Responding To Accusations Of Hate Speech

[Rivers]

In Elder Oaks' interview on the Mormon Channel, he says that he will speak what God want him to speak whether it is unpopular or not.  Stirring the pot is part of the prophet's job.

[Stone holm]

In Elder Oaks' interview on the Mormon Channel, he says that he will speak what God want him to speak whether it is unpopular or not.  Stirring the pot is part of the prophet's job.

Well there you have it, just doing his job of causing contention.

[thesometimesaint]

God may well tell him what to say, The words that Elder Oaks uses are his own choice.

[Mystery Meat]

Do some of you even read the scriptures? Prophets and apostles (not to mention the Savior himself) have been stirring the pot since the days of Adam. I don't get why you don't get this.

[teddyaware]

Well there you have it, just doing his job of causing contention.

 

No. There he goes speaking the truth of God in love which, as night follows day, always seems to cause the wicked to display a spirit of contention.

 

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

Edited November 3, 2013 by teddyaware

[ERayR]

Some think that when anything they do not agree with is uttered that it is the cause of contention.  If they were only to look in a mirror the cause of the contention would be so much more clear.

[Stone holm]

No. There he goes speaking the truth of God in love which, as night follows day, always seems to cause the wicked to display a spirit of contention.

 

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

Isn't that what I said?

[Mystery Meat]

Isn't that what I said?

 

But that is not Elder Oaks' fault, nor does it change his responsibility to clarify doctrine (and it needs to be clarified for a growing number of members of the church) at this exact time. If that causes us as members of the Church to be uncomfortable (and believe me its causes me some discomfort...I have a decent handful of homosexual friends who I love) then hopefully we have the faith to look to the Lord and not take it out on his anointed for declaring His word.

[Stone holm]

But that is not Elder Oaks' fault, nor does it change his responsibility to clarify doctrine (and it needs to be clarified for a growing number of members of the church) at this exact time. If that causes us as members of the Church to be uncomfortable (and believe me its causes me some discomfort...I have a decent handful of homosexual friends who I love) then hopefully we have the faith to look to the Lord and not take it out on his anointed for declaring His word.

Have no problem with clarifying doctrine.

[teddyaware]

Isn't that what I said?

 

Glad we are in accord.

[thesometimesaint]

No. There he goes speaking the truth of God in love which, as night follows day, always seems to cause the wicked to display a spirit of contention.

 

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew 10:34)

 

Such has been used by every two bit tyrant Jesus freak throughout history to justify their cruel and sadistic acts.

 

Do not use Jesus as a pejorative on this board.

[wenglund]

I think we continually miss your point because you refuse to abide byhe rules of the English language.  The first rule being that you don't get to make up your own definition for words.  The characterizations of perversion and carcinogens are not same.  Whether something is or is not a carcinogen is a matter of verifiable fact, free of value judgments.  However, whether something is perverse is matter of opinion.  I know you hate this but here is the definition of the word:

 

"(of a person or their actions) showing a deliberate and obstinate desire to behave in a way that is unreasonable or unacceptable, often in spite of the consequences."

 

To make the determination of perversion, you have to decide that something is unreasonable or unacceptable.  This is a value judgment.  Now, there is nothing wrong with making value judgments, but doing so, does make you judgmental (once again, another one of those annoying definitional things).

 

Also, for the record, I believe that AA stands for Alcoholics Anonymous, not Drunks Anonymous, Lush Anonymous or Loser Anonymous.  Because it's possible to specifically diagnose a problem (i.e., alcoholism) without using pejorative language to describe the child of God who has the problem.

 

Actually, you continue to mis the point because you have evidently been duped by word manipulation. Since word manipulation is an important topic that is somewhat tangential to and extends beyond the scope of this thread, I will open another thread with it as the primary topic.

 

The word "perverse" has various definitions. Webster list the most common definition as: "turned away from what is right or good."

 

To the non-binary thinker, you are also mistaken about carcinogens necessarily being a matter of fact. Not all carcinogens are known. Some are merely suspected. Carcinogens also vary in the degree and directness and probability at which they might cause cancer.  There are a number of authoritative organizations that provide lists of carcinogens. Some carcinogens appear on some lists, but not others. (See HERE)

 

Interestingly enough, and somewhat related to our exchange, one of the known carcinogens is alcoholic beverage. One of the suspected carcinogens is Hairdresser (workplace exposure to).

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Such has been used by every two bit tyrant Jesus freak throughout history to justify their cruel and sadistic acts.

 

I don't think Stone Holm will appreciate you characterizing him that way, even though that is what he said.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

No; calling a person with the disease of alcoholism a wino is not the same thing as admitting to being an alcoholic.

 

A rose by any other name...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

A rose by any other name...

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Sure a rose would smell just as sweet if it was called Limburger cheese.

[Stone holm]

Such has been used by every two bit tyrant Jesus freak throughout history to justify their cruel and sadistic acts.

 

Be careful about the use of the phrase, "Jesus Freak" -- that has a specific time and place in history, namely the 1960's and 1970's and applied primarily to the Christian Left during the Viet Nam Era and they were neither cruel or sadistic, but were allied to a certain extent with the anti-war movement.

 

 

I don't think Stone Holm will appreciate you characterizing him that way, even though that is what he said.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Although, I would not have considered myself a "Jesus Freak", but more of an outright "Hippy" at that point in my life -- although Jesus Freaks back then did tend to have long hair.    The quoted saying by Christ, I believe actually referred to the fact that Christians would tend to be persecuted by the establishment, just as Christ was persecuted not by fringe elements of his day, but by the conservative establishment of the time.

[ERayR]

Such has been used by every two bit tyrant Jesus freak throughout history to justify their cruel and sadistic acts.

 

That doesn't invalidate the scripture.

[thesometimesaint]

Be careful about the use of the phrase, "Jesus Freak" -- that has a specific time and place in history, namely the 1960's and 1970's and applied primarily to the Christian Left during the Viet Nam Era and they were neither cruel or sadistic, but were allied to a certain extent with the anti-war movement.

 

 

 

Although, I would not have considered myself a "Jesus Freak", but more of an outright "Hippy" at that point in my life -- although Jesus Freaks back then did tend to have long hair.    The quoted saying by Christ, I believe actually referred to the fact that Christians would tend to be persecuted by the establishment, just as Christ was persecuted not by fringe elements of his day, but by the conservative establishment of the time.

 

No disrespect intended for those used Christ to inform/guide their good actions.  What I was in reference to is those that use Christ as a weapon in their pursuit of power. We've had the zealots for far longer than the 1960's and 1970's.

Edited November 4, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

That doesn't invalidate the scripture.

 

Doesn't make it true in our application of it either.

 

To paraphrase Ghandi. I like your Christ just fine, Christians not so much.

[teddyaware]

Such has been used by every two bit tyrant Jesus freak throughout history to justify their cruel and sadistic acts.

 

Within the context of my comments on this thread, I thought it would be obvious I was using this particular quote by Jesus (Matthew 10:34) to show He was keenly aware many would take offence, and even become violently angry at the words of life and light which He preached -- even though He had the purest and most sincere of motives. Extending the meaning and application of the principle that undergirds these words of Christ, it also seems quite obvious that any duly authorized prophet who dares to speak gospel truth in the name of the Lord will likewise end up on the receiving end of a fallen world's antipathy, opprobrium and, occasionally, violent reactions.

Edited November 4, 2013 by teddyaware

[thesometimesaint]

Within the context of my comments on this thread, I thought it would be obvious I was using this particular quote by Jesus (Matthew 10:34) to show He was keenly aware many would take offence, and even become violently angry at the words of life and light which He preached -- even though He had the purest and most sincere of motives. Extending the meaning and application of the principle that undergirds these words of Christ, it also seems quite obvious that any duly authorized prophet who dares to speak gospel truth in the name of the Lord will likewise end up on the receiving end of a fallen world's antipathy, opprobrium and occasionally violent reactions.

 

That is why we miust be very careful in the words that we use. We are out to convert the world, but not through the sword. The minute we use force, or implied force, Amen to the priesthood of that person.

[teddyaware]

That is why we miust be very careful in the words that we use. We are out to convert the world, but not through the sword. The minute we use force, or implied force, Amen to the priesthood of that person.

 

I agree. Nevertheless, the Lord's servants have a sacred responsibility to teach the world the truths of the kingdom of God. If merely teaching that truth, especially in a spirit of love and goodwill, is enough to provoke violent reactions from those who disagree with those truths, the Lord's servants have only done the will of God. 

 

The scriptures teach us that when nations ripen in iniquity they begin to abuse, imprison and ultimately slay the prophets. Time and again the Lord's anointed have opened their mouths and continued to preach the truth even in the midst of the most toxic and dangerous of environments. In light of the fears some here have exhibited concerning 'unnecessary' so-called "pot stirring," the question to ask is why does the Lord time and time again require his servants to preach His truth within such toxic and highly dangerous environments? Why does the Lord command His servants to (seemingly) deliberately go about the business of stirring up hornet's nests of bitter anger and violent reaction, rather than just leaving the wicked to do what they choose to want to do? There are scores and scores of scriptural examples of this... why?   

[thesometimesaint]

Yes the Lord teaches us to call repentence to this sad sick world. The words we use to do that are our own choice.

 

The Church took me in, cleansed and then healed all the hurts and wounds of outrageous fortune this old world had inflicted upon me. Putting a garment of power, glory, and priesthood on my naked body it called me Brother. It didn't do that by calling me vile names, or besmirshing my reputation.

Edited November 4, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Scott Lloyd]

I agree. Nevertheless, the Lord's servants have a sacred responsibility to teach the world the truths of the kingdom of God. If merely teaching that truth, especially in a spirit of love and goodwill, is enough to provoke violent reactions from those who disagree with those truths, the Lord's servants have only done the will of God. 

 

The scriptures teach us that when nations ripen in iniquity they begin to abuse, imprison and ultimately slay the prophets. Time and again the Lord's anointed have opened their mouths and continued to preach the truth even in the midst of the most toxic and dangerous of environments. In light of the fears some here have exhibited concerning 'unnecessary' so-called "pot stirring," the question to ask is why does the Lord time and time again require his servants to preach His truth within such toxic and highly dangerous environments? Why does the Lord command His servants to (seemingly) deliberately go about the business of stirring up hornet's nests of bitter anger and violent reaction, rather than just leaving the wicked to do what they choose to want to do? There are scores and scores of scriptural examples of this... why?   

I was just thinking while reading this, I can't recall a single instance in the scriptures where the Lord chastised one of His servants for being too bold in preaching repentance.

 

They are under strict charge to impart only the portion of His word he authorizes them to, but that has to do with revealing the mysteries of the kingdom, not reticence in calling people to repentance.

Edited November 4, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[teddyaware]

 

 

 

Yes the Lord teaches us to call repentence to this sad sick world. The words we use to do that are our own choice.

 

The Church took me in, cleansed and then healed all the hurts and wounds of outrageous fortune this old world had inflicted upon me. Putting a garment of power, glory, and priesthood on my naked body it called me Brother. It didn't do that by calling me vile names, or besmirshing my reputation.

 

 

I like and very much appreciate your excellent response. But I'd like to ask you a question and do so with pure intent, simply wondering what you might say in response: Read the following passages from Samuel the Lamanite's prophecy against the Nephites and let me know if you think it would have been better, wiser, and ultimately more effective for him to have used less inflamitory language than the language he chose to use?

 

25 And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out.

26 Behold ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil.

27 But behold, if a man shall come among you and shall say: Do this, and there is no iniquity; do that and ye shall not suffer; yea, he will say: Walk after the pride of your own hearts; yea, walk after the pride of your eyes, and do whatsoever your heart desireth—and if a man shall come among you and say this, ye will receive him, and say that he is a prophet.

28 Yea, ye will lift him up, and ye will give unto him of your substance; ye will give unto him of your gold, and of your silver, and ye will clothe him with costly apparel; and because he speaketh flattering words unto you, and he saith that all is well, then ye will not find fault with him. 

29 O ye wicked and ye perverse generation; ye hardened and ye stiffnecked people, how long will ye suppose that the Lord will suffer you? Yea, how long will ye suffer yourselves to be led by foolish and blind guides? Yea, how long will ye choose darkness rather than light?

 

 

Edited November 4, 2013 by teddyaware