pam Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 A critic recently wrote that obedience to commandments such as tithing is mandatory. In order to claim certain blessings, obedience is certainly obligatory, but compliance is never mandatory—that is, forced. Nothing is mandatory in the church. Free agency is a cardinal principle of obedience. Obedience comes from love of God and a commitment to his work. The only punishment for serious transgression or apostasy is the removal of members from the society and fellowship of the Church. James E. Faust
Vort Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Brilliant comment from a brilliant man. But make no mistake, those with a rebellious spirit will not have ears to hear such simple truth.
clevermoniker Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Sounds to me like he's just making a petty semantic argument. An argument that he loses, actually. man·da·to·ry adj. 1. Required or commanded by authority; obligatory: Attendance at the meeting is mandatory.
Vort Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Sounds to me like he's just making a petty semantic argument.That's because you're not hearing what he's saying.
clevermoniker Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 That's because you're not hearing what he's saying.That's because what he's saying is absolute rubbish. The critic he is referring to obviously did not mean that the bishop takes our tithing at gunpoint. The critic used the term "mandatory" with it's correct and accepted meaning. Faust either didn't quite understand, or is simply twisting it to try to prove a point. The fact remains that obedience to the commandments, including tithing, is mandatory.
pam Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Posted March 2, 2012 Sounds to me like he's just making a petty semantic argument. An argument that he loses, actually.man·da·to·ry adj.1. Required or commanded by authority; obligatory: Attendance at the meeting is mandatory. Even using your argument...I would still have the agency in deciding to attend or not. Unless I'm tied up and forced to go, I can still choose not to go. I can still choose whether to be obedient or not.
clevermoniker Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Even using your argument...I would still have the agency in deciding to attend or not. Unless I'm tied up and forced to go, I can still choose not to go. I can still choose whether to be obedient or not.Yes, let's use MY argument. Because my argument involves using the English language, and in the English language mandatory does not mean you have no choice. On Thursdays, we have a mandatory meeting at work. That does not mean that my boss is going to tie me up and drag me to the meeting, does it? No, that would be ridiculous to even suggest. But if I do not go, there are obvious consequences.The same thing applies to the commandments. They aren't suggestions, they are commands. They are mandatory. If you choose not to comply, there are punishments attached.
pam Posted March 2, 2012 Author Report Posted March 2, 2012 You are still missing the point of his quote.
clevermoniker Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 The quote is based on a false premise. Blame Faust, not me. Maybe next time he'll try a little harder.
clevermoniker Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Yah, guess it's too late for him. No big deal, not everything he said was pointless like this one.
Vort Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) You are still missing the point of his quote.Pam, those with ears to hear will hear. Unfortunately, those who most need to hear it will instead engage in pointless semantic bickering. Edited March 2, 2012 by Vort
clevermoniker Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Pam, those with ears to hear will hear. Unfortunely, those who most need to hear it will instead engage in pointless semantic bickering.So perhaps you should stop?
Vort Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Am I engaged in bickering, semantic or otherwise?
clevermoniker Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Am I engaged in bickering, semantic or otherwise?Oh, perhaps you were referring to Faust, who decided to engage a critic in a (poorly crafted) semantic argument? Thank you for the clarification.
clevermoniker Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 So you want to refer to anyone making a semantic argument EXCEPT for Faust, because somehow he's exempt? Perhaps you need to be more specific when you throw out ignorant accusations.
Vort Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 So you want to refer to anyone making a semantic argument EXCEPT for Faust, because somehow he's exempt?Yes, exactly. Because Elder Faust was not making a semantic argument. He was trying to teach an eternal truth, using the imperfect symbolic representation of spoken language. He is understood by those with spiritual ears to hear his teaching, while the deaf are left to complain about semantics.Perhaps you need to be more specific when you throw out ignorant accusations.So non-ignorant accusations need not be so specific? Or do you mean that I am making accusations of ignorance? Yes, I suppose I am; spiritual deafness or the refusal to hear can be seen as a sort of ignorance, I guess.
clevermoniker Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Yes, exactly. Because Elder Faust was not making a semantic argument. He was trying to teach an eternal truth, using the imperfect symbolic representation of spoken language. He is understood by those with spiritual ears to hear his teaching, while the deaf are left to complain about semantics.So non-ignorant accusations need not be so specific? Or do you mean that I am making accusations of ignorance? Yes, I suppose I am; spiritual deafness or the refusal to hear can be seen as a sort of ignorance, I guess.Clearly you do not understand what a semantic argument is. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Vort Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 Clearly you do not understand what a semantic argument is.Clearly you do not know what you are talking about.Your ignorance knows no bounds.Here I must agree with you. My ignorance is almost as profound as your own.
Tyler90AZ Posted March 2, 2012 Report Posted March 2, 2012 A critic recently wrote that obedience to commandments such as tithing is mandatory. In order to claim certain blessings, obedience is certainly obligatory, but compliance is never mandatory—that is, forced. Nothing is mandatory in the church. Free agency is a cardinal principle of obedience. Obedience comes from love of God and a commitment to his work. The only punishment for serious transgression or apostasy is the removal of members from the society and fellowship of the Church. James E. FaustClever, he did not say all critics write, he said a critic recently wrote. That means he could be talking about any critic. It was clearly a critic that accused The Church of having mandatory tithing, he said, "never mandatory-that is,forced." He even lays out the definition of mandatory the critic used, which is by force. Therefore, you are using a semantic argument, because he laid out what the critic meant.
Just_A_Guy Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) This quote, in isolation, does seem like a semantical argument--and a weak one, at that. The misimpression grows stronger if one quits reading after the first couple of lines (as, quite frankly, I did the first time through).But here's the difference between the oft-maligned "True Believing Mormon" (TBM) and self-proclaimed "heterodox" Mormons. The heterodox Mormon will tend to lash out at the leadership. Obviously Faust was defensively responding to one particular critic. Of course Faust was deploying a rhetorical a bait-and-switch. He's one of The Patriarchy™--how could he do otherwise?The TBM thinks "huh, that's odd. I wonder if that's what he really meant?" Rather than immediately assume the worst, the TBM Googles the quote and finds that it comes from a 1985 Ensign article called "The Abundant Life". The TBM--even a lazy one like me--skims the article, returns to the quote, and then understands the quote's main point: that when you're truly converted you do stuff because you want to, not because you're "supposed" to. The TBM may find a turn of phrase within one specific sentence of the quote mildly regrettable, but on the whole walks away edified.The heterodox Mormon dubs the whole thing "absolute rubbish", picks a fight with a couple of other TBMs who disagree with his assessment, and then (one presumes) congratulates himself on his thoughtful and nuanced approach to religion. Edited March 3, 2012 by Just_A_Guy
clevermoniker Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 Some of us didn't need Google in order to understand the quote's main point. Some of us weren't edified, because this main point is nothing new or groundbreaking. One of us stated an opinion, and was attacked for it. One of us never felt the need to attack the faith of the other people in this thread, because... well, what kind of person would do that?
estradling75 Posted March 3, 2012 Report Posted March 3, 2012 (edited) The daily quote section is not a place for debating. To keep this thread from continuing its spiral in the wrong direction I am closing this thread Edited March 3, 2012 by estradling75
Recommended Posts