Of course, because Pharisees and Sadducees were never eradicated, just given different names, but, unlike Christ, we are not perfect, nor do we have a perfect knowledge, which means two things, 1. We should always be thinking of kinder ways to share the truth, while still holding to that truth and 2. we should leave the judging to the one who had a perfect knowledge of each and every heart and background. Are we commanded to 'judge righteously' yes, but most of our judges are appointed (Bishops, etc.) and, of course, we need to judge the character of others to determine our dealings with them, but only to the point they need to be judged, no further (especially not the point of what kingdom they'll end up in, or how happy they're making God).

Very Christlike of you. Well done, sir.

The way I see it is not so much that we need specks to be more accepting (because I believe we don't), but that people generally know about their specks. For example, I have a homosexual buddy. He knows I'm LDS. He knows our stance on homosexuality. He knows my personal stance on homosexuality. When he learned my stance it was after we were friends; this has been helpful because when he found out we had enough history that he kept being friend, so, even though he isn't dealing with his sexuality how I'd like him to, I do think I'm a positive influence on him. The reason I don't think churches need to continually yell about what they believe God frowns upon: because people already know. I don't need to tell my buddy I think God frowns on homosexuality every time we have a conversation; my buddy knows. Should I ever lie and tell him I give it two thumbs up? No. But does that mean I need to beat a dead horse? Also, no. It won't do him any good to not have the good influence I give him just to hear I REALLY believe God frowns on homosexuality a few more times.

Hahaha, okay.

I see the same thing you have, but religion is being tasked to do something it was never designed to do: be science. Religion in its essence is chosen beliefs that make us feel like we're becoming better people, sometimes by drawing closer to a deity. The beliefs are experience mixed with perspective, impossible to convey to anyone else. Science is set up to explain the world around us through didactic reasoning. We are taught that is science says it, it's true. Putting it on a pedestal. So, we ask religion to do what science does, something it will never be able to do.

Christ wasn't killed because he was rude, he was killed because some thought he would gain power and used "blasphemy" as justification. Overall he was kind. The sermon on the mount and the woman taken in adultery point to this. He did cleanse the temple, but we talk about it a lot because it seems uncharacteristic. In general he taught kindness and was seen by the judgemental as kind of out there (again, woman taken in adultery). I take this as a warning, when someone comes teaching peace and kindness, so long as they stick to the gospel as I understand it, I listen, and don't criticize.

The struggle though, and this may be one of the big problems many of us have with your idea, is how do we stop cooperating with people when it is government implemented? Do we hire several people to walk around and act as task masters to make sure everyone is giving it their all? This is why it seems to make more sense to live this way as well as we can independent of government mandate, where we can see the situation and act accordingly.

If our talking holds no meaning, why do it?

This is from your original post. We believe that what the prophets say is revealed truth, I don't believe this behooves mankind to change their ideas just because I believe it's revealed truth, I believe they should consider it. And basically what is stated here is, if it's not been revealed, we mere mortals need not talk about it, because it doesn't hold any meaning. I disagree. Both what we assume as revealed truth, and what has not been revealed can and should be thought about, discussed, debated, etc. And my hope is to convince him to consider our beliefs, and, if he gains a witness, to believe also.

The major flaw I see with your idea of redistributing wealth, is that wealth isn't so much a bunch of stuff, but a lifestyle. This is shown by many a doctor, or lawyer, or whatever other highly paid professional you can think of, who can't seem to reign in his spending, so he finds himself waistdeep in debt. Throwing money at the poor will do very little for them (at least in the USA) because they don't have the skills to do with that money what they would need to in order to generate more wealth. This is shown by lottery winners, inheritors, and the welfare system in England. What I would really like to see is more of the charitable work you pointed to earlier, where business people are loaned the capitol needed to start a business that will (as JaG illustrated) create wealth. What needs to be done (though I'm not sure how to do it) here in the USA is teach people, not how to work harder (because, let's face it, we know plenty of people working 3 jobs who just can't get ahead), but how to manage their money so they can eventually have more wealth. Of course, there's the old addage "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." Not sure how the teaching could be implimented so people would start spending their hard earned dollars on that which would do them the most good.

Haha, I love how you jump to, "If you don't agree with me your twisting the truth." It makes me laugh. No, what your comment suggested was that we follow everythin we hear blindly and that logical debate meant nothing to us. I disagree. I think God gave us minds so we could think through things. I think truth (and a better understanding of truth) can be found through debate (especially those of differing viewpoints), and thought.

The Gift of the Magi, by O. Henry. Far and away my favorite Christmas story. Read it every year.

Go, Pam, Go! :)

When I read it I thought of trying to find some kind of balance, and being smart about when a good age is for more freedom. My daughter is only 3 right now, so I pretty much just helicoptor, but I don't want to do that to her forever, nor do I want to be an absentee parent. Just has me thinking.

How do I do that?

You and I view God/what we're supposed to be doing here very differently. Isn't diversity in the church great!? :)