Here Is A Good One

[Luzia]

Well, if the original writter would`ve given the story the background I agree with you, but if the original writter didn`t and just wrote it, there is no point to it, because people who have read it from the original would just know how the real story is, so there is nothing magical about it.

:s

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 29 2004, 01:12 PM

It's not the story itself that was being offered as being true; it was obviously a piece of inspirational fiction, kind of like the "footsteps in the sand" fable. What was being offered as true was the idea that the passage was written by a saintly young man who died tragically shortly after writing it. It's as if people can't just let a good story stand on its own; they have to invent an even more inspirational backstory to give it more juice.

I don't know how the story would have made sense without giving the young man some background for identity. It was necessary to give a young age, parents for the source as they were who shared the story,.... and a name like Peter Rabbit....

So I don't get your point here at all.

BTW.....the point of the story....Christ takes our sins upon Himself... (just so everyone doesn't forget the most important thing about that story)

My point is that the poor dead kid who claimed to have written the story, didn't write it. See the second post on this thread.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 29 2004, 10:33 AM

Starsky --

D&C 121: 17

17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves

Interesting scripture. Compare with Galatians 2:11-14

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

So Paul publicly accused Peter (a member of the original First Presidency, no less!) of "dissimulation" (a variety of dishonesty) and of not walking "uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." He "cried transgression," in other words. Was the apostle therefore a "servant of sin" and a "child of disobedience", for correcting Peter where he needed correcting?

Joseph Smith, in establishing the Church on the American frontier, had to deal with the distinctive frontier-American situation where everyone wanted to be the big cheese. The early Church sometimes seems to have been nothing but one big squabblefest. I think that D&C 121 has much that is universally applicable, but this particular passage was directed mainly towards Joseph Smith's excessively-critical contemporaries.

As someone mentioned very thoughtfully in another thread, one of the mechanisms by which the Lord keeps the brethren from leading the Church astray, is the exercised judgment of faithful, spiritually attuned members, who will refuse to follow a misguided leader off a cliff, into the Kool-Aid, or off on a cyanide-assisted comet chase.

It's not the story itself that was being offered as being true; it was obviously a piece of inspirational fiction, kind of like the "footsteps in the sand" fable. What was being offered as true was the idea that the passage was written by a saintly young man who died tragically shortly after writing it. It's as if people can't just let a good story stand on its own; they have to invent an even more inspirational backstory to give it more juice.

(No comments from the anti-Book of Mormon peanut gallery, please. )

Well said!

[Cal]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 29 2004, 01:12 PM

It's not the story itself that was being offered as being true; it was obviously a piece of inspirational fiction, kind of like the "footsteps in the sand" fable. What was being offered as true was the idea that the passage was written by a saintly young man who died tragically shortly after writing it. It's as if people can't just let a good story stand on its own; they have to invent an even more inspirational backstory to give it more juice.

I don't know how the story would have made sense without giving the young man some background for identity. It was necessary to give a young age, parents for the source as they were who shared the story,.... and a name like Peter Rabbit....

So I don't get your point here at all.

BTW.....the point of the story....Christ takes our sins upon Himself... (just so everyone doesn't forget the most important thing about that story)

The generalization that Jesus takes our sins upon himself is fine. To embellish it with speculation as to details can be dangerous. I like the quote : " The Lord has not said what he has not said."

People often make inferences from speculative details that are not justified in actual scripture. The scriptures do not say how all this stuff is going to take place---why can't we just leave some mystery in it instead of trying to write a "gospel" of our own around it?

[juliejalago]

Originally posted by Starsky@Apr 28 2004, 10:07 PM

My mother always said:....A lier will assume everyone else is one too and will be considered negative and suspicious. You can bet suspicious people are not good people.

An honest person will always assume everyone else is too...and be considered gullible. You can bet gullible people are good people.

I know I'm treading on thin ice to call into question what your mother said, but you can't really believe that is a true principle by which to live your life?! If you did, you would never question anything, never think for yourself, and never grow. A little skepticism is often a healthy thing. The Church has never taught that being gullible is a virtue. That's called deception, and it's not the pathway recommended to truth. I think the ProudDuck already pointed out the element of deception in this story. I'm not denying there are some gems of wisdom contained within it, but I don't need to be baited into learning them. Obviously the Church leadership agrees, or Paul H. Dunn would never have been booted from his position.

[Jenda]

I read the story years ago on a website chock-full of inspirational readings, and it did not have the preface attached to it that it does here in this thread, and I felt it was extremely insightful. It helped bring something that is fairly esoteric into grasping reach for those who are not well-versed Christians, who struggle to understand the meaning of Christ's sacrifice and how it is personal to each one.

Aside from the false intro, I believe the story has more to offer than any other inspirational story I have read, and is on par with, if not slightly above, Footsteps.