Jump to content

The Matthew Gong Letter


pogi

Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Do you mind giving reference to where God calls it evil, any scriptures of Him saying it vs. a man saying it?

Those references are not in scripture or in talks or in articles or in anything else that I can show you.  Those references are written in the hearts and souls of men and women who have heard or felt God tell them what is good and what is evil.  So the only reference I can give you is in what God has told me, and If I were to write it out for you, I would simply be doing what other men have done as they have written what God has told them is true or good or evil.

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And if it's from a prophet, are prophets fallible? How about the curse of cain, do you believe that? Do you believe blacks should have been banned from having the PH? Or were leaders racist, like those in the Bible? And is the story of Cain even true? I've read that the Old Testament may not have even happened, but is allegory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegorical_interpretation_of_the_Bible

Men who sometimes speak as prophets are fallible, but a prophet by definition is a man who speaks for God, saying what God wants him to say, and since God is not fallible then that man is not fallible when he is speaking as a prophet of God. 

So anytime you don't believe a man is speaking as prophet of God, you should simply not call him a prophet of God.  Call him a prophet only when you believe he is speaking for God.

Link to post
20 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ahab, You can judge a specific behavior to be good or evil, but stop calling people who do much good in the world "evil".  That is terribly wrong of you.  This life is a probationary state.  Do you know what that means?  It means you are speaking prematurely, and neither is it your place to speak.  Even God waits 'till the end to review and pronounce judgment of good or evil on the heads of men. Only he can see the heart and judge fairly.  It pains me deeply to see such toxic shame so easily slide off the tongue towards another brother and child of God.  Make no mistake, it is toxic! You should ask his and His forgiveness.    

Can an evil tree bring forth that which is good?  There are good men and there are also evil men, and evil women.  To be evil all that is required is to do evil and not repent from it.  So to be good we need to repent as soon as we can if we do something which is evil and not waste our time in our probationary state.

Interesting though how you feel you can speak to me about how I speak while condemning how I speak to others.  A bit of hypocrisy there, as I see it.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Yes, that is exactly what it is.  Good that you are identifying what is actually going on here.  We who believe it is evil for 2 people of the same sex to have sexual relations (intercourse) are merely stating that when people do that, it is evil.  We are simply calling it evil, rather than calling it good, because we believe it is evil.  If you can keep that in mind as what we have in mind when we call that kind of behavior evil, and think nothing more about it other than we are simply saying it is evil because we believe it is evil, then maybe you can start to respect us for calling things as we see them, rather than as you or others on "your side" see them if you believe those things are good and would rather call them good rather than evil.  It is simply a difference of perspective.  I'm sure evil people consider everything they do that is evil as if it is something that is good.  And they probably also consider some of the things we call good as if they are evil.  What is actually good is good and what is evil is evil but since good and evil are determined on a subjective level even with inspiration from God, some people are just wrong sometimes when they label something as good or evil. I'm still going to stick with whatever God tells me, though, so if he calls something evil I am also going to call it evil rather than good.

@Ahab - I think evil has a lot of connotation in our day and age, way too much to call someone evil or even an act evil. When I think of evil, I think of Hitler, Stalin, murder, Satan, mass-shootings, etc. I understand that sexual sins such as pornography usage are evil. However, since I was caught up in pornography for years I understand that if someone said to me, "Your pornography use was evil," I would immediately disagree.

I think we can fulfill God's mandate of calling "good good" and "evil evil" while using words that are more understanding of modern connotation. That said, I still think its important for us to stand up for our values, but do so in a Christ-like way (his example of this in the New Testament was awesome, to show love while not condoning the sin).

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Can an evil tree bring forth that which is good?  There are good men and there are also evil men, and evil women.  To be evil all that is required is to do evil and not repent from it.  So to be good we need to repent as soon as we can if we do something which is evil and not waste our time in our probationary state.

So if a person does good, then they cannot be an evil tree.  So why do you call him evil without assessing his good fruit? 

10 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Interesting though how you feel you can speak to me about how I speak while condemning how I speak to others.  A bit of hypocrisy there, as I see it.

You lost me there.  But I think I get what you are trying to say.

I can judge behavior as good or evil, but I will never condemn you, Ahab, as being evil.  No hypocrisy at all.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Do you mind giving reference to where God calls it evil, any scriptures of Him saying it vs. a man saying it?

This is an unserious question.  Surely you see that.

Quote

And if it's from a prophet, are prophets fallible?

Yes.  Hence the need to differentiate doctrine from personal opinion.

Hence God telling us that "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38).

If we were speaking of some speculative or peripheral or obscure point of doctrine, or a topic about which we lack much in the way of revealed knowledge, I think you would have a stronger point.  But the Law of Chastity is really well-established doctrine.  I don't think we can disregard its prohibition against adultery / fornication / homosexual behavior.  If we can, then pretty much every doctrine is up for grabs, can be tossed out at a whim.

Ephesians 4 comes to mind:

Quote

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.

And this counsel from Elder Andersen:

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

The Law of Chastity is not difficult to find.  It's not tucked away in an 1856 talk by Brigham Young to the members of the Church in Tooele.

Your remarks evince a strong sense of "wishful thinking."

Quote

I believe that if gay couples are monogamous, we should be grateful.

Why?

Quote

The mentalilty of the gays before now, seemed to make them feel that they were bad and so they just fell into the syndrome of having many partners, maybe believing they aren't like the heterosexuals and can't make a union.

"Before now?"  Has something changed?

Quote

Maybe not very knowledgeable to make that claim, but feel in my gut that the gays being allowed marriage changes the whole ballgame, and allows for those monogamous relationships to happen more. If this makes any sense.

I'd like to see data on this.

However, this doesn't change anything from a Restored Gospel perspective.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
  • Like 2
Link to post
12 minutes ago, Ahab said:

To be evil all that is required is to do evil and not repent from it.

Which pretty much puts all of us sinners in the category of being evil.  I think I agree with Pogi on this one.  We can look at a persons actions and call that action evil (but perhaps that is too loaded of a word), but I don't think we should label any one person as evil.  Good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things.

  • Like 2
Link to post
5 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

@Ahab - I think evil has a lot of connotation in our day and age, way too much to call someone evil or even an act evil.

That's an extreme position to take.  Not calling anyone or any act evil.  Do you instead say that everything is good, then, and that all people are good?  That would be going to the opposite end of the spectrum, and equally extreme.

I think often about how Forrest Gump described what stupid is: Stupid is as stupid does. In the same way: Evil is what evil does.

Not every act is good, and not every person is good, either.  Our Savior said that nobody is good, but God. So it seems to me that it is a lot more rare to find good people than it is to find evil people, or people who do evil things.

5 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

When I think of evil, I think of Hitler, Stalin, murder, Satan, mass-shootings, etc. I understand that sexual sins such as pornography usage are evil. However, since I was caught up in pornography for years I understand that if someone said to me, "Your pornography use was evil," I would immediately disagree.

Among the evil there are those who are totally evil and others who are evil only in some ways.  Not all who are evil are totally evil in every way all of the time.

5 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I think we can fulfill God's mandate of calling "good good" and "evil evil" while using words that are more understanding of modern connotation. That said, I still think its important for us to stand up for our values, but do so in a Christ-like way (his example of this in the New Testament was awesome, to show love while not condoning the sin).

I love everybody.  I just hate all that is evil, and every form of sin.

Link to post
58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I answered a few questions by you, would you mind answering this one:  If you are a heterosexual, would you like someone telling you, you should marry someone of the same sex? 

Happy to answer that. If the someone telling me I had to marry a man were a person I met on the street or on a message board, I would be annoyed. 

If the someone telling me that I had to marry a partner of my same sex, were God, it would be a different story. My next response would be "Who & Why?"

God has guided my life amazingly when I have allowed him to. Often, as I've walked my path I have been NOT given what I wanted, and only later did I figure out why. In fact, many times I have done God's will and resented it out of pride - and it wasn't until after I humbled myself did I see the wisdom in his approach. For me this has been especially true in matters related to sex (I originally joined this board after reading it for some time because people were bad-mouthing the church's 12 step program, which although imperfect helped me to overcome sexual deviance and pornography addiction issues).

If the roles were switched and I were a homosexual man and God commanded me to only marry a woman, I would not be happy. I would be resentful. However, over time the blessings of this I hope would out-weigh the difficulties, as I believe God would bless me with a best friend (even if I wasn't as attracted to them as sexually as I am to others) and also would bless me with my own offspring. 

In my own life, sexual attraction has been much of a choice. I chose my wife when we were young because I felt God directed me to. Now we are older and she has had kids, gained weight, gone through major illnesses, had times where she swore off sex with me, etc. It was a choice for me to stay with her and it is still a choice for me to count my blessings and choose to be sexually attracted to her. When I make that choice and use sex as way to love/serve her, in the process,our sexuality becomes a great thing. But behind this is constantly my natural man that wants a 'better sex life,' new partners, younger partners, etc., etc., etc., etc. (there are lots of things my Natural Man wants)

I hope this wasn't too personal, but that's my experience. I truly trust that God will guide me to what's best. And for me, it's having a wife who is a best friend and wonderful kids to love. This trumps all my sexual desires in my view.

  • Like 3
Link to post
13 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Which pretty much puts all of us sinners in the category of being evil.  I think I agree with Pogi on this one.  We can look at a persons actions and call that action evil (but perhaps that is too loaded of a word), but I don't think we should label any one person as evil.  Good people can do bad things, and bad people can do good things.

Calling someone a sinner implies they are actively sinning.  Someone who has sinned in the past but who has repented of those sins should not be called a sinner unless he has some sin that he has not repented from and is still actively sinning.

We are called to be saints, and while we may still mess up sometimes, it should not be a habit and it should not be something we continue to do.

Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ahab said:

That's an extreme position to take.  Not calling anyone or any act evil.  Do you instead say that everything is good, then, and that all people are good?  That would be going to the opposite end of the spectrum, and equally extreme.

I think often about how Forrest Gump described what stupid is: Stupid is as stupid does. In the same way: Evil is what evil does.

Not every act is good, and not every person is good, either.  Our Savior said that nobody is good, but God. So it seems to me that it is a lot more rare to find good people than it is to find evil people, or people who do evil things.

Among the evil there are those who are totally evil and others who are evil only in some ways.  Not all who are evil are totally evil in every way all of the time.

I love everybody.  I just hate all that is evil, and every form of sin.

I understand your point of view.  However, I still believe it is offensive to call someone evil who isn't rotten to the core (i.e., mass killers, leaders of gangs, dictators, etc. ). It doesn't build a bridge for them to be receptive to the message. There are other ways to phrase your message that will have better effect.  I hope you will reconsider this specific word choice.

That said, I appreciate you standing up for your values and God's principles and hope you will continue to do so as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
11 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Happy to answer that. If the someone telling me I had to marry a man were a person I met on the street or on a message board, I would be annoyed. 

If the someone telling me that I had to marry a partner of my same sex, were God, it would be a different story. My next response would be "Who & Why?"

God has guided my life amazingly when I have allowed him to. Often, as I've walked my path I have been NOT given what I wanted, and only later did I figure out why. In fact, many times I have done God's will and resented it out of pride - and it wasn't until after I humbled myself did I see the wisdom in his approach. For me this has been especially true in matters related to sex (I originally joined this board after reading it for some time because people were bad-mouthing the church's 12 step program, which although imperfect helped me to overcome sexual deviance and pornography addiction issues).

If the roles were switched and I were a homosexual man and God commanded me to only marry a woman, I would not be happy. I would be resentful. However, over time the blessings of this I hope would out-weigh the difficulties, as I believe God would bless me with a best friend (even if I wasn't as attracted to them as sexually as I am to others) and also would bless me with my own offspring. 

In my own life, sexual attraction has been much of a choice. I chose my wife when we were young because I felt God directed me to. Now we are older and she has had kids, gained weight, gone through major illnesses, had times where she swore off sex with me, etc. It was a choice for me to stay with her and it is still a choice for me to count my blessings and choose to be sexually attracted to her. When I make that choice and use sex as way to love/serve her, in the process,our sexuality becomes a great thing. But behind this is constantly my natural man that wants a 'better sex life,' new partners, younger partners, etc., etc., etc., etc. (there are lots of things my Natural Man wants)

I hope this wasn't too personal, but that's my experience. I truly trust that God will guide me to what's best. And for me, it's having a wife who is a best friend and wonderful kids to love. This trumps all my sexual desires in my view.

I believe this to be the case with homosexuals as well, it's not all about sex as some on here allude to. My bold of your statement here, is someone who is gay's feelings as well, I believe. What if your right of having these feelings were taken away? What if you weren't allowed to marry your wife? 

But enough of my questions, thanks for being personal, it means a lot! We're all on this earth together, figuring it all out. 

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
Just now, Anonymous Mormon said:

I understand your point of view.  However, I still believe it is offensive to call someone evil who isn't rotten to the core (i.e., mass killers, leaders of gangs, dictators, etc. ). It doesn't build a bridge for them to be receptive to the message. There are other ways to phrase your message that will have better effect.  I hope you will reconsider this specific word choice.

That said, I appreciate you standing up for your values and God's principles and hope you will continue to do so as well.

In this thread I'm focusing on being explanatory and precise regarding what evil is.  We're dealing here with someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, and that is not something we should call good.

Link to post
24 minutes ago, Ahab said:

  We're dealing here with someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, and that is not something we should call good.

Right, that thing is not good.  God has prohibited it.  However, a person who does something that is not good, something that is sinful in God's eyes, is not inherently an evil person.

  • Like 2
Link to post
9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Right, that thing is not good.  God has prohibited it.  However, a person who does something that is not good, something that is sinful in God's eyes, is not inherently an evil person.

I'll go back to my Stupid is as stupid does corollary, which is the best way I know to define what an evil person is.

Good people do not do evil things.  Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?  I think there was a reason why our Lord phrased that as a question rather than just telling us blatantly.  What do you think?  Do you think an evil tree can bring forth good fruit?

Link to post
Just now, Ahab said:

I'll go back to my Stupid is as stupid does corollary, which is the best way I know to define what an evil person is.

Good people do not do evil things.  Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?  I think there was a reason why our Lord phrased that as a question rather than just telling us blatantly.  What do you think?  Do you think an evil tree can bring forth good fruit?

My opinion is as it states in Romans 3:23 "...all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

My opinion is as it states in Romans 3:23 "...all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

 

Yes, but we should stop sinning when we know that what we are doing fits into the category of what a "sin" is.  It's not as if we're supposed to encourage people to sin, or to help them feel good about sinning.  We're supposed to try to help them to stop.  By any means necessary.

Well, maybe not by any means necessary, but telling someone they are sinning when we see they are sinning while telling them they should stop it is a pretty good place to start.

Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

In this thread I'm focusing on being explanatory and precise regarding what evil is.  We're dealing here with someone who has sex with someone of the same sex, and that is not something we should call good.

Do you know what toxic shame is Ahab?  Toxic shame is the belief that you are bad, a mistake, evil, etc.  Can you see how that is very different from believing that you did something bad, evil, etc.?  Can you see why such a belief is toxic and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?  Evil people do evil things, with no good fruit.  However, to instead believe that you did bad, and not that you are bad, it places redemption within reach.  It gives hope for change.  If you believe that you are evil, hope is all but gone.  So, please, please answer me this - what good thing can come from calling someone evil?  Why would you want to instill such toxic shame onto someones soul?  If you view a person as being redeemable in this state of mortal probation as has been aforded us through the Savior's blood, then I plead with you to help them view themselves as redeemable too.  Calling them "evil" is NOT the way to do that.  There is no good fruit that comes from calling someone evil, therefore what kind of tree is that behavior?  It is imperative to distinguish good from evil, I agree, but we do that by judging behavior/wickedness, not by judging/condemning people to states of being good or evil.

 

Edited by pogi
  • Like 4
Link to post
20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Can an evil tree bring forth good fruit?  I think there was a reason why our Lord phrased that as a question rather than just telling us blatantly.  What do you think?  Do you think an evil tree can bring forth good fruit?

Can california boy bring forth good fruit?  Yes.  Therefore...

  • Like 1
Link to post
6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Do you know what toxic shame is Ahab?  Toxic shame is the belief that you are bad, a mistake, evil, etc.  Can you see how that is very different from believing that you did something bad, evil, etc.?  Can you see why such a belief is toxic and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy?  Bad people do bad things, and only bad things.  However, to instead believe that you did bad, and not that you are bad, it places redemption within reach.  It gives hope for change.  If you believe that you are evil, hope is all but gone.  So, please, please answer me this - what good thing can come from calling someone evil? 

Once it is understood that our actions define the kind of person we are, and that we can choose how we act, even evil people can understand that they can become good people by 1) accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to cleanse them from their sins, and 2) choosing to do good things rather than evil things.  If all people think they are good, already, regardless of what they do, they might not realize how evil they are and how the evil things that they have done are truly evil.  Going from evil to good isn't just a matter of doing better than they have done in the past, it's about becoming a new kind of creature.  A good person rather than an evil person.  And yes that is possible with the help of our Lord and Savior.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Why would you want to instill such toxic shame onto someones soul? 

All I was doing was declaring the truth about what evil is, and what an evil act is, identifying a specific act as an evil act.  Those who want to do good want to stop doing evil things as soon as they can, but those who want to continue to do what is evil "take the truth to be hard". Our own acts and desires determine how we take the truth when we hear it.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

If you view a person as being redeemable, then I plead with you to help them view themselves as redeemable too.  Calling them "evil" is NOT the way to do that.  There is no good fruit that comes from calling someone evil, therefore what kind of tree is that behavior?  It is imperative to distinguish good from evil, I agree, but we do that by judging behavior/wickedness, not by judging/condemning people to states of being good or evil.

One is directly related to the other.  Evil is as evil does.  If people don't want to be evil, then they need to become good people.

Link to post
2 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is an unserious question.  Surely you see that.

Yes.  Hence the need to differentiate doctrine from personal opinion.

Hence God telling us that "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."  (D&C 1:38).

If we were speaking of some speculative or peripheral or obscure point of doctrine, or a topic about which we lack much in the way of revealed knowledge, I think you would have a stronger point.  But the Law of Chastity is really well-established doctrine.  I don't think we can disregard its prohibition against adultery / fornication / homosexual behavior.  If we can, then pretty much every doctrine is up for grabs, can be tossed out at a whim.

Ephesians 4 comes to mind:

And this counsel from Elder Andersen:

The Law of Chastity is not difficult to find.  It's not tucked away in an 1856 talk by Brigham Young to the members of the Church in Tooele.

Your remarks evince a strong sense of "wishful thinking."

Why?

"Before now?"  Has something changed?

I'd like to see data on this.

However, this doesn't change anything from a Restored Gospel perspective.  

Thanks,

-Smac

To the bold, there is a red letter Bible that show's Christ's/God's words and as far as I know there isn't anything He said about homosexuality. It's man made and was added much later to the Bible. https://www.forgeonline.org/blog/2019/3/8/what-about-romans-124-27

Anyway, I had a German friend come back to town and I asked if he could help me with some passages in one of my German Bibles from the 1800s. So we went to Leviticus 18:22 and he’s translating it for me word for word. In the English where it says “Man shall not lie with man, for it is an abomination,” the German version says “Man shall not lie with young boys as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination.” I said, “What?! Are you sure?” He said, “Yes!” Then we went to Leviticus 20:13— same thing, “Young boys.” So we went to 1 Corinthians to see how they translated arsenokoitai (original Greek word)  and instead of homosexuals it said, “Boy molesters will not inherit the kingdom of God.” 

I then grabbed my facsimile copy of Martin Luther’s original German translation from 1534. My friend is reading through it for me and he says, “Ed, this says the same thing!” They use the word knabenschander. Knaben is boy, schander is molester. This word “boy molesters” for the most part carried through the next several centuries of German Bible translations. Knabenschander is also in 1 Timothy 1:10. So the interesting thing is, I asked if they ever changed the word arsenokoitai to homosexual in modern translations. So my friend found it and told me, “The first time homosexual appears in a German translation is 1983.” To me that was a little suspect because of what was happening in culture in the 1970s. Also because the Germans were the ones who created the word homosexual in 1862, they had all the history, research, and understanding to change it if they saw fit; however, they did not change it until 1983. If anyone was going to put the word homosexual in the Bible, the Germans should have been the first to do it!

Edited by Tacenda
Link to post
1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Once it is understood that our actions define the kind of person we are

We are all only one kind of being in mortality - a mortal child of God who does good and bad things.

This is where you are fundamentally wrong.  God defines/judges/labels what kind of people we are based on our thoughts, words, actions.  We can judge behavior, but we are incompetent to judge the heart. 

Why must you judge a person to be good or evil?  Why can't they just be a person that is nuanced and complex, who does good and bad things?  Is there such a thing as a truly good person?  "Why callest thou me good?..."  Is there such a thing as a truly evil person - that bears no good fruit?  Nope.

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

Once it is understood that our actions define the kind of person we are, and that we can choose how we act, even evil people can understand that they can become good people by 1) accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior to cleanse them from their sins, and 2) choosing to do good things rather than evil things.  If all people think they are good, already, regardless of what they do, they might not realize how evil they are and how the evil things that they have done are truly evil.  Going from evil to good isn't just a matter of doing better than they have done in the past, it's about becoming a new kind of creature.  A good person rather than an evil person.  And yes that is possible with the help of our Lord and Savior.

All I was doing was declaring the truth about what evil is, and what an evil act is, identifying a specific act as an evil act.  Those who want to do good want to stop doing evil things as soon as they can, but those who want to continue to do what is evil "take the truth to be hard". Our own acts and desires determine how we take the truth when we hear it.

One is directly related to the other.  Evil is as evil does.  If people don't want to be evil, then they need to become good people.

You never answered my question.  What good can come from calling a person evil vs calling their behavior bad/evil?  All you are doing is justifying behavior that brings no good into the world. 

You also never answered my question about california boy doing good...

Please don't dodge my questions if you want to continue this conversation.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
Link to post
On 11/13/2019 at 8:48 AM, Nacho2dope said:

I think President Oaks gets a bad rap here. Several Apostles have spoken out against this an everyone seems to focus on what Presidents Oaks says. I don't believe he is the "point man." for the Church on this issue. But at the end of the day, if you believe in this Church and believe in God, then you are upset with the wrong person. This is Gods law, and President Oaks is one of many messengers now and I am sure there are more to come. This is not Presidents Oaks  interpretation of Gods law, its Gods law. This is just my opinion thanks.

I agree.  And I don't understand this 'point man' for the church claim some make-- simply because he's spoken out on this.  Was Pres. Benson the designated 'point man' on patriotism and liberty?  How about on the Book of Mormon?  I don't think anyone would put that idea forward, because the logical explanation is that he didn't need to be assigned this-- instead he felt strongly on these subjects and his talks reflected it.  I think it's the same for Pres. Oaks--this topic is a concern for him and so he speaks about it--he is a 'watchman on the tower' and must warn us as he feels inspired to.

  • Like 4
Link to post
12 minutes ago, alter idem said:

I agree.  And I don't understand this 'point man' for the church claim some make-- simply because he's spoken out on this.  Was Pres. Benson the designated 'point man' on patriotism and liberty?  How about on the Book of Mormon?  I don't think anyone would put that idea forward, because the logical explanation is that he didn't need to be assigned this-- instead he felt strongly on these subjects and his talks reflected it.  I think it's the same for Pres. Oaks--this topic is a concern for him and so he speaks about it--he is a 'watchman on the tower' and must warn us as he feels inspired to.

Just to be clear, it was not me who labeled him a "point man", I think it was smac if I am not mistaken.  But I don't disagree with the connotation.  A point man is simply "a person at the forefront of an activity or endeavor" or "a soldier who goes ahead of a patrol", or "principle spokesman or advocate."   I think those are all fitting.  One doesn't need to be "designated" to that position, one can be self-appointed to take the lead as Pres. Benson did with the BoM, patriotism and liberty...  I think "point man" is an appropriate description of Pres. Benson, especially as the prophet. 

Edited by pogi
Link to post
23 minutes ago, pogi said:

You never answered my question.  What good can come from calling a person evil vs calling their behavior bad/evil?  All you are doing is justifying behavior that brings no good into the world. 

It's the same thing, I told you.  Stupid is as stupid does, and evil is as evil does.  I am pointing out what is evil. If you want me to point out what is good, then ask me about something else.

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

You also never answered my question about california boy doing good...

Having sex with someone of the same sex is not good, so no he isn't doing good when he does that. What other act of california boy would you like me to weigh in on next... that is relevant to this thread.

23 minutes ago, pogi said:

Please don't dodge my questions if you want to continue this conversation.

I don't.  I'm done with talking to you about this.

Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...