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

[unixknight]

I don't always follow the counsel of the Prophets, but when I do, I don't pretend that makes me better than anyone else.

At the end of the day, if a fellow LDS wants to judge me over it, let them.  Only the Final Judgement matters, and I will accept it when it comes.

Is not following that counsel a sin?  I think that's a tough case to make.  Am I supposed to go see my Bishop if I drink Pepsi?  Seems absurd.  

"Hi unixknight, what brings you in today?"

"Well...  I...  I had some family over for a cookout on Labor Day and... I  indulged in...  a sinful act."

"Ok, go on..."

"I...  I drank..."

"Go ahead.  I'm proud of you for coming forward."

"Thanks.  *deep breath* I drank two Pepsis."

I bet that's the day I see what my Bishop looks like doubled over laughing.

Edited September 6, 2018 by unixknight

[zil]

32 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

What’s interesting to me is how people 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 follow the prophet so long as it doesn’t affect how they want to live. 

Some people also seem to 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.  

Unless you are sin-free, or unless you never encourage obedience to the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then you are the "people" of whom you speak. (@Fether beat me too it.)

A) We all "pick and choose" what to obey (or work on, or fail at), because we're too flawed to do everything correctly.

B) A person encouraging others to embrace a particular bit of counsel, is not the same as rejecting other counsel, nor is it the same as nit picking on the other saints.

C) A person who is either unaware of some counsel against one of their own behaviors, or blind to their own failure to heed counsel, or just plain choosing to ignore a particular counsel because they don't think it's important (see A) - such a person is not necessarily incapable of recognizing the good of some other bit of counsel and is not necessarily a hypocrite for encouraging others to heed that other bit of counsel (see B).

Indeed, one is only a hypocrite if they say "everyone should do X" while willfully not doing X (and not believing "everyone should do X").

And if one had to be obeying every bit of prophetic counsel before being allowed to encourage heeding any bit of prophetic counsel, we'd have to (1) release every teacher at Church, (2) never call another person to speak in Sacrament, (3) stop having General (and other) Conferences, because the speakers wouldn't be allowed to speak.

D) Encouraging others to heed prophetic counsel, or obey some commandment, or whatever, is not the same as criticizing others (regardless of whether said others are already heeding counsel / obeying commandment).  It is only criticizing when it shifts from encouraging obedience, to beating up for disobedience - the former being good, the latter being bad unless within stewardship (and done properly, not by "beating up").

Edited September 6, 2018 by zil

[zil]

3 minutes ago, zil said:

D) Encouraging others to heed prophetic counsel, or obey some commandment, or whatever, is not the same as criticizing others (regardless of whether said others are already heeding counsel / obeying commandment).  It is only criticizing when it shifts from encouraging obedience, to beating up for disobedience - the former being good, the latter being bad unless within stewardship (and done properly, not by "beating up").

I witness encouraging frequently.  I'm not sure I've ever witnessed one member of the Church beating up another over their sins.  I know people claim this happens, but I don't think I've ever seen it.

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

I witness encouraging frequently.  I'm not sure I've ever witnessed one member of the Church beating up another over their sins.  I know people claim this happens, but I don't think I've ever seen it.

We usually beat ourselves up over our sins.  (That is normal).  So when someone else attempts encouragement, counsel whatever regarding those same sins... it does not take much to feel like they are piling on our own efforts.  It is a confirmation bias.

[BJ64]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

Unless you are sin-free, or unless you never encourage obedience to the teachings of the gospel of Jesus Christ, then you are the "people" of whom you speak. (@Fether beat me too it.)

I never said I wasn’t “people”. 

[Guest Scott]

 

[Fether]

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

 

Heathen! Prophets say we can’t watch Simpsons!!

[zil]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

We usually beat ourselves up over our sins.  (That is normal).

Indeed.

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

So when someone else attempts encouragement, counsel whatever regarding those same sins... it does not take much to feel like they are piling on our own efforts.  It is a confirmation bias. 

Hmm.  I suppose if it's a personal conversation, OK.  But if it's a lesson or talk in Church or such, I don't know why we would feel like that person is being critical of us personally.  I think for the majority, when this happens, they're still hard on themselves and recognize that the speaker doesn't know where they stand on the matter.

Shrug, maybe my experiences are just very different.

[zil]

1 hour ago, BJ64 said:

I never said I wasn’t “people”. 

Usually when one includes oneself as part of "people", one uses the words "we" and "us".  But OK.  I'll mentally switch your post to put "humans" in place of "people", which serves the same purpose as "we", just not quite so personally.

[Fether]

17 minutes ago, zil said:

Usually when one includes oneself as part of "people", one uses the words "we" and "us".  But OK.  I'll mentally switch your post to put "humans" in place of "people", which serves the same purpose as "we", just not quite so personally.

People these days....

[zil]

45 minutes ago, Fether said:

People these days....

When you get older, you'll be able to change that lament to "Man! Some people's kids."

[BJ64]

5 hours ago, zil said:

It is only criticizing when it shifts from encouraging obedience, to beating up for disobedience - the former being good, the latter being bad unless within stewardship (and done properly, not by "beating up").

The latter is what seems to happen a lot here. I don’t suppose people would be nearly as eager to criticize in person.  

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

The latter is what seems to happen a lot here. I don’t suppose people would be nearly as eager to criticize in person.  

Let us here note the difference between

a) criticizing those who failed in an earnest attempt to obey (and take accountability for and repent of that failure), versus

b) rebutting those who persist in disobedience and seek to excuse that disobedience (and/or encourage disobedience in others) by willfully misrepresenting the Church leadership and/or by trivializing and “otherizing” those Saints who, unlike themselves, have accepted and kept the standards that the Church has promulgated.  

 

I don’t care if someone doesn’t hold to the iron rod.  I care if someone comes at the rod with a sawzall and a carbide blade. 

Edited September 6, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Fether]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

The latter is what seems to happen a lot here. I don’t suppose people would be nearly as eager to criticize in person.  

Those people ought to repent. As for me, everything I say on here reflects what I would say in real life.

[zil]

2 hours ago, BJ64 said:

The latter is what seems to happen a lot here. I don’t suppose people would be nearly as eager to criticize in person.  

I recall people (myself included) strongly encouraging sinners who come to ask for advice to forsake, confess, and repent - but they were asking what to do, so of course people say that.  I recall people (probably myself included) arguing over who's right.  I recall heated disagreements.  I don't recall, "Repent! You wicked, evil Pepsi-drinker with a screen name of PepsiBoy!"  Maybe I have selective memory - entirely possible.  Maybe I perceive criticism differently than you or others (highly probable - I like criticism).  Maybe I'm oblivious (also possible).

But I really don't recall a lot of User A hammering on User B for User B's sins (which we presumably only know about because User B told us).  Now, if User B is doing X (which no one on the groups knows), and a group discuss doing X and several say they consider it a sin, well, that's not personal and User B ought to just deal - even if User B comes along later and says "I do X and I don't think it's a sin" and people still hold to their original opinion that it's a sin - he still ought to just deal.  It's not the same thing as personally telling User B they're an awful Xing demon who ought to be kicked out - or something.

Maybe I need some examples so I can learn to recognize this behavior...

[SilentOne]

5 hours ago, zil said:

When you get older, you'll be able to change that lament to "Man! Some people's kids."

I'm pretty sure my mother uses that phrase exclusively when referring to me and my siblings.

[BJ64]

3 hours ago, zil said:

But I really don't recall a lot of User A hammering on User B for User B's sins (which we presumably only know about because User B told us).  

Elder Christofferson made the statement that it is okay for church members to voice their support for gay marriage on social media. Well some time  ago when I said here that I support the right of gay marriage I was told by various people that I should be released from my calling, lose my temple recommend or be excommunicated. 

Edited September 7, 2018 by BJ64

[zil]

2 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Elder Christopherson made the statement that it is okay for church members to voice their support for gay marriage on social media. Well some time  ago when I said here that I support the right of gay marriage I was told by various people that I should be released from my calling, lose my temple recommend or be excommunicated. 

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.)

[zil]

15 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Elder Christopherson made the statement that it is okay for church members to voice their support for gay marriage on social media. Well some time  ago when I said here that I support the right of gay marriage I was told by various people that I should be released from my calling, lose my temple recommend or be excommunicated. 

OK, so I did a search and found THIS POST by "mgridle" - when was the last time anyone saw him here (May 15th, or earlier).  I probably didn't see the post when it was made because I have him on my ignore list.  Maybe you should try that feature - it makes for a much more pleasant experience.  The entire internet should have it.

[Fether]

9 hours ago, unixknight said:

Is not following that counsel a sin?  I think that's a tough case to make.  Am I supposed to go see my Bishop if I drink Pepsi?  Seems absurd.  

We can sin and not need to see the bishop. I believe drinking soda, not exercising, and eating till you throw up is just as much breaking the word of wisdom as a quick and fleetinglustful thought is breaking the law of chastity. Do i need to speak to the bishop cause an inappropriate thought came into mind? Or if I get mad at my brother? Or if I drink soda and have never done physical exercise in my life? No but some repentance may be in order.

[Fether]

28 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

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

I read your quotes on the other board and I am very curious as to the source of this. No intention to argue or distract from the thread... I just really want to listen to this

[BJ64]

13 minutes ago, zil said:

 I probably didn't see the post when it was made because I have him on my ignore list.  Maybe you should try that feature - it makes for a much more pleasant experience.  The entire internet should have it.

I do use it. 

[BJ64]

10 minutes ago, Fether said:

I read your quotes on the other board and I am very curious as to the source of this. No intention to argue or distract from the thread... I just really want to listen to this

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2301174&itype=CMSID

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

14 minutes ago, Fether said:

I read your quotes on the other board and I am very curious as to the source of this. No intention to argue or distract from the thread... I just really want to listen to this

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2301174&itype=CMSID

This does not say, as you claimed, that "Elder Christopherson [sic] 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.

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Fether said:

We can sin and not need to see the bishop. I believe drinking soda, not exercising, and eating till you throw up is just as much breaking the word of wisdom as a quick and fleetinglustful thought is breaking the law of chastity. Do i need to speak to the bishop cause an inappropriate thought came into mind? Or if I get mad at my brother? Or if I drink soda and have never done physical exercise in my life? No but some repentance may be in order.

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.