The Commandments of Christ

[pogi]

2 hours ago, etz said:

It becomes very difficult to respond to you as though you meant well when you admit you are deploying the argumentum ad hominem: tu quoque in order to make it appear that I am a transgressor.

I have made no such admission.  That is bearing false witness.   I am simply pointing out contradictions and inconsistencies with your argument, which you are apparently blind to.  ETZ, how is it not clear to you that you yourself do not interpret the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount as they are written?  Is it not true that we need to understand those words from a broader perspective?  Is it not true that further light and knowledge, alters our understanding of previous truths?  

You make exceptions to Christ's words in the sermon from the broader context of scripture and quotes from prophets.  For example, You interpret the sermon on the mount from the perspective of D&C 83: 2,4.  Do you see how D&C 83: 2,4 alters your perspective and interpretation of the sermon?  It justifies owning possessions which is contradictory to the words of Christ.  Now, would Christ give contradictory commands?  No.  This leads me to believe that you have no clue what Christ really meant in the sermon on the mount. 

You simply are not considering anybody else perspective but your own. EVERY WORD OF SCRIPTURE MUST UNAVOIDABLY PASS THROUGH THE FILTER OF INTERPRETATION, which is subject to individual perspective, which may be influenced by the broader perspective of scripture, official teachings of the Church, and prophetic teaching.    

Do you find it interesting that when I quote Joseph Smith to show  my perspective, you state that he was simply a man.  But when you quote Joseph Smith, suddenly he is a prophet.  When you quote from official Church manuals, it gives weight to your argument, but when I quote from official Church manuals which clearly states that perfection is not possible in this life, you ignore such official teachings.  Official teaching only count when they agree with your perspective.  Convenient for you!  You are no different from the rest of us etz!  You are subject to your own perspective, just like the rest of us.  Your perspective is just as incomplete and fallible as the rest of our perspectives.  We all do the best to follow the light we have to the best of our understanding.  To think that your perspective is the only right perspective is complete and foolish ignorance.  You cannot be taught and cannot grow in light and truth with such stubborn ignorance.

 

Edited January 16, 2017 by pogi

[Calm]

1 hour ago, etz said:

As I said: you may of course complain that I am wrong, that my understanding is incorrect, but unless and until you can substantiate it, your claims carry no weight.

By their fruits....

[Calm]

4 hours ago, etz said:

And at this point someone might claim that I am "proselytizing."  Yet consider carefully the admission you make when you accuse me thus - you are implicitly saying that the sayings, teachings, and commandments of Christ are not part of your religion - not part of Mormonism - not part of your faith.

No, no one is saying that.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, etz said:

 

But now you tell me you're no better off than apostate Christianity.  That's an interesting admission.

More putting words in someone's mouth that don't belong there.

[The Nehor]

It is proposed that we stop feeding the troll and ignore Etz's inflammatory statements. All in favor please manifest it.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, etz said:

Objection: The commandments cannot be understood!

 

Misrepresentation of what others say.  That's on you.

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, etz said:

3. It is written those that trust in the arm of flesh are cursed.

...as written by the arm of flesh. 

Do you see the problem here?  All scripture must pass through the arm of flesh...literally!  The arm of flesh obscures light through corrupt language which cannot capture truth as it is.  God's light can only be revealed to your heart through direct spiritual communion, not by words in scripture.  Words in scripture are simply seeds to truth, you cannot claim to know the truth by simply reading scripture... you must plant the seed. 

Edited January 16, 2017 by pogi

[Sine Saw Square]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

We all do the best to follow the light we have to the best of our understanding.  To think that your perspective is the only right perspective is complete and foolish ignorance.

I was hoping ETz could agree with this. When he said regarding the Church leaders: "The leadership's service to God is between them and God... It's not my business how the current GAs interpret anything."

It would seem this same idea would extend to each one of us. What do you say ETz? Allow us to all worship and serve according to the dictates of our consciences?

[etz]

So, there is no actual substantial objection, I am assured, in keeping the commandments of Christ.

Is this correct?

[etz]

And in being baptized, partaking of the sacrament, and in the endowments, you have witnessed that you would be obedient in keeping the commandments of Christ.

Is this correct?

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, etz said:

So, there is no actual substantial objection, I am assured, in keeping the commandments of Christ.

Is this correct?

And in being baptized, partaking of the sacrament, and in the endowments, you have witnessed that you would be obedient in keeping the commandments of Christ.

Is this correct?

100% correct.
All here who are faithful members believe in the necessity of keeping the commandments just as firmly as you do.
All here who have been to the temple are actually under covenant to do so.

Now, whether we all agree on what keeping each of the commandments looks like is a different issue.

Edited January 16, 2017 by JLHPROF

[etz]

And there has been no substantial claim of misunderstanding Christ's commandments - you know, such as "'give unto every man that asketh of thee' should be understood as 'give not unto every man that asketh thee,' and here's my scriptural proof..." or some other similar nonsense.

Is this correct?

[etz]

And it is tautologically true that one who does not believe the scriptures literally - the rule of interpretation, said Joseph, was no interpretation at all; understand it precisely as it reads - literally disbelieves the scripture.

I don't need your input on that.  It's a tautology.

[Sine Saw Square]

2 minutes ago, etz said:

And in being baptized, partaking of the sacrament, and in the endowments, you have witnessed that you would be obedient in keeping the commandments of Christ.

Is this correct?

I think you are arguing a straw man. Who here has proposed otherwise?

[pogi]

1 minute ago, etz said:

So, there is no actual substantial objection, I am assured, in keeping the commandments of Christ.

Is this correct?

So, there is no actual substantial objection, I am assured, that your interpretation of the commandments is your own.  That your interpretation of "perfection" is your own?  That your perspective, and thus interpretation is just as incomplete and fallible as mine?

Is this correct?

[pogi]

3 minutes ago, etz said:

And there has been no substantial claim of misunderstanding Christ's commandments - you know, such as "'give unto every man that asketh of thee' should be understood as 'give not unto every man that asketh thee,' and here's my scriptural proof..." or some other similar nonsense.

Is this correct?

Wrong!  Even you acknowledge that the command to "sell all your possessions and give to the poor" is up for interpretation, and thus misunderstanding.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, etz said:

And there has been no substantial claim of misunderstanding Christ's commandments - you know, such as "'give unto every man that asketh of thee' should be understood as 'give not unto every man that asketh thee,' and here's my scriptural proof..." or some other similar nonsense.

Is this correct?

No.

[etz]

Then whence your discourtesy, if you acknowledge the commandments and have witnessed to God you would keep them?

 

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, etz said:

And it is tautologically true that one who does not believe the scriptures literally - the rule of interpretation, said Joseph, was no interpretation at all; understand it precisely as it reads - literally disbelieves the scripture.

I don't need your input on that.  It's a tautology.

I am as much a scriptural literalist as you are likely to find on this board.
And even I acknowledge there are MANY things in scripture that should not be taken literally.

[pogi]

8 minutes ago, etz said:

And it is tautologically true that one who does not believe the scriptures literally - the rule of interpretation, said Joseph, was no interpretation at all; understand it precisely as it reads - literally disbelieves the scripture.

I don't need your input on that.  It's a tautology.

Suddenly Joseph Smith is speaking as a prophet again.   I don't even know what that means that there is "no interpretation" and to "understand it precisely as it reads", it reads different to every man based on perspective.  

How does this read to you without the perspective of the D&C:  "Sell all your possessions and give to the poor"?

Are you suggesting that we should all live that law as it reads?

Edited January 16, 2017 by pogi

[etz]

Whenever your property is involved, that's when the cry and hue of "perverse misinterpretation" arises.

So long as the Lord speaks of love, a nice, inactionable sentiment, you speak of love, but when he says "give to every man that asks of you" you profess astonishment and confusion.  When he says "sell that thou hast and distribute to the poor," you say "there's a context which excuses me from that!"

And you seek to make me out to be a transgressor for repeating his words in your ears.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, etz said:

Whenever your property is involved, that's when the cry and hue of "perverse misinterpretation" arises.

So long as the Lord speaks of love, a nice, inactionable sentiment, you speak of love, but when he says "give to every man that asks of you" you profess astonishment and confusion.  When he says "sell that thou hast and distribute to the poor," you say "there's a context which excuses me from that!"

And you seek to make me out to be a transgressor for repeating his words in your ears.

Or perhaps we look at the many other scriptures that relate to this subject.
Scriptures on providing for our families.  Scriptures on building temples.  Scriptures on paying our taxes.  And so on.

You cannot place one principle in a vacuum.

[pogi]

2 minutes ago, etz said:

Whenever your property is involved, that's when the cry and hue of "perverse misinterpretation" arises.

So long as the Lord speaks of love, a nice, inactionable sentiment, you speak of love, but when he says "give to every man that asks of you" you profess astonishment and confusion.  When he says "sell that thou hast and distribute to the poor," you say "there's a context which excuses me from that!"

And you seek to make me out to be a transgressor for repeating his words in your ears.

Answer the question!

Are you suggesting that we should all live the command to "sell all our possessions and give to the poor" as it reads?

[etz]

If you care to keep the commandments of the Lord, then keep them!

 

If not, why do you concern yourself with any of this?

[etz]

"Men are in the habit, when the truth is exhibited by the servants of God, of saying, All is mystery; they have spoken in parables, and, therefore, are not to be understood." - Joseph Smith