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

[BJ64]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think it kind of the opposite. I think I t will surprise us at just how many do make it to the celestial kingdom. That said I think it almost unfathomable the great and mighty change we still all have to go through to get there.

I also think the opposite. 

There are doom and gloom prophets and there are those like president Hinckley who always said things like “just do a little better.”

[Guest MormonGator]

24 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

 There are doom and gloom prophets and there are those like president Hinckley who always said things like “just do a little better.”

His optimism and good nature are greatly missed-nothing against President Nelson or Monson. 

While it's true, I was not a member during his presidency, I've listened to many of his speeches. A real treat. 

[Fether]

35 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

I am a fitness enthusiast and it is my opinion that being overweight and out of shape are contrary to the spirit of the word of wisdom if not the law itself. However you pretty much never hear anything spoken about this. Perhaps doing so would implicate too many people in church leadership. 

I remember hearing President Hinckley say “I don’t exercise, I get my exercise going to the funerals of men who do.”

I think that not caring for our bodies is showing disrespect for one of the greatest gifts God has given us in mortality. 

I agree with you completely. Our physical health effects our spirits so much! and I imagine that Pres Hinkley’s  comment may be out of context. Perhaps he was talking about how we shouldn’t be overly obsessed with fitness and neglect our spiritual lives because we all die one day, or maybe he was making a joke. If not, I would debate the comment with him

[BJ64]

49 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

His optimism and good nature are greatly missed-nothing against President Nelson or Monson. 

While it's true, I was not a member during his presidency, I've listened to many of his speeches. A real treat. 

Having a memory of all of the prophets from David O. McKay to the present, I’d have to say that President Hinckley has been my favorite. I really liked his positive attitude and good humor. I believe it was he who said when asked if it was okay for women to wear makeup, “even an old barn looks better with a little paint!”  

President Hinckley was also ambitious and got a lot done. Including the building of dozens of temples and the conference center. He was also very good with the media and I believe represented the church very well and brought a lot of positive publicity and goodwill to the church. 

President Nelson is remarkable in my view as being very energetic at such an old age and for making remarkable changes in a very short time. 

With President Monson I enjoyed his talks and stories early on but it seems that as he aged he sort of slowed down and we didn’t hear much from him.  

[Guest MormonGator]

8 minutes ago, BJ64 said:

Having a memory of all of the prophets from David O. McKay to the present

@Vort has a memory of all the prophets from Noah to the present. 

[BJ64]

52 minutes ago, Fether said:

I agree with you completely. Our physical health effects our spirits so much! and I imagine that Pres Hinkley’s  comment may be out of context. Perhaps he was talking about how we shouldn’t be overly obsessed with fitness and neglect our spiritual lives because we all die one day, or maybe he was making a joke. If not, I would debate the comment with him

I know he was making a joke of it. That was part of his good nature and humor. I didn’t mean it as anything critical. I think more importantly, he was too busy to worry to much about such things. He got his exercise not only by going to funerals but in everything else he did. 

I have heard people lament why do they have so many health problems when they obey the word of wisdom. My thought is that it is obvious, they aren’t obeying the word of wisdom. 

The promise for obedience to the word of wisdom is. 

18 And all saints who remember to keep and do these sayings, walking in obedience to the commandments, shall receive health in their navel and marrow to their bones;
19 And shall find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge, even hidden treasures;
20 And shall run and not be weary, and shall walk and not faint.
21 And I, the Lord, give unto them a promise, that the destroying angel shall pass by them, as the children of Israel, and not slay them. Amen.

However I think these blessings are for those who obey the whole law, not just a little bit here and there. 

[Guest]

On 9/6/2018 at 10:20 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

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

@zil,

Speaking of fountain pens...

I'm on a trip where I had to fly out.  My wife was wondering about our pens.  How do fountain pens endure fast changes in altitude?

[Guest]

22 hours ago, Vort said:

We'll have quite the reunion. All those people who suck so very, very much, together in one place! It will be like a raging black hole of decency and spirituality, voraciously sucking all righteousness into its insatiable maw! As I recall, the party will explicitly include you, me, Carb, Needle, TFP, NT, JAG, Fether, pam, anatess, and several other of this list's nefarious regulars. A real who's who of sin and debauchery.

Anything sounds bad when you say it with that attitude.

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

  How do fountain pens endure fast changes in altitude?

The air inside the ink chamber will expand during take-off and climbing, pushing any ink between it and its escape (the nib) out of the way (aka out of the pen).  The following can reduce risk of leaking:

1) Keep it nib up (so the air is on top and ink is on the bottom).

2) Keep it completely full (so there isn't enough air to matter) or completely empty (so there's no ink to leak).

3) Use a pen that has the option to seal the ink chamber from the nib (not many, usually expensive).

4) Keep the pen in a very well sealed plastic baggie.

I have no earthly idea how disposable fountain pens survive shipment without leaking, but they do.  I don't know if it's because they're full, or if they somehow manage to all be shipped nib up (seems improbable), or if it's something in their design - disposable fountain pens have a wick from the ink chamber, through the feed, and under the nib - maybe that prevents leaking.

Personally, I wouldn't test it, even though there are people who fly with pens nib-up OK.  I have one pen where I can seal off the ink chamber, and if I wanted a pen during flight, I'd carry that one and make sure the others were empty.  (Not that I'll be flying ever again, if I can help it.)

Brian Goulet has a video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_p7SthfL8M

ETA: Don't use it until you've reached altitude!

Edited September 8, 2018 by zil

[Guest]

I've been through the crucible.  And I barely survived. I had made some great efforts (for me) to do the right thing.  But there was a moment where (we're it not for the intervention of loved ones) I would have failed.

My BIL went through his.  And it nearly destroyed him.  And there was very little we could do for him.  So, while we gave him emotional support, there really was nothing we could do to help him.  But he survived.

I look at the factors effecting our individual capacities for those trials.  He did all the little things that allowed geater strength from on high.  I had not.

Little things that we believe aren't commandments still have importance.  They still do us good.  In that sense, is there any point to split the hair between commandments and counsel?

[Fether]

19 hours ago, BJ64 said:

President Nelson is remarkable in my view as being very energetic at such an old age and for making remarkable changes in a very short time. 

Just like Donald Trump!

[Fether]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1997/04/finding-safety-in-counsel?lang=eng

 

perfect talk for this topic!

[brlenox]

On 9/7/2018 at 7:39 AM, zil said:

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:

  On 9/3/2018 at 5:01 PM, brlenox said:

I agree but it is a tough call at times. This one dimensional forum environment should always be suspect for it's intrinsic inability to convey true communications and perhaps even worse a unique capacity to magnify our own innate sense of negative interpretation.  I tend towards being very candid and direct in my communication.  It is how I wish everyone to communicate with me and I find that I often cannot even discern when someone takes offense why it is that they were offended. I think I am just communicating.

For me though I think the point is it is one thing to discuss LDS theology but an entirely different thing to embrace and exemplar it's tenets in our interactions one with another.   The former ie. acts of discussion may be enlightening, however, to live it testifies of it's veracity and helps us all to realize higher standards.. 

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 Friday at 08:07 AM by zil

@zil I apologize profusely but I cannot find this statement  attributed to me on this thread or that I have even participated on this thread. I seem to recall saying something like this on the resurrection thread and presume that that is what you are referencing but if you will help me understand your observations and how they relate to me then I will be glad to respond. You may have mixed me up with some other poor fellow who could only most likely be greatly offended and perhaps feel due an apology.  But if truly me, then help me connect the dots.

Edited September 10, 2018 by brlenox
dots

[zil]

6 hours ago, brlenox said:

@zil I apologize profusely but I cannot find this statement  attributed to me on this thread or that I have even participated on this thread. I seem to recall saying something like this on the resurrection thread and presume that that is what you are referencing but if you will help me understand your observations and how they relate to me then I will be glad to respond. You may have mixed me up with some other poor fellow who could only most likely be greatly offended and perhaps feel due an apology.  But if truly me, then help me connect the dots. 

brlenox, I'm the one who owes you an apology -- I accidentally quoted you thinking I was quoting BJ64 - or I clicked the wrong "Quote" link.  This doesn't relate to you at all - sorry.

And yes, out of that thread - then I copied and pasted the quote into a reply in this thread.  If you click the little arrow that appears when you mouse over the top right corner of the quote, it takes you to the original locale.

I'll go clean it up, though it might be a bit late now...  Still...

[Guest Scott]

On 9/6/2018 at 8:54 AM, Fether said:

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

 

[brlenox]

18 hours ago, zil said:

brlenox, I'm the one who owes you an apology -- I accidentally quoted you thinking I was quoting BJ64 - or I clicked the wrong "Quote" link.  This doesn't relate to you at all - sorry.

And yes, out of that thread - then I copied and pasted the quote into a reply in this thread.  If you click the little arrow that appears when you mouse over the top right corner of the quote, it takes you to the original locale.

I'll go clean it up, though it might be a bit late now...  Still...

No harm no foul, all is well.

[mrmarklin]

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2018 at 1:08 PM, BJ64 said:

Is it a sin to go against the counsel of the prophet even if that which he counsels against is not a commandment?

For example caffeinated soft drinks are not against the word of wisdom  but several prophets have counseled against their use.

Therefore are you sinning by drinking caffeinated soft drinks even if they aren’t against the word of wisdom since you are disobeying the prophet’s counsel?

It's not a sin.

But because of their life experience, much of their counsel is wise.

[JohnsonJones]

Here's a good way to gauge whether you think something is a sin or not.

The Old Testament gives us hard rules...such as the Ten Commandments.  We believe in following the Ten Commandments.

The New Testament is actually mostly Counsel.  The Gospels are mostly counsel given to the disciples from Jesus.  If you disobey the beatitudes and other counsel that is given in the Four Gospels and in the rest of the New Testament...are you sinning?

I think it depends on how far one has advanced in the gospel and their understanding of it in regards to what they are accountable for.

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think it depends on how far one has advanced in the gospel and their understanding of it in regards to what they are accountable for.

While I agree that God deals with us where we are at, individually giving us "line upon line" and allowing us to grow into His full truth about sin, I also think we can get confused. As it applies to the WoW, one might see a progression like: A) Spiritual babies can see the evils of excessive alcohol consumption, so they only drink in moderation -- B) A few weakminded souls come to realize that alcohol has no real redeeming qualities and decide to completely abstain -- ... M) Middlingly spiritual people accept that God expects us to abstain 100% from coffee and tea, but is not convinced that it applies to carbonated, caffeinated beverages -- ... Z) These spiritual giants are so in tune with God and His will that they know that paleo (or other fad diet) is the only TRUE diet and if only the poor weak souls in the other categories were as spiritual as me, then they would know the same thing.

In another string (or maybe earlier in this one, I couldn't readily find the comment), someone opined that "you cannot be too obedient." I guess I wonder if that is really true.

Maybe I shouldn't bring it up, but this makes me want to raise the specter of moral relativism. We usually think of moral relativism as weak minded people justifying their sin ("God expects a lower standard of me"). Is there also a realm of moral relativism where we justify our (fake) righteousness ("God expects a higher standard of me"). While I agree that God deals with us where we are in our growth and progression, there are objective truths out there that God ultimately expects from us. More and/or stricter commandments is not necessarily evidence of spiritual growth.

[JohnsonJones]

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

While I agree that God deals with us where we are at, individually giving us "line upon line" and allowing us to grow into His full truth about sin, I also think we can get confused. As it applies to the WoW, one might see a progression like: A) Spiritual babies can see the evils of excessive alcohol consumption, so they only drink in moderation -- B) A few weakminded souls come to realize that alcohol has no real redeeming qualities and decide to completely abstain -- ... M) Middlingly spiritual people accept that God expects us to abstain 100% from coffee and tea, but is not convinced that it applies to carbonated, caffeinated beverages -- ... Z) These spiritual giants are so in tune with God and His will that they know that paleo (or other fad diet) is the only TRUE diet and if only the poor weak souls in the other categories were as spiritual as me, then they would know the same thing.

In another string (or maybe earlier in this one, I couldn't readily find the comment), someone opined that "you cannot be too obedient." I guess I wonder if that is really true.

Maybe I shouldn't bring it up, but this makes me want to raise the specter of moral relativism. We usually think of moral relativism as weak minded people justifying their sin ("God expects a lower standard of me"). Is there also a realm of moral relativism where we justify our (fake) righteousness ("God expects a higher standard of me"). While I agree that God deals with us where we are in our growth and progression, there are objective truths out there that God ultimately expects from us. More and/or stricter commandments is not necessarily evidence of spiritual growth.

While this is true and I agree to much of it, most of the counsel of the Prophets is not one of those.  Most of the rules that people like to give as an examples ARE NOT rules that prophets came up with, but rules that MAN came up with and created.  These rules that men created to an excess in ancient Israel or elsewhere can fit this mode perfectly.

It was VERY RARE in the scriptures for a prophet to give counsel that was incorrect or wrong (I grant there are instances of one or two times when incorrect counsel, actions, or wording was given which then Lord then came down and worked on in regards to that prophet).  It was normally a restatement of a lower law and showing what the actual spirit of the Law was. 

The Higher law followed a trend.  It was given.  When people were unable to live it, it was taken away (either quickly or slowly) until they no longer were living the higher law, and in some cases (such as the great apostasy) even had the priesthood authority to perform those ordinances being lost.

Today, most of us do NOT live the higher law, much less the basics of the lower law that is left from it.  We live the basic fundamentals that we need to get by, which enable us to live in accordance with what may be asked of us on the Temple Recommend and no more. 

The Counsel prophets have generally given over the pulpit are normally NOT big things, and in some instances are things that are referred to in the scriptures already by the Lord or his prophets previously.  These are things such as not divorcing for frivolous reasons of the world and keeping the family unit together (reinforcing the Lord's own counsel on not divorcing except in cases of adultery (or if we go by Paul, this could also include total and complete apostasy and antagonism towards spouse in regards to the gospel), studying and reading the Book of Mormon more (every day as counseled by Ezra Taft Benson and touched upon in the D&C), and various other counsel that we have received through the years.

Most of the counsel is of the variety of showing the spirit of the Law (and it is ironic that in the past, MANY who were breaking the lower law, such as breaking the Sabbath for example, state that they ignore the letter law but keep the spirit of the law without understanding the basic item they are saying, using it more as an excuse rather than seeing the truth of what keeping the spirit is.  The LETTER of the law is normally the very basic item given in the scriptures).

When we hear counsel from the prophets, in many instances they are already calling us to repentance (such as the instance of Ezra Taft Benson and the Book of Mormon use, or lack of it there of, or more recently how we are to refer ourselves as Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rather than Mormons or other abbreviated measures of which I am amply guilty of doing, even presently).  Like Moses, if we ignore their counsel like the children of Israel ignored him (when he came to them originally with the Higher law but they were unable to follow it thus got the lower law instead), we may expect to lose some of the blessings we already have.  In this, it is NOT a situation of who is more righteous and who is not, but more of, who is willing to listen to the counsel and words of a prophet of the Lord.

The biggest reason I see that people want to say they ignore counsel given to us (in many instances it is directly from prophets, and right in this posting of mine we aren't even touching upon other advice given by those who were never the prophet) is because they are violating that counsel directly already and have no desire to obey it or follow it.  This is not the only reason (ignorance, slowly working up to just living the lower law, being at a lower level of understanding and various other items are also reasons for them doing such), but it is probably the biggest that I hear in church the most often.  I do it (and so I am not just talking to everyone else, I am included here) and I think most others do it as well in the Church. 

We all (okay, well, 99% of us, there are those that are already perfect, I'm not one of them) have our "pet" sins we love and have a hard time giving up. 

As a result we see things such as people who don't have as strong a testimony in the Book of Mormon today, a sky rocket high divorce rate (even among the faithful of the LDS church), and various other problems that afflict us as a people (speaking of the Saints as a people on the whole).  All too often we take it far too lightly, or even worse, ignore the words of the prophet and we see these things taken away.

If we follow the prophet we will be blessed.

Edited September 12, 2018 by JohnsonJones
clarity