Book of Mormon musical’s new ad campaign

[Pyreaux]

On 7/17/2025 at 10:16 AM, Notatbm said:

Elder Bednar would like a word: 

If you're suggesting that no Latter-day Saint has a right to feel offended, that’s not what Elder Bednar taught. Elder Bednar’s message was about resilience and ability to maintain your emotional agency, he's not invalidating all feelings and legitimate concerns. He is encouraging members to not hold grudges or take offense as a lasting emotional injury, especially when it leads to alienation between people.

“Choosing not to be offended” is admirable, but it doesn’t mean people aren’t allowed to feel pain, concern, or hurt, especially when their deeply held faith is misrepresented. Just like we expect to have empathy for marginalized voices in other settings (like Jews or Muslims mocked in media), Latter-day Saints deserve respect and accurate representation. Jesus didn't teach us to be passive.

On 7/14/2025 at 8:31 PM, Notatbm said:

This guy takes it fairly seriously.. or at least acts like it.  Think the “acts” part is an apt description 

You've just been played by Zelph on the Shelf's cheap methods.

First is the Shock-and-Clip Editing. The video opens with D&C 64:23, emphasizing "burned" as a threat.  Uses sarcastic tone + somber music. Juxtaposes LDS scriptures and leaders’ quotes without doctrinal or historical explanation. This primes you emotionally before any real argument is made. They use mock-serious narration and laughing to emotionally frame LDS doctrine as absurd or abusive. They shows images of fire, smoke, and "pay up or else" threats to manipulate viewer mood. This isn't an analysis, its propaganda masked as commentary. Appeal to Ridicule: Laughing at beliefs is emotional manipulation to avoid real debate

Then is Context Stripping / Quote Mining. The main scripture used: “Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.” (D&C 64:23) What the video claims: This means all non-tithe payers will be burned.

What’s missing: This verse was given in 1831, during early Church organization, in the context of preparing for the Second Coming. It uses biblical imagery of the Lord’s judgment, consistent with scripture language in Malachi 3, Matthew 25, Revelation, etc. It doesn't single out poor people or casual members, it’s covenantal, not coercive. The next verses talk about repentance and forgiveness (which are skipped). This is not a "threat tactic." It's an very ancient theme of spiritual preparation tied to consecration. 

The LDS canon is frequently cited in LDS teachings as describing how non-tithe paying, non-LDS, non-Christian Jews are still very alive and unburned during the Second Coming. "And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet? Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God." (D&C 45:51–52)

Therefore, they imply a False Doctrine: “Pay or be punished” Claiming LDS leaders and scripture teach that if you don’t pay tithing, God will literally burn you.

But… LDS leaders teach:

Tithing is a voluntary covenant from which there are spiritual blessings tied to it, like all acts of sacrifice and obedience. The “burning” metaphor (D&C 64:23) refers to being spiritual prepared for the Lord’s return, not a tithing enforcement mechanism. Elder Bednar, President Nelson, and others often talk about tithing in terms of faith, spiritual discipline, and blessings - not fear.

They are using

False Cause: "They mention fire = they want your money" Biblical metaphors ≠ financial threats
Slippery Slope: "Church says burn = coercion = cult" Ignores nuance, makes leaps in reasoning
Loaded Language: "Threat" "burn," "pay up” Frames doctrine to sound sinister or extortionary

More logical and reasonable LDS interpretation:

The verse is apocalyptic and symbolic "He that is tithed shall not be burned” = a promise of spiritual readiness, not an economic threat. Even if I granted you some church leaders may have used intense language, if they intended to threaten us, I say the rhetoric could be more intense, as today’s leaders overwhelmingly use invitational and encouraging language.

Edited July 20, 2025 by Pyreaux

[Notatbm]

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

You're suggesting that no Latter-day Saint has a right to feel offended? 

I didn’t t say or suggest anything. I merely provided a clip of a prophet’s guidance on the matter. In his opinion, one chooses whether or not to be offended. 

4 hours ago, Pyreaux said:

You've just been played by Zelph on the Shelf's cheap methods.

First is the Shock-and-Clip Editing. The video opens with D&C 64:23, emphasizing "burned" as a threat.  Uses sarcastic tone + somber music. Juxtaposes LDS scriptures and leaders’ quotes without doctrinal or historical explanation. This primes you emotionally before any real argument is made. They use mock-serious narration and laughing to emotionally frame LDS doctrine as absurd or abusive. They shows images of fire, smoke, and "pay up or else" threats to manipulate viewer mood. This isn't an analysis, its propaganda masked as commentary. Appeal to Ridicule: Laughing at beliefs is emotional manipulation to avoid real debate

Then is Context Stripping / Quote Mining. The main scripture used: “Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming.” (D&C 64:23) What the video claims: This means all non-tithe payers will be burned.

What’s missing: This verse was given in 1831, during early Church organization, in the context of preparing for the Second Coming. It uses biblical imagery of the Lord’s judgment, consistent with scripture language in Malachi 3, Matthew 25, Revelation, etc. It doesn't single out poor people or casual members, it’s covenantal, not coercive. The next verses talk about repentance and forgiveness (which are skipped). This is not a "threat tactic." It's an very ancient theme of spiritual preparation tied to consecration. 

The LDS canon is frequently cited in LDS teachings as describing how non-tithe paying, non-LDS, non-Christian Jews are still very alive and unburned during the Second Coming. "And then shall the Jews look upon me and say: What are these wounds in thine hands and in thy feet? Then shall they know that I am the Lord; for I will say unto them: These wounds are the wounds with which I was wounded in the house of my friends. I am he who was lifted up. I am Jesus that was crucified. I am the Son of God." (D&C 45:51–52)

Therefore, they imply a False Doctrine: “Pay or be punished” Claiming LDS leaders and scripture teach that if you don’t pay tithing, God will literally burn you.

But… LDS leaders teach:

Tithing is a voluntary covenant from which there are spiritual blessings tied to it, like all acts of sacrifice and obedience. The “burning” metaphor (D&C 64:23) refers to being spiritual prepared for the Lord’s return, not a tithing enforcement mechanism. Elder Bednar, President Nelson, and others often talk about tithing in terms of faith, spiritual discipline, and blessings - not fear.

They are using

False Cause: "They mention fire = they want your money" Biblical metaphors ≠ financial threats
Slippery Slope: "Church says burn = coercion = cult" Ignores nuance, makes leaps in reasoning
Loaded Language: "Threat" "burn," "pay up” Frames doctrine to sound sinister or extortionary

More logical and reasonable LDS interpretation:

The verse is apocalyptic and symbolic "He that is tithed shall not be burned” = a promise of spiritual readiness, not an economic threat. Even if I granted you some church leaders may have used intense language, if they intended to threaten us, I say the rhetoric could be more intense, as today’s leaders overwhelmingly use invitational and encouraging language.

Why would you spend all that time taking apart Zelphs take on things? Thats the easiest video clip to use because it captures exactly what Elder Nelson said.
I went to the actual conference talk since you used all that space telling us what prophets teach about burning etc and read for myself what he said about the whole burning thing and an explanation. Nothing there explaining the burning. It was a statement about paying tithing and well.. you heard him. No follow up teaching saying yea it doesn’t really mean burning or whatever. It is a straight up scare tactic. If he didn’t want that as an effect, he should have explained it. 
 

anyhoo.. I think it’s funny how a few people have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say. It seems as if we have god of confusion who likes to trick people if some of y’all are to be believed.

bill Clinton could have used some of you to defend the Monica scandal in terms of whether or not oral sex is sex lol. 

Edited July 20, 2025 by Notatbm

[Pyreaux]

5 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I did t say or suggest anything. I merely provided a clip of a prophets guidance on the matter. In his opinion, one chooses whether or not to be offended. 

Why would you spend all that time taking apart Zelphs take on things? Thats the easiest video clip to use because it captures exactly what Elder Nelson said.
I went to the actual conference talk since you used all that space telling us what prophets teach about burning etc and read for myself what he said about the whole burning thing and an explanation. Nothing there explaining the burning. It was a statement about paying tithing and well.. you heard him. No follow up teaching saying yea it doesn’t really mean burning or whatever. It is a straight up scare tactic. If he didn’t want that as an effect, he should have explained it. 
 

anyhoo.. I think it’s funny how a few people have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say. It seems as if we have god of confusion who likes to trick people if some of y’all are to be believed.

bill Clinton could have used some of you to defend the Monica scandal in terms of whether or not oral sex is sex lol. 

“I didn’t say anything - I just posted a clip" This is a classic ex-mormon rhetorical deflection, hiding behind the illusion of neutrality while selectively curating a clip. You are not some neutral presenter of truth here; the very act of sharing a clip without context, knowing its effect, is a rhetorical move. It’s framing by implication, a form of passive accusation. Presenting a clip, even without commentary, is still a rhetorical act.

Thanks for revisiting the full talk - it’s important to see the broader context. In his 2005 conference address "Now Is the Time to Prepare" Elder Nelson mentions tithing as part of a larger pattern of spiritual 'preparation'; repentance, prayer, temple worship - none of them as a fear-based ultimatum.

Which is why the only mention of ‘burning’ comes from him quoting the D&C, and the D&C echoes biblical fire symbolism, and it isn’t singled out as a threat there either. Nelson emphasizes covenantal living, it's a leap to call that a 'straight-up scare tactic.' If you believe it is, I'd love to hear how it compares to the way prophets also fervently stress about prayer (as a shield), scriptures (as a sword), or temple worship (as divine protection) being likewise as vital, or in context of being prepared for the Second Coming. Are those scary statements too? Or is the fear framing applied selectively when tithing is discussed?

"It’s a scare tactic. If it weren’t, he would’ve explained it." That is an assertion, not an argument. It assumes there’s only one way to interpret a scripture unless immediately disclaimed. False Dilemma + Argument from Silence: "Either Nelson meant to scare, or he would’ve softened it. He didn’t explain it, therefore it’s threatening” is assuming motive from omission. General Conference talks are brief and allude to scriptural themes. Couldn't or can't Nelson sometimes reference a relevant scripture for his talk without re-preaching the entire context for it?

Analyzing issues deeply is basic discipleship. Implying that any interpretation not surface-level is dishonest or deceptive, ignores how faith traditions work. Christ and prophets often taught in parables and symbols. The idea that scripture should always be instantly literal is inconsistent with centuries of religious interpretation. God is not the author of confusion, but of growth into a mature understanding of things not immediately understood.

Saying “you heard him” skips the broader doctrinal lens. And saying it’s a scare tactic assumes you somehow know his motives, which is a big leap. President Nelson emphasized preparation, repentance, and trusting Jesus Christ for eternal life. Tithing was mentioned as just one way to show dedication and to prepare spiritually, but it was just one part of a broader message about covenant-making, repentance, and spiritual readiness.

False Dilemma + Argument from Silence

Edited July 20, 2025 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I think it’s funny how a few people have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say.

But isn't that exactly what you are doing?  The Doctrine and Covenants verse says "he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming".  But you say:

On 7/17/2025 at 4:03 PM, Notatbm said:

The scripture is specific as to who WILL be burned and it is those who do not pay tithing. 

Where does the scripture specifically say that those who do not pay tithing will be burned?  (Hint:  It doesn't).  Now isn't it funny how you have devoted so much time trying to prove that the scripture doesn't mean what it says?

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Where does the scripture specifically say that those who do not pay tithing will be burned?  (Hint:  It doesn't).  Now isn't it funny how you have devoted so much time trying to prove that the scripture doesn't mean what it says?

That scripture is listed in this thread like about five times now. Go read it. It is very clear. I’m taking it to be literal. I may be wrong, but it says what it says.

[InCognitus]

21 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

That scripture is listed in this thread like about five times now. Go read it. It is very clear. I’m taking it to be literal. I may be wrong, but it says what it says.

Several people in the thread have already pointed this out to you.

The scripture says those who are tithed won't be burned.  It doesn't say what you are claiming, that if you don't pay tithing you will be burned.  Prove me wrong.

You said:

6 hours ago, Notatbm said:

I think it’s funny how a few people have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say.

I think it's ironic that you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

[Okrahomer]

8 hours ago, InCognitus said:

think it's ironic that you are doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

I am probably wrong, but it does come across very “AtlanticMike-ish”…

[Notatbm]

11 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The scripture says those who are tithed won't be burned.  It doesn't say what you are claiming, that if you don't pay tithing you will be burned.  Prove me wrong.

 

“Some years ago one of our brethren spoke of the payment of tithing as “fire insurance”; that statement evoked laughter. Nonetheless, the word of the Lord is clear that those who do not keep the commandments and observe the laws of God shall be burned at the time of his coming. For that shall be a day of judgment and a day of sifting, a day of separating the good from the evil. I would venture a personal opinion that no event has occurred in all the history of the earth as dreadful as will be the day of the Second Coming—no event as fraught with the destructive forces of nature, as consequential for the nations of the earth, as terrible for the wicked, or as wonderful for the righteous.”

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/gordon-b-hinckley/need-not-fear-coming/

 

[InCognitus]

47 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

“Some years ago one of our brethren spoke of the payment of tithing as “fire insurance”; that statement evoked laughter. Nonetheless, the word of the Lord is clear that those who do not keep the commandments and observe the laws of God shall be burned at the time of his coming. For that shall be a day of judgment and a day of sifting, a day of separating the good from the evil. I would venture a personal opinion that no event has occurred in all the history of the earth as dreadful as will be the day of the Second Coming—no event as fraught with the destructive forces of nature, as consequential for the nations of the earth, as terrible for the wicked, or as wonderful for the righteous.”

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/gordon-b-hinckley/need-not-fear-coming/

I noticed that you dodged the question and just posted another quote without proving your claim.  Your claim was this:

On 7/17/2025 at 4:03 PM, Notatbm said:

The scripture is specific as to who WILL be burned and it is those who do not pay tithing.

The scripture says no such thing.  And neither does the quote you posted from (then) Elder Hinckley of the quorum of the twelve. 

Let me give you an example. What if I were to say, "Those who cross the street using the pedestrian bridge will not be hit by a car while crossing that street."  Using your logic, would you assume that EVERYONE who tries to cross that street without using the pedestrian bridge WILL be hit by a car?

You made the claim, now support it.  Where does D&C 64:23 say specifically what you claimed "as to who WILL be burned and it is those who do not pay tithing"?  

You said, "I think it’s funny how a few people have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say."  And it is funny, because at least one of those persons is YOU.

Our scriptures (and the prophets) also make it clear that there are those who do not pay tithing that will NOT be burned at the coming of Jesus. The people who remain on the earth during the Millennial reign of Christ on the earth will include all those who will inherit the celestial AND the terrestrial kingdoms of God, and many of those in the terrestrial kingdom have never been members of the church and have no clue about tithing.  Missionary work will continue during the millennium.  How is that supposed to happen if all those not paying tithing will be burned?  Your assertion is patently false.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Okrahomer said:

I am probably wrong, but it does come across very “AtlanticMike-ish”…

It could be him, but it is not that unusual for someone to play these types of games of cherry picking and avoidance.

[Notatbm]

44 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

I noticed that you dodged the question and just posted another quote without proving your claim.  Your claim was this:

The scripture says no such thing.  And neither does the quote you posted from (then) Elder Hinckley of the quorum of the twelve. 

Let me give you an example. What if I were to say, "Those who cross the street using the pedestrian bridge will not be hit by a car while crossing that street."  Using your logic, would you assume that EVERYONE who tries to cross that street without using the pedestrian bridge WILL be hit by a car?

You made the claim, now support it.  Where does D&C 64:23 say specifically what you claimed "as to who WILL be burned and it is those who do not pay tithing"?  

You said, "I think it’s funny how a few people have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say."  And it is funny, because at least one of those persons is YOU.

Our scriptures (and the prophets) also make it clear that there are those who do not pay tithing that will NOT be burned at the coming of Jesus. The people who remain on the earth during the Millennial reign of Christ on the earth will include all those who will inherit the celestial AND the terrestrial kingdoms of God, and many of those in the terrestrial kingdom have never been members of the church and have no clue about tithing.  Missionary work will continue during the millennium.  How is that supposed to happen if all those not paying tithing will be burned?  Your assertion is patently false.

I’m sorry. I wasn’t aware that you didn’t know paying tithing is a commandment. here is some reading material from the Mormon church which explains the commandment in more detail:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/what-is-tithing
 

gordon b Hinkley ( a prophet of god ) stated:

 “Nonetheless, the word of the Lord is clear that those who do not keep the commandments and observe the laws of God shall be burned at the time of his coming.”

paying tithing is a commandment. If you do not pay tithing (keeping commandments) you shall be burned. 
 

now if you want to take up the position that Hinkley is making stuff up and engage in criticizing the lords annointed well then go ahead. He said what he said. 

Forgot to add this: 

“A further reward for paying tithing is a guarantee against being consumed in the burning which is to accompany the second coming of the Savior. In the eighty-fifth section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord explains that his purpose in tithing his people is “to prepare them against the day of vengeance and burning,” (⁠D&C 85:3⁠) and in the sixty-fourth section he says, “Behold, now it is called today until the coming of the Son of Man, and verily it is a day of sacrifice, and a day for the tithing of my people; for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming” (⁠D&C 64:23⁠).”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1979/05/trust-in-the-lord?lang=eng

Edited July 20, 2025 by Notatbm

[InCognitus]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

It could be him, but it is not that unusual for someone to play these types of games of cherry picking and avoidance.

The Elmo GIF sealed the deal for me (typical antics).

[InCognitus]

1 minute ago, Notatbm said:

I’m sorry. I wasn’t aware that you didn’t know paying tithing is a commandment. here is some reading material from the Mormon church which explains the commandment in more detail:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/comeuntochrist/article/what-is-tithing
 

gordon b Hinkley ( a prophet of god ) stated:

 “Nonetheless, the word of the Lord is clear that those who do not keep the commandments and observe the laws of God shall be burned at the time of his coming.”

paying tithing is a commandment. If you do not pay tithing (keeping commandments) you shall be burned. 

 

You are still running away from your claim and trying to pin this on Elder Hinckley now.

Back up your claim.  Where does D&C 64:23 say specifically what you claimed "as to who WILL be burned and it is those who do not pay tithing"? 

We can discuss Elder Hinckley's talk once you back up your claim.

[ZealouslyStriving]

Perhaps this could help clear things up:

@Notatbm

Is it your claim that the Church teaches that any and all people who do not pay tithing, irrespective of Church membership and/or economic circumstances, will be burned by fire at the second coming?

If not, what specifically is your claim?

Edited July 20, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[Notatbm]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

Back up your claim.  Where does D&C 64:23 say specifically what you claimed "as to who WILL be burned and it is those who do not pay  tithing”?

for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming” (⁠D&C 64:23⁠).”

 

simple. Opposite of who is not burned. The tithepayer apparently. The statement is clear to me and apparently clear to Hinkley himself. If a prophet is comfortable interpreting it that way, why can’t you accept it?

 

never mess with the church’s money. 

D&c1: 38 

What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled⁠, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants⁠, it is the same⁠.

 

I’m done  dancing around and playing word games. That’s for lawyers. I agree with your own prophet as to what it says. I’m sorry you don’t respect the wisdom and authority of your own prophet but that is your problem. 

[Notatbm]

27 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Perhaps this could help clear things up:

@Notatbm

Is it your claim that the Church teaches that any and all people who do not pay tithing, irrespective of Church membership and/or economic circumstances, will be burned by fire at the second coming?

If not, what specifically is your claim?

I only claim what the scripture says. It says tithepayers  will not be burned.
 

I feel that if god wanted to be clear as to who exactly that is he would have just provided a lengthy description of what that means. He didn’t because you know who could see any confusion come about from this? 
 

Let’s say one is a bank manager and the bank is being robbed. He is holding a gun to your head and the robber says if you open the safe, I won’t shoot you. 
 

what is the logical conclusion if you don’t open the safe?? Most likely take a bullet to the skull despite him not actually saying he would shoot you. Is any sane person going to get into a semantics debate with the guy holding a gun to your head? Nope
 

Same with gods statement reference tithepayers. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I only claim what the scripture says. It says tithepayers  will not be burned.
 

I feel that if god wanted to be clear as to who exactly that is he would have just provided a lengthy description of what that means. He didn’t because you know who could see any confusion come about from this? 
 

Let’s say one is a bank manager and the bank is being robbed. He is holding a gun to your head and the robber says if you open the safe, I won’t shoot you. 
 

what is the logical conclusion if you don’t open the safe?? Most likely take a bullet to the skull despite him not actually saying he would shoot you. Is any sane person going to get into a semantics debate with the guy holding a gun to your head? Nope
 

Same with gods statement reference tithepayers. 

So what you saying is that you are not interested in a good faith discussion.

Got it. 👌🏻

[webbles]

25 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I only claim what the scripture says. It says tithepayers  will not be burned.
 

I feel that if god wanted to be clear as to who exactly that is he would have just provided a lengthy description of what that means. He didn’t because you know who could see any confusion come about from this? 
 

Let’s say one is a bank manager and the bank is being robbed. He is holding a gun to your head and the robber says if you open the safe, I won’t shoot you. 
 

what is the logical conclusion if you don’t open the safe?? Most likely take a bullet to the skull despite him not actually saying he would shoot you. Is any sane person going to get into a semantics debate with the guy holding a gun to your head? Nope
 

Same with gods statement reference tithepayers. 

I decided to ask ChatGPT everything you've said and see if it agrees with your logic.  It didn't.  I had to keep giving it more and more of your quotes (plus other quotes that I found that you are probably using as your sources) and it still wouldn't accept your logic.  I could not convince it that D&C 64 says that all non-tithe payers will burn.  I could not convince it that modern prophets teach that all non-tithe payers will burn.  I asked it to take the most literal interpretation possible and it still wouldn't.

I'd recommend you work on your logical argument.  It has too many holes in it.  It also found your robber gun argument as really poor.

[Notatbm]

16 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So what you saying is that you are not interested in a good faith discussion.

Got it. 👌🏻

I have put in an acceptable amount of effort in explaining my position. Just because others do not agree with it,  does not automatically make me opposed to a “good faith” discussion. I am under no obligation to explain over and over again. I am out of extra words to say the same thing. 

If the explanation provided by the prophet is not satisfactory when he is referring to the exact verse of the same scripture, well that says more about the person in terms of “good faith” than it does me. Prophets ALWAYS TEACH THE TRUTH . 
 

[Notatbm]

Just now, webbles said:

I decided to ask ChatGPT everything you've said and see if it agrees with your logic.  It didn't.  I had to keep giving it more and more of your quotes (plus other quotes that I found that you are probably using as your sources) and it still wouldn't accept your logic.  I could not convince it that D&C 64 says that all non-tithe payers will burn.  I could not convince it that modern prophets teach that all non-tithe payers will burn.  I asked it to take the most literal interpretation possible and it still wouldn't.

I'd recommend you work on your logical argument.  It has too many holes in it.  It also found your robber gun argument as really poor.

👏

[InCognitus]

1 hour ago, Notatbm said:

for he that is tithed shall not be burned at his coming” (⁠D&C 64:23⁠).”

 

simple. Opposite of who is not burned. The tithepayer apparently.

And this demonstrates the flaw in your claim and your thinking, as do the other quotes you included after you edited your post.

A "guarantee against being consumed in the burning" or "fire insurance" against being burned does not stipulate that the opposite is true as you mistakenly assert.  It only guarantees that those who are tithed shall not be burned, not that those who don't tithe WILL be burned.

Just as in my prior example, stating that those who take a pedestrian bridge to cross a particular street will guarantee that the person will not be hit by a car does not mean that the opposite is true, where ALL who try to cross the street in some other way WILL be hit by a car.  Your logic is flawed.  In addition, I can absolutely prove from the teachings of scripture and the prophets that there are those who are not tithed that will be spared from being burned at the second coming.

51 minutes ago, Notatbm said:

I have put in an acceptable amount of effort in explaining my position.

You have not supported your claim and in fact "have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say."  

 

[teddyaware]

On 7/20/2025 at 6:02 PM, InCognitus said:

And this demonstrates the flaw in your claim and your thinking, as do the other quotes you included after you edited your post.

A "guarantee against being consumed in the burning" or "fire insurance" against being burned does not stipulate that the opposite is true as you mistakenly assert.  It only guarantees that those who are tithed shall not be burned, not that those who don't tithe WILL be burned.

Just as in my prior example, stating that those who take a pedestrian bridge to cross a particular street will guarantee that the person will not be hit by a car does not mean that the opposite is true, where ALL who try to cross the street in some other way WILL be hit by a car.  Your logic is flawed.  In addition, I can absolutely prove from the teachings of scripture and the prophets that there are those who are not tithed that will be spared from being burned at the second coming.

You have not supported your claim and in fact "have devoted so much time to saying and trying to prove the prophets and scriptures don’t really mean what they say."  

 

To add further nuance to this controversy, it must also be conceded that the scriptures make it clear there’s more than one way for a rebellions, unrepentant soul to be burned at the Lord’s coming.

38 Therefore if that man repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine justice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own guilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the presence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and pain, and anguish, which is like an unquenchable fire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever. (Mosiah 2)

and…

52 And again I say unto you, the Spirit saith: Behold, the ax is laid at the root of the tree; therefore every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit shall be hewn down and cast into the fire, yea, a fire which cannot be consumed, even an unquenchable fire. Behold, and remember, the Holy One hath spoken it. (Alma 5)

But I must say in conclusion that when this thread’s controversy is examined in the light of the restored gospel, the whole of it turns out to be a ridiculous waste of time and effort! The testimony of the Standard Works declares that the judgements of God against unrepented sin can indeed be very harsh, but ultimately it’s all designed for our own good and eventual salvation. Like it or not, the justice of God is going to have its way, and the spiritually immature and blind can lament and bellyache about it all all they want but it isn’t going to change the way a just and merciful God operates for the ultimate salvation of his children. His is a great comprehensive program of mercy that will ultimately instruct and enable nearly all of his children to obtain a salvation in one of the three kingdoms of heavenly glory. In the end, and in spite of it all, all will be saved and find happiness save the sons of perdition who reject Christ and refuse to repent. Fortunately, many of the recalcitrant will eventually wake up, arise from the sleep of death and repent thanks to the at times harsh administration of God’s justice.

 

Edited July 23, 2025 by teddyaware