A day of warning, and not a day of many words

[theSQUIDSTER]

I think you could be right in some instances (very few in my opinion but without specific examples I can't say).  But I think mutual understanding is important most of the time.  If your goal is to change someone else's opinion and or behavior, that is not going to happen if the person is feeling defensive.  Mutual understanding (in other words, not necessarily agreeing but understanding one another's position) is the first step towards agreement if that goal is to be reached at all.

Yes, thank you, LiterateP. "Not necessarily agreeing but understanding.."

Now if this were the army and my commanding officer gave me an order, it would indeed be my job to understand the order and do it. Whether said officer gave the command politely or screamed it at me is not relevant.. Especially in the heat of battle.. It is my duty to say, "yes sir!" and then do it without delay. I don't have to like it or agree with it .. That's not how the military works. All my commanding officer needs to hear and understand from me is that *I* understand and will do it. There is value in this when circumstances merit it.

Sometimes The Lord speaks to us like this... As in the scripture cited at the beginning of this topic.. It is the Lord's right to do this and not excuse Himself. When The Lord commands us or prompts his servants to speak after this fashion then we'd all be very wise to obey and not question why. The Lord doesn't always give us an explanation for His own reasons.

That being said.. Consider this: "And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;" (D & C 50:10) .. The Lord, more often than not, condescends to reason with His children.. Not because he condones our bad behavior and willful disobedience.. But hopes to persuade us gently so that we'll use our agency, follow His will and learn what we need to learn without His having to smite us every time and speak with a voice of thunder.. The still small voice of the Spirit is usually the preferred method rather than Cecil B. Demill's whirling tornado of fire.

[Traveler]

Yes, thank you, LiterateP. "Not necessarily agreeing but understanding.."

Now if this were the army and my commanding officer gave me an order, it would indeed be my job to understand the order and do it. Whether said officer gave the command politely or screamed it at me is not relevant.. Especially in the heat of battle.. It is my duty to say, "yes sir!" and then do it without delay. I don't have to like it or agree with it .. That's not how the military works. All my commanding officer needs to hear and understand from me is that *I* understand and will do it. There is value in this when circumstances merit it.

Sometimes The Lord speaks to us like this... As in the scripture cited at the beginning of this topic.. It is the Lord's right to do this and not excuse Himself. When The Lord commands us or prompts his servants to speak after this fashion then we'd all be very wise to obey and not question why. The Lord doesn't always give us an explanation for His own reasons.

That being said.. Consider this: "And now come, saith the Lord, by the Spirit, unto the elders of his church, and let us reason together, that ye may understand;" (D & C 50:10) .. The Lord, more often than not, condescends to reason with His children.. Not because he condones our bad behavior and willful disobedience.. But hopes to persuade us gently so that we'll use our agency, follow His will and learn what we need to learn without His having to smite us every time and speak with a voice of thunder.. The still small voice of the Spirit is usually the preferred method rather than Cecil B. Demill's whirling tornado of fire.

 

What is going on matters - and what we intend to accomplish matters.  When executing a covenant to unify and act as one - such as in a marriage or the individual disciple's reconciliation to G-d (or military war) - it is more important for the many to act together than it is for any individual to be right.  This was perhaps my personal most difficult lesson to learn in marriage.  The covenant of marriage is not about what is right or even who is right - marriage is about acting together.  Thus it is better to act together than only one to be right.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

I think you could be right in some instances (very few in my opinion but without specific examples I can't say).  But I think mutual understanding is important most of the time.  If your goal is to change someone else's opinion and or behavior, that is not going to happen if the person is feeling defensive.  Mutual understanding (in other words, not necessarily agreeing but understanding one another's position) is the first step towards agreement if that goal is to be reached at all.

 

I think our goal only very rarely is (or should be) to change someone's opinion. I think our goal is to preach the truth with the Spirit bearing witness. Whether that person changes his/her opinion is up to that person; if s/he feels the Holy Ghost but chooses to deny the witness, that is the inherent right of agency given to all children of God. I agree with TFP; our goal should be to teach the truth with clarity and with the Spirit.

 

I don't necessarily 100% agree with either of you!  Haha.

 

What Vort is saying...that our goal is to preach the truth = yes. What Vort is saying...our goal is not not to change opinions = no. The first is the means to the second. They are not mutually exclusive. We preach the truth with the Spirit in hopes of changing their opinions. (I'll grant...there's a bit of looseness in the usage of the word "goal" here...and accordingly, my agreement with Vort on this can fluctuate).

 

As far as the mutual understanding -- I think there's a difference on what's being meant. Of course we look for common interests and common truths. And we build on these. But only if they exist. This is not the goal either. It is also a means. The goal is to save souls. The means can vary. But the means should NEVER include compromising, of even suggest compromising, or even hinting at any sort of compromising of TRUTH.

 

LitParakeet -- you may be right that "most of the time" some sort of mutual understanding is beneficial. However, that does not make it the rule or even the best practice. That'd be like saying always choose the black guy for your basketball team. Mutual understanding is not always the best course, imo. In many cases, all it succeeds in doing is lulling them into security in their false thinking. Not beneficial. Rather, methinks, we must speak the truth clearly, boldly, and unapologetically, but with great care to do so courteously and respectfully (though...on a side note, I also believe that there is a time when courtesy and respect are to be discarded in favor of the figurative sword).

[The Folk Prophet]

When executing a covenant to unify and act as one - such as in a marriage or the individual disciple's reconciliation to G-d (or military war) - it is more important for the many to act together than it is for any individual to be right.  This was perhaps my personal most difficult lesson to learn in marriage.  The covenant of marriage is not about what is right or even who is right - marriage is about acting together.  Thus it is better to act together than only one to be right.

 

I cannot disagree more.

 

Our responsibility to do right is our highest priority. Not even our marriage and families supersedes this. My loyalty and faithfulness will always be first to God, second to my wife. ALWAYS. And there is nothing I can do for my wife that is more loving, more loyal, and more committed to her than to be loving, loyal and committed to God first.

 

I seriously cannot possibly disagree more with something than the idea that the covenant of marriage is not about what is right.

 

I'd say it more strongly, but it would certainly come across rudely and I'm working on being more courteous.

Edited November 24, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[theSQUIDSTER]

If I may chime in on this... Of course the ideal ... the goal... is to both choose the right together... to BOTH choose what is most pleasing to the Lord.  No?  But we're talking in HUGE generalities here.  .. and I think we're talking right past each other...

 

Traveler, are you saying what TFP thinks you're saying?  TFP, I don't know if he's saying what you think he's saying...  

 

 

It sounds to me like you're talking about two different things.  

 

TFP, "our responsibility to DO right" IS right.  But is it really always clear what that is?   I see a danger that our responsibility to DO right could get mixed up with our desire to always BE right.  Which, it sounds to me, like what Traveler is talking about.  

 

It is possible that I'm completely misunderstanding both of you...  ... oh well... 

[The Folk Prophet]

and I think we're talking right past each other...

 

That's what we do! :)

 

TFP, "our responsibility to DO right" IS right.  But is it really always clear what that is?   I see a danger that our responsibility to DO right could get mixed up with our desire to always BE right.  Which, it sounds to me, like what Traveler is talking about.  

 

How can you possibly DO right if you can't BE right? You have to BE right first before you can ever DO right. Being right is key. But being right is not about arguing better, being stubborn or whatever worldly notions that being right means. Being right is about humbling yourself and turning to God in all things. In these terms it is ABSOLUTELY more important to be right than it is to act together. Being right is the most important thing we can possibly do in this life. There is only one means to being right, however, and that is to be guided by the Holy Spirit.

 

Now, yes, we need to compromise in our marriages. I'm not even implying otherwise. But we compromise when it doesn't matter (which is probably most things in most LDS marriages). When it does matter -- when it REALLY matters -- we do NOT compromise. Not for anything, ever. Not for family, friends, or associates. We stand for Christ. Hopefully it is rare have a marriage where one might need to make such a choice, but when such a choice comes before us, God comes first.

 

But even in, perhaps, talking past Travelers meaning, I cannot get past the statement, "The covenant of marriage is not about what is right..." This is ALL the covenant of marriage is about. What is right!

 

Moreover, it's hard to see Traveler's p.o.v. as something so harmless as you suggest with the statement, "Thus it is better to act together than only one to be right." There is implicit danger in that idea. It's better to stop going to church if your spouse does for the sake of the marriage? It's better to allow alcohol and tobacco in the home if your spouse uses such and not say a word...for the sake of the marriage. It's better to just let your spouse view porn than have contention. Etc. etc. Whatever evil or corruption come into the home...at all costs just keep the marriage peaceful.

 

If this is not Traveler's meaning then I'm calling him out to set the record straight, because the meaning of the words he used say exactly that.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I think our goal only very rarely is (or should be) to change someone's opinion. I think our goal is to preach the truth with the Spirit bearing witness. Whether that person changes his/her opinion is up to that person; if s/he feels the Holy Ghost but chooses to deny the witness, that is the inherent right of agency given to all children of God. I agree with TFP; our goal should be to teach the truth with clarity and with the Spirit.

 

Vort, i don't think that we disagree so much as we are talking about different things. In a gospel sense, I can see where you are coming from and agree.  However, I was thinking about "changing opinions" in a much broader sense from the mundane everyday negotiations with your spouse about who will take out the trash, to much larger and more important discussions on racism.  

 

 

LitParakeet -- you may be right that "most of the time" some sort of mutual understanding is beneficial. However, that does not make it the rule or even the best practice. That'd be like saying always choose the black guy for your basketball team. Mutual understanding is not always the best course, imo. In many cases, all it succeeds in doing is lulling them into security in their false thinking. Not beneficial. Rather, methinks, we must speak the truth clearly, boldly, and unapologetically, but with great care to do so courteously and respectfully (though...on a side note, I also believe that there is a time when courtesy and respect are to be discarded in favor of the figurative sword).

 

As I said to Vort, I was thinking not just about the gospel but in a more general sense, politics is a good example.  Too often people are so busy stating their own opinion (including why the other side are idiots) that they don't take time to truly understand the other sides views.  If ever we are to come to some sort of compromise in politics, we need to find some common ground.  

 

I disagree that understanding the point of view of someone you disagree with is lulling them into security of false thinking.  You don't have to pretend to agree, only to listen.  And to try to speak in a way that won't immediately put them on the defensive, so that they will listen to you too.

Edited November 25, 2014 by LiterateParakeet

[The Folk Prophet]

I disagree that understanding the point of view of someone you disagree with

 

You don't have to pretend to agree

 

^ conflicting ideas in my thinking. There's this general idea that we can "understand" but not "agree". I find that most often that I disagree because I do not understand. What's wrong with I don't understand but I love you and care about you and want the best for you anyway?

 

I disagree that understanding the point of view of someone you disagree with is lulling them into security of false thinking.  

 

Then we (somewhat) disagree. Keep in mind, I'm thinking of moral issues. Amoral issues do not matter to me. When it is a moral issue, I don't see any particular value in finding common ground. If it's amoral...sure...why not?

 

I'll use an extreme example:

 

"That's very interesting Ted Bundy. I can empathize and understand your desire to murder women and perform acts of necrophilia."

 

Uh...no.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

^ conflicting ideas in my thinking. There's this general idea that we can "understand" but not "agree". I find that most often that I disagree because I do not understand. What's wrong with I don't understand but I love you and care about you and want the best for you anyway?

 

Okay, let me try to explain another way.  I have a friend who used to be LDS, now she is an Atheist.  I have listened to her point of view.  I understand why she feels the way she does, but I do not agree.  

 

She knows (because we have discussed it at length) that I understand, but I don't agree.

 

This is where I think that Vort and I agree.  When my friend first told me that she had "lost her testimony" an atheist, if I had said something offensive and put her on the defensive...that may have led to the end of our friendship, and an opportunity that I might have going forward to influence her.  

Fortunately, I wasn't offensive.  :)   I listened to her, really listened.  Then I said something like, "I understand where you are coming from because I have entertained some of the same questions.  However, my conclusions were different . . ."

 

Does that help clarify?  (I'm assuming that clarification is needed because why else would you disagree with me??? LOL!)

[The Folk Prophet]

Okay, let me try to explain another way.  I have a friend who used to be LDS, now she is an Atheist.  I have listened to her point of view.  I understand why she feels the way she does, but I do not agree.  

 

She knows (because we have discussed it at length) that I understand, but I don't agree.

 

This is where I think that Vort and I agree.  When my friend first told me that she had "lost her testimony" an atheist, if I had said something offensive and put her on the defensive...that may have led to the end of our friendship, and an opportunity that I might have going forward to influence her.  

Fortunately, I wasn't offensive.   :)   I listened to her, really listened.  Then I said something like, "I understand where you are coming from because I have entertained some of the same questions.  However, my conclusions were different . . ."

 

Does that help clarify?  (I'm assuming that clarification is needed because why else would you disagree with me??? LOL!)

 

Sure it clarifies. IF you have had some of the same thoughts then you've had some of the same thoughts. But if you haven't, then I repeat, what's wrong with, "I don't understand. I love you. I know that God does exist because I have personally experienced His love. Either way, I'm here for you."

 

You don't have to understand someone's wrong-headed p.o.v. to be courteous, kind, and Christlike. Sure...don't use the term "wrong-headed" to their face. But you don't have to understand it to keep a good relationship.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

TFP, I don't understand, but I'm here for you.  

[The Folk Prophet]

TFP, I don't understand, but I'm here for you.  

 

At this point I don't know whether you're joking, honestly not understanding, or just being contrary.

 

But it really isn't that complicated. I'll restate what the point was.

 

Mutual understanding is a means. It is not the goal. The goal is the salvation of souls. And mutual understanding is not THE means either. It is A means. Perhaps a useful one in most instances. Perhaps one of the more effective ones. But it is not always the right choice. We can easily see this in many scriptural examples. There are times when the prophets agree quickly with their adversaries. There are times when they humbly submit to the evil inflicted upon them. And there are times when they take up the sword.

 

Perhaps this point we can agree on: We have to follow the Spirit to know how to act. There are times and places where slapping someone upside the head is the right choice. And there are times (probably more often) when this is the absolute wrong choice. If we stay in tune with the Spirit and do as it guides then we can make these choices correctly. If we just go with "always" this or that or what-have-you, then we run the risk of hurting instead of helping.

Edited November 25, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Traveler]

Sometimes choices are not about what is right and what is wrong but what is more right or less wrong.  This may sound very strange but what we are talking about are covenants.  I would submit the the covenant of marriage is a lot more important than some may want to or be willing to consider.  For example, there are no callings in the church that are more important and right than our marriage covenant.  This may come as a shock to some on this forum but it is more important and necessary to keep one's marriage covenant than it is to magnify one's calling as bishop or stake president - dare we even say Apostle?

 

Our callings are not eternal - but our marriage covenant is.  While this fact is sinking into our thought on this matter there are a few other thing that need to be understood about covenants.  Here is a question that may add some clarification.  Is it more correct or is it better to be right or to obey G-d?

 

If one understands covenants - including the oath and covenant of the priesthood as given in D&C 84 - there is no wording about being obedient only when you are convinced that the L-rd or his servants are "right".

 

But lets bring this down to practical matters that we deal with every day.  Lets take a football team for example.  It is far better for a team to work together than any one individual to be excellent - especially in the mind and attitudes of the individual players.   I read an article about the worse loss recorded in football history.  The score was something like 150 to 0.  But one of the players on the loosing team was quoted as having a argument after a play and saying, "Why should I have picked up the ball -- you dropped it!"

 

While we are all thinking about team playing on a football field - lets go back to the very important notion of salvation.  What would happen to the salvation of humanity if Jesus was more concerned about doing what is just and right than being merciful?  Let me outline this for anyone that is confused about how important the mercy and sacrifice is Jesus is.  Is it right that Jesus condescends to pay for our sins?

 

How important is your marriage covenant?  Is it more important than your church attendance?  Hmmmmmmmm.  We may want to think that the two are not mutually exclusive - but for me - there is no question - all things considered my marriage covenant is more important to me.

 

How important is it to be right in a religious discussion?  For me - if someone refuses to see a certain point and is unwilling to consider a view point to the point that they become angry or in some other ways begins to shutdown and clam up?  To me it is better to walk away and let them think they are right than to allow a spirit of contention to have place in the discussion.  

 

In short - especially as I understand G-d and his dealing with us - it is better to possess an attitude of love, compassion, forgiveness and mercy than it is to be right.  Thus if there is a question of being right or acting with love, compassion, forgiveness and mercy - (even if discussing doctrine) I am convinced it is better to act with love, compassion, forgiveness and mercy than to be right. 

 

One last point - the sin of pride is always the excuse of being right over being loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving.  But if you insist that being right is more important in you marriage that being loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving - good luck with that - and BTW - how is that working out for your spouse?

Edited November 25, 2014 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

Traveler,

 

You keep making these either/or statements that are clear logical fallacies. Is it better to be right or obey God? The question makes no sense. You cannot disobey God and be right.

 

Sometimes choices are not about what is right and what is wrong but what is more right or less wrong.  This may sound very strange but what we are talking about are covenants.  I would submit the the covenant of marriage is a lot more important than some may want to or be willing to consider.  For example, there are no callings in the church that are more important and right than our marriage covenant.  This may come as a shock to some on this forum but it is more important and necessary to keep one's marriage covenant than it is to magnify one's calling as bishop or stake president - dare we even say Apostle?

 

Our callings are not eternal - but our marriage covenant is.  While this fact is sinking into our thought on this matter there are a few other thing that need to be understood about covenants. 

 

Agreed. But that is because putting your marriage above your callings is the right thing to do. If you put your callings above your spouse then you are WRONG. Not right. You're choosing wrong over right. Choosing right is ALWAYS right. You're putting it into terms of "I think I'm right" rather than actually doing right. Thinking something wrong is right doesn't make it right.

 

Sure, there are neutral issues. But even within those neutral things there is a right way to be and a wrong way to be. Giving up oneself in favor of the marriage is part of our covenant. Submitting on issues that don't matter is probably wise. Compromising where possible is key. But those things are all right. Stepping over the line to something that is wrong in the name of compromise will never, ever be right.

 

If one understands covenants - including the oath and covenant of the priesthood as given in D&C 84 - there is no wording about being obedient only when you are convinced that the L-rd or his servants are "right".

 

True. But if you aren't convinced that God is right, it indicates something askew with your testimony that you'd best get in order. And if you aren't convinced that God is right, blind obedience is not the answer. Finding out that God is right is the answer.

 

How important is your marriage covenant?  Is it more important than your church attendance?  Hmmmmmmmm.  We may want to think that the two are not mutually exclusive - but for me - there is no question - all things considered my marriage covenant is more important to me.

 

Do you believe that going inactive for the sake of one's marriage will net an end result of exaltation? It renders the marriage covenant null and void if we do not obey God. So whereas I believe you and I are on the same page as to the importance of the marriage covenant, it makes no logical sense to commit to the covenant above obedience when the disobedience nullifies the covenant anyhow. Whereas one way will yield a net result of exaltation but with a different spouse perhaps, the other way yields a net result of no exaltation. Either way you lose your spouse if they will not obey. One way your damning yourself as well.

 

And it does not matter what is more important to you (or to me). It matters what is more important to God. And God has declared obedience as his standard - including within the scope of the marriage covenant.

 

How important is it to be right in a religious discussion?  For me - if someone refuses to see a certain point and is unwilling to consider a view point to the point that they become angry or in some other ways begins to shutdown and clam up?  To me it is better to walk away and let them think they are right than to allow a spirit of contention to have place in the discussion. 

 

Being right is very important. Proving you're right is not. You're talking about not proving it. You're not talking about actually being right or not. It is our duty and obligation to ensure that we are right, and where we are not, learn, grow, and humble ourselves to that end. Understanding that we are not always right is part of humility. Understanding that God and His word IS always right is also part of humility. Submitting ourselves to God and replacing our will with His make us right.

 

In short - especially as I understand G-d and his dealing with us - it is better to possess an attitude of love, compassion, forgiveness and mercy than it is to be right.  Thus if there is a question of being right or acting with love, compassion, forgiveness and mercy - (even if discussing doctrine) I am convinced it is better to act with love, compassion, forgiveness and mercy than to be right. 

 

More failed logic here. If one acts with love, compassion, forgiveness, and mercy then one is right. If one does not then one is wrong. They are not either/or. You either are both or you are neither. They are not contrasting concepts. It's not better to be right if you fail in these regards, because you can't be right without them. If one feels they are right without them then they are lying or lied to. Wrong cannot be right. God deals with us in love and compassion because it is RIGHT to do so. God cannot be wrong. God cannot be unjust. God cannot abandon these things or he would not be God. He is merciful BECAUSE it is right. He is just because it is right. He set up the Atonement to do right by us all and by all that is just. He does not, nor can He, rob justice. He pays justice, because it is right. He offers mercy because it is right. He is always right!

 

One last point - the sin of pride is always the excuse of being right over being loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving.

 

No. This is not being right. This is thinking your right. This is trying to prove your right. This is stubbornness and pride, which are not right. If you are prideful, you are wrong. And being right is good because we must be humble, long-suffering, patient, loving, etc., etc., all of which are right. If we are prideful, hateful, impatient, etc., then we cannot be right whether we believe ourselves to be or not.

 

If we humble ourselves and are obedient to God then we cannot be wrong. If that puts us at odds with our marriage then we are still right in doing so and always will be.

 

I'll say it again. Wrong can never be right.

 

But if you insist that being right is more important in you marriage that being loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving

 

Another either/or that fails. I insist on being right which means that I insist on being loving, compassionate, merciful, and forgiving.

 

how is that working out for your spouse?

 

I don't appreciate you taking it personal with this remark. Moreover, it is entirely irrelevant to the point, and shows that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

 

If you want to talk theory, let's enjoy. If you want to make it personal then I'm outta here.

Edited November 25, 2014 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

At this point I don't know whether you're joking, honestly not understanding, or just being contrary.

 

Sorry for the confusion.  I was joking.  I was thinking that we'd just have to agree to disagree.  I think the problem here is really more of semantics than really disagreement.  But I also think we are as close to an agreement as we are going to get.  So I thought to end it with humor...my way of saying, I disagree but no hard feelings.  

[theSQUIDSTER]

I hope everyone is enjoying the discussion. I'm enjoying it. It's not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings, but this discussion is reminding me of something that happened between my wife and one of my granddaughters, Hailey.

When Hailey was a little younger and was learning to speak she would sometimes pronounce things in cute and funny way. One day she was singing the song "Twinkle twinkle little star." This is what happened:

Hailey singing: "Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh stahwah.. How I wondoh whatchoo ahwah.."

Mimi and Grampee both start to laugh. (We just couldn't help our selves.. It was just so dang cute!).

Hailey gets a little upset that we're laughing.

Mimi: "Oh, sweetheart.. Don't be sad. We're laughing because we love how cute you sing.."

Hailey's not quite convinced.

I try to give Hailey some encouragement: "It'll be ok, Hal. Why don't we all sing it together?"

Hailey stops sniffling and thinks about my offer and then nods, ok.

We all begin singing: "Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh STAHwah.. How I wondoh whatchoo AHwah.."

Hailey bursts into tears again.

Mimi and Grampee stop singing.

Grampee: "What'sa matter, Hal pal?"

Mimi: "Oh, sweetie, what's wrong?"

Hailey looks at us with exasperation, then points her finger at my wife accusingly: "Mimi! It's NOT Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh stahwah! It's Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh *STAH*wah!"

.. Kinda resembles some of our discussions in this forum..

[Traveler]

Traveler,

 

You keep making these either/or statements that are clear logical fallacies. Is it better to be right or obey God? The question makes no sense. You cannot disobey God and be right.

 

 

Agreed. But that is because putting your marriage above your callings is the right thing to do. If you put your callings above your spouse then you are WRONG. Not right. You're choosing wrong over right. Choosing right is ALWAYS right. You're putting it into terms of "I think I'm right" rather than actually doing right. Thinking something wrong is right doesn't make it right.

 

Sure, there are neutral issues. But even within those neutral things there is a right way to be and a wrong way to be. Giving up oneself in favor of the marriage is part of our covenant. Submitting on issues that don't matter is probably wise. Compromising where possible is key. But those things are all right. Stepping over the line to something that is wrong in the name of compromise will never, ever be right.

 

 

True. But if you aren't convinced that God is right, it indicates something askew with your testimony that you'd best get in order. And if you aren't convinced that God is right, blind obedience is not the answer. Finding out that God is right is the answer.

 

 

Do you believe that going inactive for the sake of one's marriage will net an end result of exaltation? It renders the marriage covenant null and void if we do not obey God. So whereas I believe you and I are on the same page as to the importance of the marriage covenant, it makes no logical sense to commit to the covenant above obedience when the disobedience nullifies the covenant anyhow. Whereas one way will yield a net result of exaltation but with a different spouse perhaps, the other way yields a net result of no exaltation. Either way you lose your spouse if they will not obey. One way your damning yourself as well.

 

And it does not matter what is more important to you (or to me). It matters what is more important to God. And God has declared obedience as his standard - including within the scope of the marriage covenant.

 

 

Being right is very important. Proving you're right is not. You're talking about not proving it. You're not talking about actually being right or not. It is our duty and obligation to ensure that we are right, and where we are not, learn, grow, and humble ourselves to that end. Understanding that we are not always right is part of humility. Understanding that God and His word IS always right is also part of humility. Submitting ourselves to God and replacing our will with His make us right.

 

 

More failed logic here. If one acts with love, compassion, forgiveness, and mercy then one is right. If one does not then one is wrong. They are not either/or. You either are both or you are neither. They are not contrasting concepts. It's not better to be right if you fail in these regards, because you can't be right without them. If one feels they are right without them then they are lying or lied to. Wrong cannot be right. God deals with us in love and compassion because it is RIGHT to do so. God cannot be wrong. God cannot be unjust. God cannot abandon these things or he would not be God. He is merciful BECAUSE it is right. He is just because it is right. He set up the Atonement to do right by us all and by all that is just. He does not, nor can He, rob justice. He pays justice, because it is right. He offers mercy because it is right. He is always right!

 

 

No. This is not being right. This is thinking your right. This is trying to prove your right. This is stubbornness and pride, which are not right. If you are prideful, you are wrong. And being right is good because we must be humble, long-suffering, patient, loving, etc., etc., all of which are right. If we are prideful, hateful, impatient, etc., then we cannot be right whether we believe ourselves to be or not.

 

If we humble ourselves and are obedient to God then we cannot be wrong. If that puts us at odds with our marriage then we are still right in doing so and always will be.

 

I'll say it again. Wrong can never be right.

 

 

Another either/or that fails. I insist on being right which means that I insist on being loving, compassionate, merciful, and forgiving.

 

 

I don't appreciate you taking it personal with this remark. Moreover, it is entirely irrelevant to the point, and shows that you simply don't understand what I'm saying.

 

If you want to talk theory, let's enjoy. If you want to make it personal then I'm outta here.

 

What is obedience to G-d?  Obviously the answer has been interpreted differently throughout human history.   The bottom line is that if you have to be told (example commanded in all things -) you are not being obedient.  If you are figuring it out on your own you are not being obedient ether.  And most importantly if you think you are obedient and without sin you are the most disobedient.  To the Pharisees that wanted to be right and stone the lady in adultery - because that was according to G-d's law - Jesus responded - "Let him that is without sin cast the first stone".

 

I will summarize all this by highlighting a discussion I had with a personal friend of my youth - Elder Hugh B. Brown.  To set the stage I have been involved in a situation where a Bishop had done something wrong - even illegal.  I was thinking that the bishop should be released because he was obviously acting contrary to the wish and direction of G-d. 

 

I was talking with Apostle Brown in a personal setting and addressed my concern.  I asked him directly if I should sustain and support a Bishop if I know for certain - without any doubt that they are wrong.  His answer may surprise you - it sure surprised me at the time.  I remember well Elder Brown pausing and looking me straight in the eye and saying, "You support and sustain your bishop, even when you know he is wrong.  Because he will need your support and sustaining more then than at any other time."

 

In a football game if your QB is not executing the plan - even if he lied to you about what the play call is - and he is doing something that was not planned or communicated - if everything falls apart and goes wrong?  Do you just do what you were told to do in the first place?  Do you quit doing anything because what is happening is the wrong play? - or do you try to help the QB run the wrong play?

 

When I was in driver's ed as a youth - I had a driving teacher that said you can make choices that were dead right - and end up dead.  Is it right to stop at a red light and proceed at a green light?  Yes.  But there are conditions that you may consider dong something that is not "right" with the law the save someone's (your own) life.

 

As near as I can tell the Pharisees and Scribes were all about doing exactly what is right.  As near as I can tell they were very focused on being right on every little detail possible.  I consider parables like the good Samaritan (do you realize that it was contrary to the Jews to talk to a Samaritan or an infidel on the Sabbath?)  or prodigal son (considering the oldest son) that it is more right to be loving, compassionate, merciful and forgiving - that the do what is right.

 

I am not sure I understand your arguments - are you saying that it is better to pay a full tithe payer than to be compassionate forgiving and kind to a dumb poster like me that is wrong about so may things?  Or how about a rabid anti-Mormon protesting out a meeting you are trying to attend?

 

My final point for this discussion is that in my whole life - I have yet to encounter anyone that thinks what they are doing is wrong.  I have talked to individuals convicted of crime and in prison that insist that they had no choice - they were right under the circumstances or that the other party "deserved" what they got.   The biggest red flag to me is someone that insists on doing what is right, correct or justified as the first and most important option.  My experience is that they are wrong - strangely this even plays in my chosen field of science.  But those that are more concerned about loving and making a personal sacrifice - especially if their reward or resulting condition is unjust or insufficient - these are those I trust most to actually be right.  

 

In summary --  I most trust those that will do wrong and stupid things trying to be kind and forgiving than I would trust those that do unkind and viscous things trying to be right.  And I believe that a stupid fool trying to be kind and forgiving have a better shot at the Celestial kingdom than those high and mighty heroes dong unkind and viscous things trying to be right.

[The Folk Prophet]

In summary --  I most trust those that will do wrong and stupid things trying to be kind and forgiving than I would trust those that do unkind and viscous things trying to be right.  And I believe that a stupid fool trying to be kind and forgiving have a better shot at the Celestial kingdom than those high and mighty heroes dong unkind and viscous things trying to be right.

 

Well, there goes Nephi's salvation. And Captain Moroni. And Ammon. Oh...and Moses. Let's see...who else did you just condemn?  

 

*sigh*

 

I weary of this. If I truly am speaking past you as badly as you are TOTALLY misunderstanding and ignoring pretty much everything I say, then I apologize. But I'm done. What a waste of time.

 

It's Twinkoh Twinkoh littoh *STAH*wah!

[theSQUIDSTER]

TFP, Traveler... I appreciate both of your insights in this discussion.  I'm sure you're both wrong.  ... and more importantly I'm sure you're both right.. just as all the rest of us trying to muddle our way through this mortality.  Good thing we're not on our own.  We'd never make it.  Not a chance.  Don't feel bad if you can't convince one another.  It's not like you both didn't make a valiant effort.  Is it fair to say I think you both give your best efforts to speak to the best of your ability what you believe and what you've learned and what you hold sacred?  If so, what else matters?  I don't get the impression either of you are trying to con each other into or out of an opinion.  You're both honestly speaking your mind the best way you know how.  So what else matters? 

 

Ok... I'll get off my soapbox now.   :)   If that came across as patronizing or condescending that really wasn't my intention at all.  You both have some great insights on things and have given me a lot to ponder.  

 

Likewise all the rest of you..  Much respect and much appreciated.... my brothers and sisters.   :)

[Guest intra]

 

D&C 63:58

 

"For this is a day of warning, and not a day of many words. For I, the Lord, am not to be mocked in the last days."

 

What do we think it means that it is not a day of many words? How does that tie into it being a day of warning and that God will not be mocked?  I thought there could be some interesting discussion around this.

 

 

a couple of things that come to mind immediately upon reading the OP:


In the multitude of words there wanteth not sin:

but he that refraineth his lips is wise.
(Proverbs 10:19) 

But you, you are to be feared!

Who can stand before you when once your anger is roused?
(Psalm 76:7)

But the LORD is in his holy temple:

let all the earth keep silence before him.
(Habakkuk 2:20) 
 

this last one, yeah, not at all scripture. but i think the artist makes a good point:

 

"i want to be more like the ocean - 
no talking, man, all action" 
- Perry Ferrel

 

[The Folk Prophet]

But the LORD is in his holy temple:

let all the earth keep silence before him.

(Habakkuk 2:20) 

 

I like this! Shut up and listen to the Lord. :)