Is it a sin to go against the cousel of the Prophet?

[Fether]

13 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I used to be Catholic.  One of the ways in which Catholicism handles the idea of sin is to break it up into very black and white terms.  This is a sin, that isn't.  They also had different levels of sin, specifically, venial sin and mortal sin.  The former wouldn't get you sent to Hell... just tack on extra time in Purgatory.  The latter... well... if you commit a mortal sin you better get your hiney to Confession before you get hit by a bus...

Some folks on this thread sound a LOT like that.  Very letigious, very Pharasaical (sp?)... wanting to judge every action in terms of whether it calls for repentance or a trip to the Bishop or whatever. 

I'm not going to run around looking to cast shame on people who don't follow every jot and title of every comment ever made by every Prophet.  I maintain that there's a difference between counsel and commandment and I intend to approach it accordingly.  This isn't someone looking for an excuse to get away with things they shouldn't.  This is someone who refuses to behave like a Pharisee.  I have a conscience, and I have the Spirit.  Those, along with Scriptures and Conference talks, are my guide.  I think I'm doing fine.

And yes, I intend to have a Pepsi in a few minutes.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love soda!

Im trying to quit drinking it right now cause I know there are immense health benefits. I think that is where the counsel comes in at. 

The phrase “Mormons don’t do ‘x’” is somewhat misleading. In the 60 minutes video president Hinckley was hit with “Mormons live by a law of health, you can’t...” and listed off all the things Latter-day Saints cant partake of, on which caffeinated drinks was mentioned. 

We as a society of saints we only list temple worthy related actions as things we “have” to do. But how many temple worthy members are there that don’t take care of their bodies, are kind to their neighbor, actively fulfill their ministering duties.

From what I see, the “commandments” are  required for activity in the church here in earth where has the “counsel” will undoubtedly be connected to our eventual salvation.

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

This does not say, as you claimed, that "Elder Christofferson made the statement that it is okay for church members to voice their support for gay marriage on social media." That is simply not true.

From the article headline. 

“Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates”

From the article

“In an interview Friday with KUTV in Salt Lake City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said that individuals in the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be in trouble only for "supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church's."

Backing marriage equality on social media sites, including on Facebook or Twitter, "is not an organized effort to attack our effort," Christofferson said in the interview, "or our functioning as a church."

He was asked about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

I don’t know what article you read but I think your comment reaffirms my earlier comment about “people” on the forum. 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, zil said:

Well if it was here, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find it - unless it was in a PM, and that's why I don't remember it.  (If it was on FB, that's not surprising - FB is a magnet for stuff like that.)

@MormonGator supports gay marriage, and I don't recall anyone here telling him such things.

(Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that I don't recall it happening, and therefore conclude it doesn't happen that much.)

100% correct @zil. 

When I was baptized I told my stake president I was in the ACLU. I still am, for the record. He said "This isn't about politics, it's about religion. No one cares." 

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

From the article headline. 

“Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates”

From the article

“In an interview Friday with KUTV in Salt Lake City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said that individuals in the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be in trouble only for "supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church's."

Backing marriage equality on social media sites, including on Facebook or Twitter, "is not an organized effort to attack our effort," Christofferson said in the interview, "or our functioning as a church."

He was asked about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

I don’t know what article you read but I think your comment reaffirms my earlier comment about “people” on the forum. 

Just as your comment reaffirms my own observation about the difference between those who offend innocently and/or quickly repent; versus those who persist in problematic behavior but justify themselves and try to spread their errors by perverting the statements of Church authorities.  

Christofferson did not say supporting gay marriage was “okay” in the sense of it being appropriate, right, good, and/or in harmony with God’s will.  He merely said that doing so doesn’t subject one to a church discipline.  Few posters here that I am aware of, are seriously suggesting that gay marriage supporters should be subjected to penalties beyond what the Church has enunciated.  Most are simply pointing out the theologically incontrovertible fact that God opposes gay marriage; and that from a standpoint of ultimate truth and morality—either you’re with Him or you’re against Him on that issue. One is, of course, free to disregard that fact and continue to (as a wise man once said) “sit there in your wrongness and be wrong”.  But the free exercise of one’s freedom to be wrong does not make one right.

This all, to some degree, harks back to the legalistic “how much can I get away with?” attitude that has permeated some other discussions on this forum of late.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[zil]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

Elder Christofferson made the statement that it is okay for church members to voice their support for gay marriage on social media.

The above is not equal to the below.  You are assuming the above based on the below, but the below does not actually say the above.

10 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

To put it another way, "it doesn't really become a problem unless..." is not the same as "it's okay for church members to voice support"

12 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I don’t know what article you read but I think your comment reaffirms my earlier comment about “people” on the forum. 

What you said about "people":

12 hours ago, BJ64 said:

What’s interesting to me is how people [1] pick and choose which teachings of the prophet they are going to follow and which they are going to reject. 

In other words it seems that people [2] follow the prophet so long as it doesn’t affect how they want to live. 

Some people also seem to [3] criticize others for rejecting certain counsel while they themselves are rejecting other counsel as though they are the ones who decide what is important and what is not. 

Pointing out the meaning of sentences in English is not 1, 2, or 3 - it's just English.

[Guest MormonGator]

Supporting gay marriage has never come up. At all. Getting sealed, getting the Melchizedek priesthood, going to the temple, having callings. Everyone knew my politics and no one said anything. 

They correctly asked me about my belief in the Book of Mormon (and I do believe in it) and if I thought Thomas Monson/Russell Nelson were/are prophets (And I do). My politics has never come up. 

[Guest MormonGator]

One of the biggest misconceptions out there is that LDS hate homosexuals. Not so. 

Another misconception is that LDS think the same way on politics. Also not so. 

Or that LDS are intolerant to those who think differently on politics. Also not so. See a pattern here? 

I"ve always thought that LDS are the most tolerant people out there, even when you disagree with them. 

 

 

[Laniston]

I reserve my intolerant attitude for discussions about whether or not a dish with mayo as the primary ingredient or Jell-O for that matter can be considered a "salad".  

Edited September 7, 2018 by Laniston

[Just_A_Guy]

8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I"ve always thought that LDS are the most tolerant people out there, even when you disagree with them. 

That’s only because we don’t have a set of awesome scales that make gators weigh the same as ducks.

[BJ64]

32 minutes ago, zil said:

The above is not equal to the below.  You are assuming the above based on the below, but the below does not actually say the above.

To put it another way, "it doesn't really become a problem unless..." is not the same as "it's okay for church members to voice support"

What you said about "people":

Pointing out the meaning of sentences in English is not 1, 2, or 3 - it's just English.

You just posted a great example of typical forum nit picking. I would be rather amazed if you don’t realize you are proving the point I made on another thread where the discussion turned to the poor conduct of members of the forum. 

You are trying really hard to twist words and sentences to make what I said untrue. Trying really hard to bash another forum member. You couldn’t be a more perfect example of the despicable behavior I expounded on in that thread. I really like when people prove me right. 

I post an article titled “Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates” and you complain about  what I said about the article when you know very well that the article makes the point that it’s okay to publicly support gay marriage so long as you don’t attack the church or pull people away from the church. 

If I said that this page is white you’d say no it’s a very light shade of gray. 

You go out of your way to contradict anything and everything I say and like I said you exactly prove right my comments of the poor conduct of some of the people here. 

I suppose you get some sort of perverse thrill from your behavior. 

[Just_A_Guy]

Between this and your fountain pens, @zil, you really are a paragon of despicable behavior.

Edited September 7, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

4 hours ago, Vort said:

This does not say, as you claimed, that "Elder Christofferson made the statement that it is okay for church members to voice their support for gay marriage on social media." That is simply not true.

From the article headline. 

“Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates”

The headline of an article published in an antiMormon rag does not constitute a statement by Elder Christofferson. And the headline of said antiMormon rag doesn't even say what you claim Elder Christofferson said, anyway.

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

From the article

“In an interview Friday with KUTV in Salt Lake City, Elder D. Todd Christofferson said that individuals in the 15 million-member Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would be in trouble only for "supporting organizations that promote opposition or positions in opposition to the church's."

Backing marriage equality on social media sites, including on Facebook or Twitter, "is not an organized effort to attack our effort," Christofferson said in the interview, "or our functioning as a church."

He was asked about Latter-day Saints who support same-sex marriage privately among family and friends or publicly by posting entries on Facebook, marching in pride parades or belonging to gay-friendly organizations such as Affirmation or Mormons Building Bridges? Can they do so without the threat of losing their church membership or temple privileges?

"We have individual members in the church with a variety of different opinions, beliefs and positions on these issues and other issues," Christofferson said. " ... In our view, it doesn't really become a problem unless someone is out attacking the church and its leaders — if that's a deliberate and persistent effort and trying to get others to follow them, trying to draw others away, trying to pull people, if you will, out of the church or away from its teachings and doctrines."

It must be in there somewhere. Help me out, BJ64. Point out for me where Elder Christofferson proclaimed that "it is okay for church members to voice their support for gay marriage on social media." Just point me to that phrase, or something substantially similar to it (like, for example, "the Church approves of members voicing support for gay marriage," or "we proclaim that God doesn't mind if members of his Church voice support for gay marriage," or "there is no evil in voicing one's support for gay marriage").

Because it looks to me like Elder Christofferson said words to the effect that the Church won't rescind someone's temple recommend just for voicing support for gay marriage -- which is quite obviously a far cry from saying that "it's okay" to do so. The Church also will not rescind your temple recommend for supporting the sacred right of elective abortion on demand, the wonder and majesty of white supremacy, or cutting your ears off with scissors. But that doesn't mean the Church therefore proclaims that all such things are "okay".

What's more, I cannot believe that your reading comprehension is honestly that bad. You know all this perfectly well. You are fully aware that Elder Christofferson never said it's okay in some (any) moral sense to voice support for gay marriage, only that such an action was not subject to any sort of discipline. Why you would pretend otherwise mystifies me.

[Grunt]

21 hours ago, zil said:

(neither will cursing at Utah drivers, for example),

 

I'm currently in D.C. on business.  I'm fairly confident my limited recommend would have been revoked if the Bishop had been in the car with me after my plane landed.

[Grunt]

10 hours ago, zil said:

Well if it was here, it shouldn't be that hard for you to find it - unless it was in a PM, and that's why I don't remember it.  (If it was on FB, that's not surprising - FB is a magnet for stuff like that.)

@MormonGator supports gay marriage, and I don't recall anyone here telling him such things.

(Again, I'm not saying it doesn't happen, just that I don't recall it happening, and therefore conclude it doesn't happen that much.)

I may have said it I certainly thought it.  Not a recommend, but a leadership calling.   Here's my personal reasoning that I don't expect anyone to agree with, though I would thoroughly enjoy a counter-argument that changed my mind.

As a new member, I'm struggling to separate doctrine from culture.  I look to my church leaders for guidance and support, mostly through example.  I put, erroneously, church leaders on a little pedestal as being called and set apart to guide me spiritually.  I recognize they are fallible, so when I saw a church leader swear during a service project it's not a huge deal.  The natural man is imperfect.  When I learn a church leader abused their position it's not a big deal (in terms of impacting my faith or understanding) because the natural man is imperfect.  When I hear church leaders, or members, say they support "State" same-sex marriage it isn't a big deal, because it is State marriage and has nothing to do with eternal families or church doctrine.  It's an institution of man and man should have the freedom of agency.  

However, when a member speaks in favor of same-sex temple marriage, drinking coffee, or appears to support the violation of the Law of Chastity they are speaking directly against  (or at least flirting with opposing) teachings of the church.  Even if the Church permits that in private settings (such as a facebook page) they certainly appear to have a fuzzy line, at best, that separates personal opinion and opposing the Church.  For Church leaders, I don't think there should be a line.  Each leader holds the keys unique to that position. Could you imagine if the Prophet started posting on his Facebook page "I support same-sex temple marriages"?  Would we all just ignore it and think "that's not inspired, it's just his personal opinion"?  What message does that send?  

We are taught to take on the name of the Christ and be a representative of His Church.  That applies to Church leadership as much, if not more, than a lowly convert with 259 days of membership.  I question the ability of a Church leader to be effective in their position and lead their flock when they are publicly and openly professing to support things that oppose the teachings of the Church.

This opinion and 25 cents will get you a subscription to my next interview.

[JohnsonJones]

21 hours ago, Fether said:

And I want to add that we ALL do this. Do you exercise every day, have fruits and vegetables every day, never drink soda, read the Book of Mormon every day, keep abstudy journal, keep a personal journal, perfect in your ministering to your assignments and friends, attend all your meetings, never swear, attend the temple regularly, have ancestors names you are actively doing work for, not watching or listening to media with any amount of profanity or immorality, only speak kind things to everyone, go to bed early and wake up early, etc.

No one can say that we don’t pick and choose.

I get your point, but I'm not sure if you really want someone to answer ALL those questions...and not sure you would like all the answers.

For example, I get up pretty early myself.

Some of your questions are subjective.  What do you consider perfect in your ministering to your assignments?  There has been no set definition, per se. 

What was referred to above, in relation to what some of the prophets have stated was pretty cut and dry.  It was defined. 

I HAVE had difficulties with genealogy, but not as what you are describing.  I have no ancestors left that we can actually get to (they are there but the records are currently sealed to us), and it seems that my particular family line others have a great interest in doing and have gone ahead and done my genealogy (they are NOT relatives of mine). 

Also, it's NOT fruits and vegetables, it is GRAIN is for the staff of life.  Fruits of the vine are to be used, but fruits are to be used with prudence in the season thereof.

If we get technical, I eat oats and not just wheat.  I also eat corn. 

Something to note (I can't standt he stuff though) you can use barley for mild drinks (which could make for an interesting discussion some day).

Some may pick and choose, but what I think is the point is the hypocrisy of taking what is more of a minor sin, elevating it above ALL others and then whoever has a problem with it, then accusing them of all sorts of wicked and evil ways rather than expressing sympathy and love for the individual at times.  In fact, at time even telling someone they have done something as major as fornication, adultery, or something similar when in fact, their sin is more akin and comparable to the items that you listed above in your list. 

The question then is...why are people condemning them so violently on that regard, but giving all other sins a pass?   IT is the very idea that you are pointing out, because we DO pick and choose.

And yes, even I am guilty of that.

I TRY to be Christlike and also non-judgemental towards those who ask for aid and help, but I fail, perhaps just as much if not moreso than the rest of you.

As far as your list and as what I've said before, it really depends on the person.  As one grows in the gospel and the spirit, they are held accountable for more than what others who have not grown as much would be.  What may not be something that would affect some, may be a vile sin for others once they have reached a certain point.  I told a story of Spencer W. Kimball above to illustrate my point, and if true is something that I actually love.  I can not imagine he would have any sins that we would even think twice about, and yet, there was one so heavy that he didn't take the sacrament due to it.  His light and knowledge in regards to salvation and exaltation were high enough that something we would probably not think of as a sin, was something that was a serious consideration on his part.

We all grow at different rates and different arenas, and I feel that as we grow line upon line and precept upon precept our understanding and our accountability also grows.

All love for you brother.

[JohnsonJones]

Double post.

I will add, love your enthusiasm and how you do strive to live righteously @Fether.

Edited September 7, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

What I think BJ is trying to point out that there are some minor things that people condemn overly harshly compared to their own private sins that they love and even broadcast loudly here at times.  what is worse, is rather than condemning some of those sins, we condone them.  I'm not sure if the Lord is happy when we condone sin. 

Many of us do this, and it is unfortunate.  In addition, what I've stated above, in regards to how we are and where we are at in the gospel, what may be sinful to one would not be to the other. 

For example, I catch one of my grandkids with a bunch of chocolate around their mouth and a trail of Hershey chocolate wrappers leading behind them with two stuck on their clothes.  I ask if they ate grandma's chocolate or got into her chocolate and the particular five year old says no they did not.  However, in this the child is blameless.  They are under the age of accountability and cannot sin.  However, we can (after we finish laughing) gently inform the child that honesty is the best policy and teach the child better.  On the otherhand, if one my older kids did this I still wouldn't punish them (they ARE adults) but I would ask them to talk to their grandma and see if she wants to have her chocolate replaced.

 

There are some things that we can absolutely tell someone that they need to repent of.  At times, even harshly if they express that they are proud of such things.

However, there are many MINOR things that we tend to stretch out of proportion.  Sometime we ascribe sins that are actually more counsel.  They may be sins if we commit them, but they might not be sins for others at their point of progression

Another example.  Many things people talk about watching here regularly or are fans of are things I actually consider pornographic.  I do not (at least for most of them I think) condemn them over some of these specific shows.  We are at different ways of understanding what is good or what is bad for us.

I would say though there are some basic items that are ALWAYS going to be sinful for those who have reached the age of accountability In my opinion.

As I stated, I am just as guilty of it as others here, and I try to work at it.

Edited September 7, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

8 hours ago, Vort said:

The headline of an article published in an antiMormon rag does not constitute a statement by Elder Christofferson. And the headline of said antiMormon rag doesn't even say what you claim Elder Christofferson said, anyway.

It must be in there somewhere. Help me out, BJ64. Point out for me where Elder Christofferson proclaimed that "it is okay for church members to voice their support for gay marriage on social media." Just point me to that phrase, or something substantially similar to it (like, for example, "the Church approves of members voicing support for gay marriage," or "we proclaim that God doesn't mind if members of his Church voice support for gay marriage," or "there is no evil in voicing one's support for gay marriage").

Because it looks to me like Elder Christofferson said words to the effect that the Church won't rescind someone's temple recommend just for voicing support for gay marriage -- which is quite obviously a far cry from saying that "it's okay" to do so. The Church also will not rescind your temple recommend for supporting the sacred right of elective abortion on demand, the wonder and majesty of white supremacy, or cutting your ears off with scissors. But that doesn't mean the Church therefore proclaims that all such things are "okay".

What's more, I cannot believe that your reading comprehension is honestly that bad. You know all this perfectly well. You are fully aware that Elder Christofferson never said it's okay in some (any) moral sense to voice support for gay marriage, only that such an action was not subject to any sort of discipline. Why you would pretend otherwise mystifies me.

Interesting, I was alarmed when you stated the first sentence.  I did a google search.

It showed that the top return on it was from the Salt Lake Tribune (which DOES have a history of such, I admit).

The second was a site called LDS family fellowship which seems to be a primarily LDS group aimed at the LGBTQ groups.

Ironically, Mormonhub ALSO popped up as one of the top headliners.

Which is interesting.  Are you accusing them all of being anti-Mormon rag (the one on Mormon Hub actually references the KUTV article in addition to the SLT article).

Christofferson did not say it is immoral. 

For example, why did I support Gay Marriage?

Because I am MORMON. 

What!?   You say...what does that have anything to with this.

I know in history, one of the main things done to attack the Mormons were their Marriage practices.  The question is whether others can infringe on others personal liberty (religious in the case of Mormons) to dictate HOW they MUST be married.  Polygamy was an offensive thing to them, and thus they persecuted the Mormons for Marriage practices that were not what they felt was a moral practice. 

In this, I feel they were wrong.  WE SHOULD NOT force our morality on others marriage practices.  If they feel their marriage is condoned of the Lord in their own rites, let them do as they wish, and LET US DO AS WE WILL.

It is not that I feel Gay Marriage is Moral (it is not) but I support the idea that government has no right to restrict the act of marriage.  I would say that my personal thought is that this would have the addendum (as long as it is under the auspices of religion and that is something YOUR religion is doing, the act of marriage), but that was not one of the choices.  Hence, I support Gay marriage as a religious right, just as I would regard other marriages as religious rights.  We should NOT restrict the rights spelled out in the Constitution.  It was wrong when it was done to the Saints, and it is wrong when we do it to others.

Is this immoral?

There are MANY various reasons people support the politics they do.  Elder Christofferson was not condoning or condemning.  I would say that the headline was correct in a summation of what he said, that it was OKAY for members to follow their politics on this matter (and idea applies to most politics I think) as LONG as they are not attacking the church or it's positions.

An approach from the opposite end.  LONG before the Boy Scouts allowed Gay Leaders, the church actually had put Gay Individuals in Boy Scout leadership positions.  In addition, ALL boys were normally signed up for Boy Scouts in the LDS church, even those who were "gay" and had difficulties with this.  This was BEFORE the BSA allowed Gay Boy Scouts.  An individual could feel it was wrong to allow Gay Members in Boy Scouts, but if they attacked the LDS church because it had put Gay Members in Boy Scout positions, that is a different side of the equation.

What he says actually just reinforces what we already do and if done can lead to excommunication.  If one is attacking the LDS church, leading others into apostasy, and trying to harm the church and speaking against it with all their might...it is grounds for excommunication.

This is NOT in regards to political views, and in fact is NOT a political thing.  It is something that is more common sense.  Don't tear down or try to destroy the church.  Other than that, in regards to politics, the church itself is generally NEUTRAL.  That means it is NOT a Democrat nor Republican (nor tory, nor labour, nor any other policital affiliation) political church, though there are many that may WANT it to be at times and even preach that if you are part of one party or the other you are a sinner.

Edited September 7, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Guest MormonGator]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

This opinion and 25 cents will get you a subscription to my next interview.

This would have been funnier if you said your opinion and 25 cents will get you a cup of coffee. 😉

[zil]

9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Between this and your fountain pens, @zil, you really are a paragon of despicable behavior.

My primary goal in life is to ensure that at the resurrection, everyone will celebrate when they learn I've been cast into outer darkness.

[JohnsonJones]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

My primary goal in life is to ensure that at the resurrection, everyone will celebrate when they learn I've been cast into outer darkness.

That won't happen (unless you really are trying to make it happen),

but if it does, and he Lord lets me (as long as I am able) and I am recalled or reminded, I will do all I can to haul you out of there.

[Fether]

@JohnsonJones thanks for the replies! The purpose of my listing off those commandments was to show that there was a multitude of commands andcounsels that we don’t follow, and it is not wise to alienate those that ignore the caffeine counsel but not acknowledge those that Ignore one of the other commandments/counsels

[zil]

1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

If we get technical, I eat oats and not just wheat.  I also eat corn. 

Make up your mind!  Are you man, horse, or ox?

[zil]

5 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

but if it does, and he Lord lets me (as long as I am able) and I am recalled or reminded, I will do all I can to haul you out of there.

Right, so I still have work to do.

[zil]

On 9/6/2018 at 9:16 PM, BJ64 said:

You just posted a great example of typical forum nit picking. I would be rather amazed if you don’t realize you are proving the point I made on another thread where the discussion turned to the poor conduct of members of the forum. 

You are trying really hard to twist words and sentences to make what I said untrue. Trying really hard to bash another forum member. You couldn’t be a more perfect example of the despicable behavior I expounded on in that thread. I really like when people prove me right. 

I post an article titled “Mormons free to back gay marriage on social media, LDS apostle reiterates” and you complain about  what I said about the article when you know very well that the article makes the point that it’s okay to publicly support gay marriage so long as you don’t attack the church or pull people away from the church. 

If I said that this page is white you’d say no it’s a very light shade of gray. 

You go out of your way to contradict anything and everything I say and like I said you exactly prove right my comments of the poor conduct of some of the people here. 

I suppose you get some sort of perverse thrill from your behavior. 

If I am nitpicking (and I'm not - I'm explaining the meaning of words, phrases, and sentences, which is a big deal when your only means of communication is text), then your post above is an excellent example of "ad hominem".  You take an explanation of the meaning of words - and an impersonal¹ one at that - and use it to:

• Assume my motives
• Assume my intention
• Assume the degree of effort I'm making
• Call my English explanation "despicable behavior"
• Gloat over your own perceived "right"ness
• Accuse me of complaining
• Assert that I know things (as if you could read my mind)
• Assert knowledge of my theoretical behavior
• Blow one single explanation of English into a mountain of stalking effort past, present, and future
• Accuse me of being perverse

All of your assumptions and assertions were incorrect.  For you to be able to accurately do the majority of the above would require you to have direct access to my brain.  That is not possible in the current reality.

And all of that is rather hypocritical in light of this post you made in another thread:

[EDIT: removed accidental misquote.  The accusation stands, however.  In the "Resurrection of the body" thread, you, BJ64 joined in complaining about mistreatment, and then choose to engage in the same in response to a post that didn't mistreat you in the least.]

You took my simple commentary on the meaning of English sentences and used it to "magnify [y]our own innate sense of negative interpretation" and failed to "realize higher standards".

¹I made one comment about you: "You are assuming the above based on the below...." - which is deductive and more than rational for any human to make based on your own words -- in other words, you were flat out saying that your sentence was how you interpreted Elder Christofferson's quoted words.  All the remainder of my words were about the meaning of your words verses the meaning of Elder Christofferson's words.  I commented on the words.  You commented on the writer.

Edited September 10, 2018 by zil