thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 So following the absolute part of that comment. So someone who wasn't a member, broke the Law of Chasity while a teenager, and then later converted and became a Recommend Holder in good standing... Would never, ever, be good enough, because you feel they would always be on the verge of breaking the Law of Chasity again?Yup. If someone smokes and quits, you try to keep them as far away from smoking as possible because they might enjoy it so much that they can't stand to be around it without doing it. It's like that. You can't change the past and you'll always carry something from the past with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) I do realize that. All I'm saying is that that person is not for me. I just don't want to take the chance.So what you are saying is you disagree with your Dad. Such isn't immediately apparent from the way you introduced his saying. Edited April 7, 2011 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 So what you are saying is you disagree with your Dad. Such isn't immediately apparent from the way you introduced his saying.You could draw attention to me disagreeing with my dad, but it doesn't matter if I disagree with my dad, because he probably has said very many contradictory things (like ALL of us). He sometimes repeats that story of whether anyone would want to eat a cupcake that has been licked which most people won't (geez dad you don't have to repeat that so often..) - and I have to agree with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) You could draw attention to me disagreeing with my dad, but it doesn't matter if I disagree with my dad, because he probably has said very many contradictory things (like ALL of us). He sometimes repeats that story of whether anyone would want to eat a cupcake that has been licked which most people won't (geez dad you don't have to repeat that so often..) - and I have to agree with him.The thing is you quoted your dad as if he was supporting you position, a gem of wisdom we can all appreciate. The effect is rather ruined when you quote him as an apparent support and then turn around and disagree with it in the very next post. It ends up being confusing, you might want to invest in more clearly using signal phrases to indicate if you are agreeing or disagreeing with a particular quote or example.If you make a habit (we all make mistakes and have failures at communication) of appearing to contradict yourself and posting egregious factual errors you'll find you'll develop a reputation and find most won't take you seriously. Edited April 7, 2011 by Dravin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 The thing is you quoted your dad as if he was supporting you position, a gem of wisdom we can all appreciate.He was supporting my position! That gem of wisdom was "All you need to know whether you can trust someone is whether they have a temple recommend." Some people have always had a temple recommend through all of their adulthood. That's all you need to know about someone to know whether you can trust them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 If you make a habit (we all make mistakes and have failures at communication) of appearing to contradict yourself and posting egregious factual errors you'll find you'll develop a reputation and find most won't take you seriously.Nice stealth edit. What egregious factual errors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 He was supporting my position! That gem of wisdom was "All you need to know whether you can trust someone is whether they have a temple recommend." Some people have always had a temple recommend through all of their adulthood. That's all you need to know about someone to know whether you can trust them.Then you are disagreeing with your own position as you don't trust those who hold temple recommends but have violated the Law of Chastity. 1. All you need to know whether you can trust someone is whether they have a temple recommend.2. I don't trust someone who has a temple recommend who violated the Law of Chastity.The first statement does not agree with the second.Nice stealth edit. What egregious factual errors?That someone who has violated of the Law of Chastity can no longer go to the temple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Then you are disagreeing with your own position as you don't trust those who hold temple recommends but have violated the Law of Chastity. That someone who has violated of the Law of Chastity can no longer go to the temple.I am not disagreeing with myself. I gave other examples of why I don't trust people who have violated the Law of Chastity. After reading what I wrote, you're right - I should have included a transition from my dad's quote. 1. All you need to know whether you can trust someone is whether they have a temple recommend.2. I don't trust someone who has a temple recommend who violated the Law of Chastity.The first statement does not agree with the second.The first statement is my dad's position, and the second is my position. Apparently the first is your position as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 (edited) "All you need to know whether you can trust someone is whether they have a temple recommend." Some people have always had a temple recommend through all of their adulthood. That's all you need to know about someone to know whether you can trust them. You are either very naive or you are just kidding.It also seems (by your posts in this thread) that you don't believe in the process of Repentance. Good thing the Lord doesn't feel the same way about you (and your sins) or any of our sins. Edited April 7, 2011 by Suzie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 The first statement is my dad's position, and the second is my position. Apparently the first is your position as well?Nope, plenty of people who aren't trustworthy hold temple recommends. People can hold them unworthily for starters. And even if someone does hold it worthily I'm not exactly in a position to know, so I'm not going to let some random person who flashes a temple recommend (we'll assume it is a valid one as opposed to a fake or 'borrowed' one) say, watch my kids while I fly out for the weekend. Actually I think using a temple recommend as a litmus test for blanket trustworthiness is ill advised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 I do realize that. All I'm saying is that that person is not for me. I just don't want to take the chance. It's like dating a murderer - if they murdered someone, wouldn't you be afraid that would murder someone again? You take precaution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Actually I think using a temple recommend as a litmus test for blanket trustworthiness is ill advised.The thing is you quoted your dad as if he was supporting you position, a gem of wisdom we can all appreciate.Then why did you call it my dad's quote a gem of wisdom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Exactly! Repentance can never fully put you on the same ground as the non-repentant person! Both you and Dravin seem to agree that it's good to know someone's past. Does it matter whether a pedophile repents? Will you still let that person watch your kids? Most likely not! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dravin Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Then why did you call it my dad's quote a gem of wisdom?Because I was talking about how you appeared to present it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Exactly! Repentance can never fully put you on the same ground as the non-repentant person!That statement is completely contradictory to the way Christ sees it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suzie Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Exactly! Repentance can never fully put you on the same ground as the non-repentant person!As far as I know (and please correct me) you are a sinner like the rest of us, in need of repentance and I am pretty sure you have repented of a lot of things in your life and will have the need to do so until you die. You seem to placed yourself in some sort of pedestal or in a far away building where the modern day "lepers" live and you want them as far as you can. Just because probably you never committed a sin that could be considered "serious" doesn't mean you are different than any other brother or sister who have committed a serious sin or struggling in some way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Because I was talking about how you appeared to present it.Thank you for clarifying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 That statement is completely contradictory to the way Christ sees it...Maybe in the grand eternities it all ends up being the same, but you lose something in this life by sinning, even if you do repent. You can't regain what you lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 As far as I know (and please correct me) you are a sinner like the rest of us,Bwahaha. I like you Suzie. Of course I'm a sinner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Just because probably you never committed a sin that could be considered "serious" doesn't mean you are different than any other brother or sister who have committed a serious sin or struggling in some way or the other.A person who murders is not on the same level as someone who is sometimes a little too proud. Sure, neither of us can be in the presence of God unless we repent (but contrary to popular belief, you can be in the presence of god while being a sinner - see devil visiting with God in Job). But, even if neither of us ever repents, the murderer will go to the terrestial kingdom and the other person will go to the telestial kingdom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Maybe in the grand eternities it all ends up being the same, but you lose something in this life by sinning, even if you do repent. You can't regain what you lost.Right but being a bit behind is worlds different then your claim that they will always be weak to that sin. The absolute positioning you make on weakness is contrary to the idea of Christ showing people their weakness so that he can make them strong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 Right but being a bit behind is worlds different then your claim that they will always be weak to that sin. The absolute positioning you make on weakness is contrary to the idea of Christ showing people their weakness so that he can make them strong.But is making them strong referring to this life or the next? Even if someone gives up an addiction and repents of it, do you think you can trust them around that addiction in the future?The initial question was, "what do you think of people who have fully repented of a sin, versus someone who never committed it in the first place?" I've stated my position clearly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 But is making them strong referring to this life or the next? Even if someone gives up an addiction and repents of it, do you think you can trust them around that addiction in the future?The initial question was, "what do you think of people who have fully repented of a sin, versus someone who never committed it in the first place?" I've stated my position clearly.I have never talked about addiction... And the idea that all sins are an addiction is just flat out wrong.As for your position you have stated that Sinners are always weak in whatever the sin, whenever committed. I challenge the absoluteness of your statement. While I recognized that some can be weak not all of them are. For example Alma the Elder. He was a priest of King Noah and he indulged in the vices of King Noah's court (which included harlots) Until he converted by hearing words of a prophet. According to you Alma the Elder will always be weaker and lesser. According to the scriptures he became prophet and the leader of the church. Same with Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah. Vilest of sinners, converted into beacons, stalwarts and examples.I find your absolute stance unsupportable in is absoluteness. If you think you are some how better then the Alma's and the Sons, because you didn't break the law of Chasity I would like to warn you of the dangers of pride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebeliever Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 I have never talked about addiction... And the idea that all sins are an addiction is just flat out wrong.As for your position you have stated that Sinners are always weak in whatever the sin, whenever committed. I never said that. I implied that they are more likely to be weak in that particular sin than someone who hasn't done it in the past. But enough of this.. I'm going to go do something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted April 7, 2011 Report Share Posted April 7, 2011 I would never date someone who violated the law of chastity, even if they fully repented of it. This means that I couldn't trust them. And if I can't trust them with this big thing, then I wouldn't be able to trust them with small things. My dad tells me sometimes, "All you need to know whether you can trust someone is whether they have a temple recommend." If someone broke the law of chastity, then they could no longer go to the temple. Personally I would never again date or marry anyone that lacks the compassion and Christlike ability to forgive. Or lacks an understanding of the repentance process. Even Christ said to the woman "Go and sin no more." That was enough for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.