To serve or not to serve


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Actually the commandments specify "shall."  There is a difference.

Do they really? All of them? Are all commandments ever given phrased with "shall"? Is that you're peculiar personal take on doctrine? If it doesn't use some version of the word "shall" in the phrasing, please disregard?

But even if we took it as truth that what you say is right? Do you really fail to understand that we "should" do those things we have been commanded to do, regardless of the phrasing, but that is not ALL we "should" do. There are a great many things we "should" do and a great many things we "shouldn't" do, and when we do not do things that we "should' do it's problematic and when we do things we "shouldn't" do it's problematic.

I suspect you fully well understand this. But as I said before, you can't argue with someone who chooses to be willfully ignorant on some matter or another in order to justify themselves.

You're right. You're entitled to your opinion.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Its not doctrine, It is doctrine to be a member missionary and proclaim the gospel. Do I personally think that every able bodied young man should serve a full time mission yes I do.  If someone chooses not to will I view them differently? The answer is it depends on the facts and circumstances surrounding their decision. I certainly wouldn't put them all in the same bucket.

I know someone who is a stand up guy and his son went home early on a mission. It was for medical reasons, but my fear is that people will gossip or talk about it and rumors will be spread. So I know what you mean @omegaseamaster75. It's my fear that some will view them differently as well. 

It's a good thing to try to go on a mission, but my other concern is that some 18 year olds are not mature enough or lack the personality to be good missionaries. They might cause more damage to the church by going than by staying put and maturing a few years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I know someone who is a stand up guy and his son went home early on a mission. It was for medical reasons, but my fear is that people will gossip or talk about it and rumors will be spread. So I know what you mean @omegaseamaster75. It's my fear that some will view them differently as well. 

Which has nothing to do with whether young men in general "should" go on a mission or not. Though it is certainly valid that not all men should go, because not all young men are ready. But they should do everything they can to get ready.

44 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's a good thing to try to go on a mission, but my other concern is that some 18 year olds are not [spiritually] mature enough or lack the personality to be good missionaries. They might cause more damage to the church by going than by staying put and maturing  [preparing themselves] a few years. 

Agreed, with a few edits. Some young men should go later. Not going at 18 is not the same as not going.

Why the edits? They're not flat out disagreement. More conditional. Theoretically the maturity could be an issue, but for most young men maturity isn't the issue as much as spiritual maturity. And most personality flaws are irrelevant. Those willing and humble enough who have prepared themselves God will qualify. But, sure, some maturity issues are severe enough and some personality traits are severe enough where going on a mission would be a bad idea. To have those traits severely enough where effort and humility would be insufficient would be to have a disability of one sort or another. The church has gotten pickier about that as well, not calling those who have severe issues, etc.

As to the damage to the church...well...also theoretically correct if the issues were severe enough.

So really the edits are meant by way of what is more common, which I think is the point.

Yes, there are some people who should not and even could not go on a mission. There are exceptions to most rules.

Exceptions are called exceptions for a reason though. They do not alter the rule (or the "should" of the matter). They are exceptional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do they really? All of them? Are all commandments ever given phrased with "shall"? Is that you're peculiar personal take on doctrine? If it doesn't use some version of the word "shall" in the phrasing, please disregard?

But even if we took it as truth that what you say is right? Do you really fail to understand that we "should" do those things we have been commanded to do, regardless of the phrasing, but that is not ALL we "should" do. There are a great many things we "should" do and a great many things we "shouldn't" do, and when we do not do things that we "should' do it's problematic and when we do things we "shouldn't" do it's problematic.

I suspect you fully well understand this. But as I said before, you can't argue with someone who chooses to be willfully ignorant on some matter or another in order to justify themselves.

You're right. You're entitled to your opinion.

Ok shall/ shalt whatever. Gospel doctrine class back row sniper right here folks. 

So you saying shalt not kill is the same as should not? 

Also thought you told someone else not to debate willful ignorance a couple pages back. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. I have no reason to change my opinion. The words of Kimball say what they say. Get over it. 

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

I know someone who is a stand up guy and his son went home early on a mission. It was for medical reasons, but my fear is that people will gossip or talk about it and rumors will be spread. So I know what you mean @omegaseamaster75. It's my fear that some will view them differently as well. 

 


They will gossip about him. My last ward has over half the young men come back early.....even the local singles wards have them all on radar so everyone already knows they are "losers". Thats not my descriptor btw, thats what one of the ysa girls who was at our house said a couple months ago.  Totally screwed. A couple of them tried to get ahead of it and just announced it was for mental problems. So yea they are even worse off than the others because frankly there's no fixng metal problems, just management

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

They will gossip about him. My last ward has over half the young men come back early.....even the local singles wards have them all on radar so everyone already knows they are "losers". Thats not my descriptor btw, thats what one of the ysa girls who was at our house said a couple months ago.  Totally screwed. A couple of them tried to get ahead of it and just announced it was for mental problems. So yea they are even worse off than the others because frankly there's no fixng metal problems, just management

So heartbreaking. Maybe if the church didn't pressure all young men so much they wouldn't have to go though that. That stigma is sad. I don't know what it's like firsthand of course, because I'm a convert. 

I'd like to think that in the future it will change. Hope so. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree there should be no stigma.  The decision to serve a mission should be strictly between the missionary and the Lord, and the decision to go is not to be taken lightly.  And, despite my words in this thread, I would never want to make someone feel dumb or like a failure if they decided not to go, because it really is none of my business.

That said, I sure hope people understand the importance of full time missionary work.  Regardless of whether it is a commandment or not, the decision to go or not can potentially affect generations of people, the people who would have listened had YOU gone.  I have heard missionary service called the most important work you will ever do (by Jeffrey R. Holland, in a talk given to the MTC).  I believe it!  The Lord really does need you, and there will come a point in your mission when you alone can reach out and touch someone's life with the Spirit.

If you didn't go on a mission for any reason, I would never judge, gossip, etc.  It is none of my business and is between you and the Lord.  But choose wisely; your decision to serve is, eternally speaking, one of the most important decisions you will ever make, not only for your own eternity but the eternities of those you would be teaching on your mission.

Full disclosure: I went on a mission and I was not very good at it.  I have to live with the consequences.  As I mature in my testimony, I realize what an awesome responsibility missionary work is, and wish I could have done better.  (Maybe I can make up for it a little by helping people on this site!:))

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MormonGator said:

So heartbreaking. Maybe if the church didn't pressure all young men so much they wouldn't have to go though that. 

Acceptable casualties.

Speaking of: When I got medevac'd from Iraq I saw a very disturbing scene at the hospital I was at. I recall one morning after breakfast seeing a soldier in a wheelchair with both legs in halos which is because they were shattered by a bomb. He was moving along the sidewalk with those grabbers people use to reach items and was picking up cigarette butts. It was about 20 deg f outside. I went and asked the sergeant in charge of them why they had him out there doing that and he responded well its good therapy dont you think? After all what good other than that can he really do? Anyway I went out and helped him pick up cigarette butts until I got hauled in by my commander and counseled about making martyrs out of non deserving people. Apparently the kid had a drug addiction which the army created by endles opiod prescription and this was their way of cleaning up his bill of health. 

He was an acceptable casualty and since he wasn't on the battlefield, the superstars figured they knew best how to help him recover. K kinda like our membership knows best with our "casualties."

Our way to help early returning missionaries recover and return is to humiliate them. That isnt what the bishop and the parents do. I think they do what they can, but the membership are the ones who make it an ordeal unless the missionary is totally focused and proactive. That isn't what the church would have us do, but that is what happens. If they dont return, then we constantly remind them they didn't meet the standard. This isn't generally overt reminder, it's just the constant reminder with just the way business is run in the church that they are reminded they are a second class citizen. I watched this happen over and over again for several years in my old ward.

Generally the way the person handles it really determines if it will have a negative affect on their life. In cases where it is mental problems and such, it's really too bad because they either announce it to get people off their back and then have that info hanging over their head or keep it to themselves and just get regarded as a loser. As for people like me who just went in the military- well we just have to accept the fact that a good portion of the lds membership holds a poor opinion of the military as an organization, much less as an alternative for a mission. I didnt do it for an alternative, i spent over 20 yrs doing it. While many wave the flag on holidays, not many back it up with action. To be fair, neither does the average American. We are supposedly more patriotic and better than the average but that just isn't true. Matters not to me. Not everyone has the nerts to go to combat much less repeatedly. I'm game though.

I will vigorously defend other people when they are being unfairly treated re the mission stuff. Since they are all under 25 yrs old when this happens, they handle it much different than a middle aged guy like me. I'm not too diplomatic and speak freely when I feel like it. They may just feel like they have to shut up and take it.....and that's just it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, paracaidista508 said:

Acceptable casualties.

Speaking of: When I got medevac'd from Iraq I saw a very disturbing scene at the hospital I was at. I recall one morning after breakfast seeing a soldier in a wheelchair with both legs in halos which is because they were shattered by a bomb. He was moving along the sidewalk with those grabbers people use to reach items and was picking up cigarette butts. It was about 20 deg f outside. I went and asked the sergeant in charge of them why they had him out there doing that and he responded well its good therapy dont you think? After all what good other than that can he really do? Anyway I went out and helped him pick up cigarette butts until I got hauled in by my commander and counseled about making martyrs out of non deserving people. Apparently the kid had a drug addiction which the army created by endles opiod prescription and this was their way of cleaning up his bill of health. 

He was an acceptable casualty and since he wasn't on the battlefield, the superstars figured they knew best how to help him recover. K kinda like our membership knows best with our "casualties."

Our way to help early returning missionaries recover and return is to humiliate them. That isnt what the bishop and the parents do. I think they do what they can, but the membership are the ones who make it an ordeal unless the missionary is totally focused and proactive. That isn't what the church would have us do, but that is what happens. If they dont return, then we constantly remind them they didn't meet the standard. This isn't generally overt reminder, it's just the constant reminder with just the way business is run in the church that they are reminded they are a second class citizen. I watched this happen over and over again for several years in my old ward.

Generally the way the person handles it really determines if it will have a negative affect on their life. In cases where it is mental problems and such, it's really too bad because they either announce it to get people off their back and then have that info hanging over their head or keep it to themselves and just get regarded as a loser. As for people like me who just went in the military- well we just have to accept the fact that a good portion of the lds membership holds a poor opinion of the military as an organization, much less as an alternative for a mission. I didnt do it for an alternative, i spent over 20 yrs doing it. While many wave the flag on holidays, not many back it up with action. To be fair, neither does the average American. We are supposedly more patriotic and better than the average but that just isn't true. Matters not to me. Not everyone has the nerts to go to combat much less repeatedly. I'm game though.

I will vigorously defend other people when they are being unfairly treated re the mission stuff. Since they are all under 25 yrs old when this happens, they handle it much different than a middle aged guy like me. I'm not too diplomatic and speak freely when I feel like it. They may just feel like they have to shut up and take it.....and that's just it.

 

 

Very proud to call you a fellow LDS bud. Thank you for your service to the country, and never lose your free speaking style

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

Full disclosure: I went on a mission and I was not very good at it.  I have to live with the consequences.  As I mature in my testimony, I realize what an awesome responsibility missionary work is, and wish I could have done better.  (Maybe I can make up for it a little by helping people on this site!:))

Thanks for the honesty with this disclosure...you do see the difference though right? You went and probably got an honorable release or whatever it is called...obviously I wouldn't know. That gets the good ole RM box checked and now you are good to go.

Lets just say that for the guys who had conduct issues, were lazy, got in fights, didn't do their daily reading etc...so long as they finished their mission and didn't get sent home no one will know otherwise and they reap the same rewards as those who did everything they were supposed to. Perhaps not in the afterlife, but I'm sure you get my drift. They get the benefits while the guy who says im not going cuz im not gonna do it gets stigmatized for his honesty.  The dishonest who go and are a total flop on the job get the heroes welcome home...for just going and that's about all they did for two years. I dont know one rm who doesn't have a story about somene who shouldn't have been there stayed the whole time and made everyone's life miserable all the while accomplishing nothing. Always put them with the good missionary to fix them and after two years no change. Sent home with a clean bill of health and no one knows otherwise. We had one in our ward several years ago. The good missionary looked like he wanted to kill himself. I have no idea how that turned out, but I bet I can guess correctly.

Not any different than military veterans in general. I served with people,who cowered in vehicles during firefights, didn't return fire etc on multiple occasions and they have the same discharge paperwork I got. Honorable. 

Not trying to rag on you. Just pointing out how things really are.

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Ok shall/ shalt whatever. Gospel doctrine class back row sniper right here folks. 

So you saying shalt not kill is the same as should not? 

Also thought you told someone else not to debate willful ignorance a couple pages back. Perhaps you should follow your own advice. I have no reason to change my opinion. The words of Kimball say what they say. Get over it. 

I'm saying that we shouldn't kill (murder). Whether that's the same as shalt isn't really relevant. I'm not making the point that all sins are equal in gravity. That seems to be your inference. We shouldn't lie. We shouldn't kill. We shouldn't covet. We also shouldn't stay up too late, eat too many donuts, or park in a disabled spot without a pass. These things are not all equal, but they all fit nicely under shouldn't, the 'shalts' and the 'shoulds".

What about that is willfully ignorant? What, exactly, am I trying to justify that I shouldn't?

Because we've been commanded to do or not do something it no longer fits into something we should our should not do?

I'm concerned with what I should do and what I should not do. You should be concerned with the same, as should we all. Nit picking over whether something is a "commandment' or not doesn't answer that question in every case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 I'm not making the point that all sins are equal in gravity. That seems to be your inference.

Please reference the post where I said all sins are equal in gravity or even inferred they are. I said no such thing and that is a lie.

We shouldn't lie. (you need to follow your own advice) We shouldn't kill. We shouldn't covet. We also shouldn't stay up too late, eat too many donuts, or park in a disabled spot without a pass. These things are not all equal, but they all fit nicely under shouldn't, the 'shalts' and the 'shoulds".

And as far as commandments go - none of then say should not, they pretty much say shalt not. Big difference. That doesn't mean because two different sins we are told we shall not do are equal in seriousness. Theft, adultery, and murder are all different, but we shalt not do any of them.

What about that is willfully ignorant? What, exactly, am I trying to justify that I shouldn't?

Beats me, I'm not the ignorant one. Kimball's talk says what it says.

Because we've been commanded to do or not do something it no longer fits into something we should our should not do?

 Any English textbook will tell you the difference between the two words. You don't get to take the word shall and change the meaning. Shall is a command. Should is a suggestion or opinion. While replacing the words can be done and have essentially the same meaning, that also is contingent upon the intent of the author. Sometimes it conveys the same message and sometimes it does not.  As far as the scriptures and talks given by prophets, I'm pretty sure you do not get to change the words they used in order to change the meaning so you can use it for your own personal agenda. That is the prophet's calling, not yours. I know you would kill to have that role, but I'm afraid mormonhub and your home is the only audience you get right now.  If you want to do that with your kids (and I'm sure you roll like that) then go for it. As for me, until you prove you are Spencer W Kimball reincarnated I'm gonna go by what he actually said as opposed to what some self -appointed prophet like you wants to tell me he really meant.

I'm concerned with what I should do and what I should not do. You should be concerned with the same, as should we all. Nit picking over whether something is a "commandment' or not doesn't answer that question in every case. 

Depending upon whether or not something is a commandment does make a difference to me. In the case of a church talk from a prophet, I'll read what he says and then decide what to do. Ill likely do what I'm told. If given options, I'll pick one that suits me...after all I have been given an option. In this case, he said it wasn't mandatory to do the full time thing. I'm not worried I'll go to hell for not going on a mission. If I had only known about his quote when I was a kid...that would have been nice. Instead I was lied to and told it was a commandment and I had no option. Imagine everyone's surprise when I said, well ok, I'm still going into the Army. Turns out it is optional. I had all the intent to disobey and I did....except I was disobeying a commandment that didn't even exist. Granted, my decision was selfish in the context of me believing this was a commandment so yea I had the intent of breaking it. I'm sure I'll be held to some account later on for having the intent to break a commandment. Given the context of the situation, I'm pretty sure it isn't gonna be a problem. Had I known what Kimball actually said as opposed to what everyone was parroting, well I would have had ammo- a-plenty to shut that one down. If I had the cojones to do what I did believing I was doing wrong, imagine the pushback if I knew people were lying to me or at the very least were telling me something which is a half truth and when presented as not optional makes it a lie or at the very least- incomplete.

 

Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord.

While there is no compulsion for him to do any of these things, he should do them for his own good.

Someone might also ask, “Should every young woman, should every father and mother, should every member of the Church serve a mission?” Again, the Lord has given the answer: Yes, every man, woman, and child—every young person and every little boy and girl—should serve a mission. This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries...

Buenos Noches

Edited by paracaidista508
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Please reference the post where I said all sins are equal in gravity or even inferred they are. I said no such thing and that is a lie.

This response is unreasonably hostile. I didn't say, or even mean to say, that I thought you specifically implicitly said that. I said that it seemed to me like you were inferring that is what I was trying to say. I was trying to make the point that the "shoulds" cover the "shalts", and we should be concerned with the shoulds that aren't shalts as much as we are the shoulds that are shalts. It felt like you seemed to be taking that as if I were trying to argue that the shoulds and the shalts are the same thing. Calling that a lie seems a bit ridiculously antagonistic and over the top.

6 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

And as far as commandments go - none of then say should not,

I'm not saying that any of them use that wording. Does that mean it isn't true that we should or should not obey the commandments? Obviously you understand, based on "Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord." Which really has me wondering -- if you, as you clearly do, understand my point, then what are you arguing against? Did you confuse my ideas with other things others have said?

6 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Beats me

Of course...because you are just being hostile towards me without cause or reason. It beats you because nothing I'm saying is even that controversial. You say the exact same thing in "Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord." This is exactly and all that I'm saying, and even though you then say the same thing you say I'm also being willfully ignorant, but then it beats you how.

6 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Any English textbook will tell you the difference between the two words.

Once again...you seem to believe that I'm saying the two words mean the same thing. What I'm saying is that we should do those things that we have been commanded to do. We should do those things we haven't been commanded to that are good. We should be concerned with those things that we should do, and that covers both commandments, suggestions, counsel, and generally going about doing good.

Do you disagree? Or do you want to keep beating up the definitional straw man you've built?

6 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

As for me, until you prove you are Spencer W Kimball reincarnated I'm gonna go by what he actually said as opposed to what some self -appointed prophet like you wants to tell me he really meant.

I don't believe I'm addressing Kimball's talk at all. I don't think I've addressed it all. I'm pretty sure all I said is that we should be concerned with what we should do and what we should not do and that covers things.

So...yeah...hostile antagonism combined with strawman attacks here.

Maybe you could/should go back and actually read what I've said and what I have not.

6 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

Depending upon whether or not something is a commandment does make a difference to me.

As it does to me.

That is beyond my point.

What you or I should do and what you or I should not do matters. It matters temporally. It matters eternally. Some things matter more than others. But there are a great many things that matter a great deal that are not explicit commandments, but generally covered by the overreaching commandments of sacrifice, obedience, humility, faith, and love. 

6 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

While there is no compulsion for him to do any of these things, he should do them for his own good.

What is different about something that is a commandment and what is not in regards to this statement?

6 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

“Should every young woman, should every father and mother, should every member of the Church serve a mission?” Again, the Lord has given the answer: Yes, every man, woman, and child—every young person and every little boy and girl—should serve a mission. This does not mean that they must serve abroad or even be formally called and set apart as full-time missionaries...

Did you even bother to read the post where I said essentially the same thing?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I know this isn't the main concern of this discussion, it's worth noting that very few youth of today care about or even know who Donny Osmond is. He was passé even for me as a youth in the 90's. All I remember is that my mom had crushed on him as a girl until she saw him in a mall and realized he was really short. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 It felt like you seemed to be taking that as if I were trying to argue that the shoulds and the shalts are the same thing. Calling that a lie seems a bit ridiculously antagonistic and over the top.

Too bad... don't argue that way and people wont think that is what you are doing.

I'm not saying that any of them use that wording. Does that mean it isn't true that we should or should not obey the commandments? Obviously you understand, based on "Certainly every male member of the Church should fill a mission, like he should pay his tithing, like he should attend his meetings, like he should keep his life clean and free from the ugliness of the world and plan a celestial marriage in the temple of the Lord." Which really has me wondering -- if you, as you clearly do, understand my point, then what are you arguing against? Did you confuse my ideas with other things others have said?

It gets easy to get confused by your arguments specifically as it applies to this quote. You went back and forth half a dozen times explaining why should and shall are interchangeable and at the same time saying they are not. I'm not that smart, but I am easily able to pick up on a circumlocutory argument which is specifically crafted to get a message accepted without the receiver knowing they have been duped. I am well aware some (to include you) regard any commandment or suggestion or whatever as an explicit order to be followed unquestionably. That is your prerogative, but don't think we all will march off into the sunset with you because it is your hobby. You tried to get me to agree the words meant the same without you ever saying they do. This is the kind of things a propagandist does to sway those to his side.

The gospel is supposed to be taught in simple terms so even a child can understand. Perhaps my understanding may be just like a child. That said, when you discuss just like I explained above you confuse the issue. Pres Kimball explained it just right in simple clear terms. He said we SHOULD prepare to serve a full time mission. He also said full time mission service was not mandatory for anyone. With that statement he didn't follow it up with a "yea well you don't have to go on a full time mission, but if you don't be prepared to pay for your dirty sins." It was not followed up with any condition, therefore one is not sinning by not going on a full time mission.

You can debate that till the cows come home if you like- remember it is pointless to debate the willfully ingnorant. Until you get Kimball's talk changed- I choose to just understand it like it is written as opposed whatever word salad you want to turn it into. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

As for me, until you prove you are Spencer W Kimball reincarnated I'm gonna go by what he actually said as opposed to what some self -appointed prophet like you wants to tell me he really meant.

I don't believe I'm addressing Kimball's talk at all. I don't think I've addressed it all. I'm pretty sure all I said is that we should be concerned with what we should do and what we should not do and that covers things.

That's what this whole controversy is built on. Pres Kimball is who spoke at conference and essentially read a new commandment over the pulpit if you believe what some would say and that is what started the whole "all young men should..." deal. We have been quoting it all along as have you. You have just been cutting and pasting from our responses. Do you need the link? Thought you had this stuff all memorized.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2018 at 5:56 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

There are a great many things we "should" do and a great many things we "shouldn't" do, and when we do not do things that we "should' do it's problematic and when we do things we "shouldn't" do it's problematic.

But should  that be a problem?:P

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, EricM said:

While I know this isn't the main concern of this discussion, it's worth noting that very few youth of today care about or even know who Donny Osmond is. He was passé even for me as a youth in the 90's. All I remember is that my mom had crushed on him as a girl until she saw him in a mall and realized he was really short. :P

He was a very big deal back in the day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

don't argue that way and people wont think that is what you are doing

What way is that? Explaining myself when someone manages to confuse me and my ideas with not only other people they've been arguing with, but with ideas they raised themselves?

3 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

It gets easy to get confused by your arguments specifically as it applies to this quote.

You're applying what I've said to some quote that I haven't even read. I'm not talking about the quote or what Kimball did or did not say. You're confused because you're making a bunch of erroneous assumptions and then projecting your bitterness and enmity concerning missions onto me without even taking the time or thought to consider what I have actually said, what I haven't, and where I actually stand on any given matter.

In point of fact, I wasn't even talking to you. I was responding to @omegaseamaster75. You're the one who even brought the word "shall" into it. I only tried to explain what I meant in context of the word you brought into it. I've never even considered needing to explain that what we should do covers both "thou shalt" commandments and "you should" suggestions and everything in between because it's such an obvious concept. I'm astounded anyone could even pretend to be confused by something so obvious.

And yet, despite the fact that I wasn't talking to you, and then only trying to explain my thought related to an abstract (and frankly weird) idea that you raised in response, you think I'm trying to bait you into something? Really?

4 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I'm not that smart

Demonstrated in spades. Yep. Pretty easy to get confused by something you fail miserably to understand because you're so blinded by straight up spite.

I don't give a flying fig whether shalt and should mean the same thing and whether commandments ever use the term "should" in them or not. As I said, I'm concerned with what I should do and with what I should not. And it is that simple. And it is what we all ought to be concerned with.

Good grief...you don't even seem to realize that it's you who introduced the "word play" in the first place by saying "Actually the commandments specify "shall."  There is a difference."

3 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I am easily able to pick up on a circumlocutory argument which is specifically crafted to get a message accepted without the receiver knowing they have been duped

You're picking up on something you've made up in your own twisted brain, clearly driven by your resentment of anyone daring suggest that a young man choosing to not go on a mission is anything less than perfectly acceptable.

There's no deception in my point. You're concerned with whether young men MUST go on a mission. I'm concerned with whether young men SHOULD go on a mission.

Where's the effort to dupe in that? You have stated, plainly, that you don't believe that all young men should prepare for and go, if possible, on a full time mission. I'm not trying to dupe you into anything. I do not agree with you.

3 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

I am well aware some (to include you) regard any commandment or suggestion or whatever as an explicit order to be followed unquestionably.

You're "well aware" of something else that you've made up in your own head then, because I, for one, do not believe that any commandment or suggestion should be followed unquestionably.

3 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

That is your prerogative, but don't think we all will march off into the sunset with you

I don't have any such delusions.

3 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

because it is your hobby

Hobby?

O.........kay.

3 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

You tried to get me to agree the words meant the same

Show me where. I'll gladly point out how you misunderstood. I'm fairly certain...just a sec....yep...here's what I asked you if you agreed (note: ASKED if you agreed. (technically if you disagreed). I did not "try" to get you to agree (because I'm not that stupid).)

"We should be concerned with those things that we should do, and that covers both commandments, suggestions, counsel, and generally going about doing good. Do you disagree?"

I'd ask if you really believed that this was a devious attempt to bait you into something rather than a sincere question, but...I expect you'll take that question as baiting you too. So I'll leave it.

3 hours ago, paracaidista508 said:

therefore one is not sinning by not going on a full time mission.

Hate to burst your hate bubble, but...I agree with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2018 at 9:49 PM, paracaidista508 said:

 

Generally the way the person handles it really determines if it will have a negative affect on their life. In cases where it is mental problems and such, it's really too bad because they either announce it to get people off their back and then have that info hanging over their head or keep it to themselves and just get regarded as a loser.

 

 

Wow.  Your ward are a bunch of awful people.  My ward isn't like that and thank goodness for that.  I mean, of course, we have our handful of busy bodies and gossip mongers, but they're a very small minority.  You make it sound like Mormons are awful people.  I don't see that in my neck of the woods.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

[His] ward are a bunch of awful people.  

Doubtful.

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

My ward isn't like that and thank goodness for that. 

But bitter people with chips on their shoulders would probably see them that way anyhow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share