Jump to content

The Matthew Gong Letter


pogi

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I see Ahab has climbed up on his rameumptum, once again, and declared his moral superiority over others.  Another lovely day on the MDDB.

It is better to be good than to be evil. At the moment I'm not doing anything evil at all and I don't have any evil habit or behavior in my life that I need to repent for.

Hi!  How are you doing?

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

It's the same thing, I told you.  Stupid is as stupid does, and evil is as evil does.

Evil is as evil does... I agree.  Evil does NO good!  California boy does do good...  Therefore...  Do I really need to connect the dots for you?  Ok, fine, therefore...california boy CAN't BE evil

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

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.

Do you deny that california boy does good too?  How can that which is evil bring forth good fruit?  Pleas answer me this one question which you continue to dodge. 

 

Link to post
21 minutes ago, pogi said:

Evil is as evil does... I agree.  Evil does NO good!  California boy does do good...  Therefore...  Do I really need to connect the dots for you?  Ok, fine, therefore...california boy CAN't BE evil

I might see a compromise here.  But I don't want to talk about california boy, specifically.  I think I can truthfully say that someone can't be evil when they are doing something that is good, but when they do something that is evil, then they are not being good.

Quote

Do you deny that california boy does good too? 

Why avoid what is relevant to this thread?  We were talking about someone having sex with someone else of the same sex.  I wasn't talking about anything else california boy is doing.  And it's strange that you are now asking me to tell you if he does any good when I have no idea what else he does other than to have sex with someone else of the same sex.  Eating and drinking is something both good and evil people do.  So is sleeping. So what else do you think I'm supposed to know that he is doing?

Quote

How can that which is evil bring forth good fruit?  Pleas answer me this one question which you continue to dodge. 

I don't think it can.  Something which IS evil can't bring forth any good fruit, at least not while it IS evil.  Something that once WAS evil may bring forth some good, but that would require some kind of miraculous change, I think.  Like God inspiring an evil person to become good.

Edited by Ahab
Link to post
10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Any righteousness I have is imputed or infused or imparted to me from my Lord.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imputed_righteousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infused_righteousness

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imparted_righteousness

Edited by Ahab
Link to post

 

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

I might see a compromise here.  But I don't want to talk about california boy, specifically.  I think I can truthfully say that someone can't be evil when they are doing something that is good, but when they do something that is evil, then they are not being good.

Why avoid what is relevant to this thread?  We were talking about someone having sex with someone else of the same sex.  I wasn't talking about anything else california boy is doing.  And it's strange that you are now asking me to tell you if he does any good when I have no idea what else he does other than to have sex with someone else of the same sex.  Eating and drinking is something both good and evil people do.  So is sleeping. So what else do you think I'm supposed to know that he is doing?

I don't think it can.  Something which IS evil can't bring forth any good fruit, at least not while it IS evil.  Something that once WAS evil may bring forth some good, but that would require some kind of miraculous change, I think.  Like God inspiring an evil person to become good.

If I was to agree with your compromise - which I don't - then it is wrong to call someone evil when they are doing good.  Yet, you freely admit that you have no idea what caliboy is doing at any given moment.  How then, pray tell, can you judge him to be evil at any given time?  You can't, and therefore shouldn't!

I am not avoiding what is relevant.  What I am asking is totally relevant - you just don't see it yet.  As I stated, I don't agree with your compromise.  And I will point out that neither do you.  It is a contradiction to what you claim. You agree that evil can't do good.  So what comes first the action of good/evil, or the judgment of good/evil?  Naturally, the action precedes the judgment.  Therefore, please answer me what good fruit can an evil person bear which would render him good?  Or what evil fruit could a good person bear that would render him evil?  A good tree can't bring for evil fruit, and an evil tree can't bring forth good fruit.  You supplied the scripture, not me.   

 Hopefully it is starting to dawn on you what I am saying.  Evil can't/won't do good in order to be good, and good can't/won't do evil in order to be evil.  That is why the atonement allowed us a time of probation to be free of such judgments for a time.  Not even Christ accepted the judgment of "good" before he had fulfilled all righteousness. So, just stop with all the judgment of a person's core being - there is no good fruit in it.  

 

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

If I was to agree with your compromise - which I don't - then it is wrong to call someone evil when they are doing good. 

Yes that's what that would mean.  It would be wrong to call someone evil when they are doing or being good.  But when they are doing or being evil, then it would be appropriate to call them evil.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yet, you freely admit that you have no idea what caliboy is doing at any given moment. 

He has said he has sex with someone of the same sex, and that is what I was calling evil.  It is evil, and he is being evil when he does that.  I don't know everything else about what he does, and I wasn't giving a judgment on that.  Only when he is being evil.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

How then, pray tell, can you judge him to be evil at any given time?  You can't, and therefore shouldn't!

I don't know exactly when he has sex with someone else of the same sex, I'm just saying that when he does then he is being evil.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

As I stated, I don't agree with your compromise.  And I will point out that neither do you.  It is a contradiction to what you claim. 

You're showing me you don't fully understand what I have been saying.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

You agree that evil can't do good.  

Right, not when it is evil.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

So what comes first the action of good/evil, or the judgment of good/evil?  Naturally, the action precedes the judgment.

Yes, the evil action precedes the judgment.   When he DOES something evil, then he is BEING evil.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Therefore, please answer me what good fruit can an evil person bear which would render him good? 

Not possible.  He would have to stop being evil before being able to do any good.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

Or what evil fruit could a good person bear that would render him evil? 

For a good person to become evil they would need to do something which is evil, at which point they would no longer be good.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

A good tree can't bring for evil fruit, and an evil tree can't bring forth good fruit.  You supplied the scripture, not me.   

True.

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

 Hopefully it is starting to dawn on you what I am saying.  Evil can't do good in order to be good, and good can't do evil in order to be evil. That is why the atonement allowed us a time of probation to be free of such judgments for a time.  Not even Christ accepted the judgment of "good" before he had fulfilled all righteousness. So, just stop with all the judgment of a person's core being - there is no good fruit in it.  

You're not making any sense here.  People can choose to be either good or evil, and when they do good, they are good, and when they do evil, they are evil.  It's all based on what a person chooses to do, and a person can change at any time.

Link to post
29 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes that's what that would mean.  It would be wrong to call someone evil when they are doing or being good.  But when they are doing or being evil, then it would be appropriate to call them evil.

He has said he has sex with someone of the same sex, and that is what I was calling evil.  It is evil, and he is being evil when he does that.  I don't know everything else about what he does, and I wasn't giving a judgment on that.  Only when he is being evil.

I don't know exactly when he has sex with someone else of the same sex, I'm just saying that when he does then he is being evil.

You're showing me you don't fully understand what I have been saying.

Right, not when it is evil.

Yes, the evil action precedes the judgment.   When he DOES something evil, then he is BEING evil.

Not possible.  He would have to stop being evil before being able to do any good.

For a good person to become evil they would need to do something which is evil, at which point they would no longer be good.

True.

You're not making any sense here.  People can choose to be either good or evil, and when they do good, they are good, and when they do evil, they are evil.  It's all based on what a person chooses to do, and a person can change at any time.

So are you suggesting there is some sort of judgment-less-limbo-state-of-being in-between doing/being good/evil?  What do you call that state between being good and evil?  Isn't it a good act to stop being evil? Yet, I thought an evil person can't do good acts? How does an evil person bring forth that good fruit? What if a person does something good and evil at the same time? :crazy: You are not connecting the dots. 

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

So are you suggesting there is some sort of judgment-less-limbo-state-of-being in-between doing/being good/evil? 

No, I would say anything we do is either good or evil.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

What do you call that state between being good and evil? 

We are either being good or we are being evil, as I see things.  Even what we might call the state of "doing nothing at all" is either a good thing to do, or an evil thing to do.  I think we should always be engaged in doing something good, even if that means just resting our bodies.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Isn't it a good act to stop being evil?

I would say so.  But we should also do good and not just stop being evil.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

Yet, I thought an evil person can't do good acts?

Think of an evil person as a person who is in the state of being evil.  If a person is being evil, they can't be good at the very same time.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

How does an evil person bring forth that good fruit?

By changing from being an evil person, a person doing something evil, to a person who is doing something good, instead..

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

What if a person does something good and evil at the same time? :crazy: 

Like what?  I don't see how that would be possible.

6 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are not connecting the dots. 

Ask God to help you.  I'm not getting paid for this, you know.

Link to post
26 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I would say so.  

So, you are suggesting an evil person can stop being evil...which act of stopping is good fruit the evil person bore...  It is, after all, the “evil person” which did the good act of stopping because the “good person” couldn’t have existed until after the good act...  Remember, you agreed that the good action precedes the good judgment.  Therefore it is the “evil person” which does the good act of stopping, 

“Like what?  I don't see how that would be possible”

You are not a very creative person, are you?

Lets say a person sacrifices/donates a large sum of money online - on his cell - to a good charity while commuting adultery....  

Hey, you asked!  

This would be a funny point for someone to start in the conversation.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
12 minutes ago, pogi said:

So, you are suggesting an evil person can stop being evil...which act of stopping is good fruit the evil person bore...  It is, after all, the “evil person” which did the good act of stopping because the “good person” couldn’t have existed until after the good act...  Remember, you agreed that the good action precedes the good judgment.  Therefore it is the “evil person” which does the good act of stopping, 

i also said previously that it would be some kind of miracle, like God inspiring an evil person to become good.  Otherwise, why would an evil person ever want to be good?=

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

“Like what?  I don't see how that would be possible”

You are not a very creative person, are you?

I just didn't want to try to imagine a person doing good and evil at the same time, so instead of me having to think about that and come up with an example, I asked you to provide one instead.

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

Lets say a person sacrifices/donates a large sum of money online - on his cell - to a good charity while commuting adultery....  

Hey, you asked!  

Picture that, would you. Someone having sex with someone who is not their husband or wife while on the phone to donate some money to a charity.  That is quite the imagination you have, and I don't think God would be impressed with that person's charitable donation.

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

This would be a funny point for someone to start in the conversation.

Funny?   You think so, do you.

Link to post
20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

like God inspiring an evil person to become good.  Otherwise, why would an evil person ever want to be good?

Either way, it was the evil person who bore good fruit.  It sounds like you are conceding here. 

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't think God would be impressed with that person's charitable donation.

Are you suggesting it was not a good act?  

20 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Funny?   You think so, do you.

You are not creative, nor do you have a sense of humor...

If I started eavesdropping at the very moment someone was giving that example without context, I would have found it very comical. 

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

Either way, it was the evil person who bore good fruit.  It sounds like you are conceding here. 

Are you suggesting it was not a good act?  

Considering the event as a whole, I would say it was not a good thing for that person to do.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

You are not creative, nor do you have a sense of humor...

You accuse me of judging unfairly and then you go and say something like this.  You just lost the whole ballgame.

11 minutes ago, pogi said:

If I started eavesdropping at the very moment someone was giving that example without context, I would have found it very comical. 

Than I would say you have a perverse sense of humor.

Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Considering the event as a whole, I would say it was not a good thing for that person to do.

You accuse me of judging unfairly and then you go and say something like this.  You just lost the whole ballgame.

Than I would say you have a perverse sense of humor.

Have a good weekend Ahab

Link to post

 

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Incidentally, that distinction was first/best explained by Elder Oaks. 😉

One of my favorite talks. 

Link to post
53 minutes ago, kllindley said:

His inability to distinguish between actions and being is sad. 

What is infuriating to me is that how much damage and harm that inability causes.

Incidentally, that distinction was first/best explained by Elder Oaks. 😉

Which talk are you referencing?  I’d love to read it.  I had John Bradshaw in mind.

Link to post

 

22 hours ago, kllindley said:

Thanks for posting.  I really loved the first article - everything about it!

The second article had some very good parts.  Especially relevant  to my conversation with Ahab was the member’s letter who articulated their concern that when gay people are judged to be “evil people” it simply acts to push them away further from the church.  That is exactly as I described the effects of toxic shame becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.  To this, Elder Oaks acknowledged a need for improvement, and to stop judging others and instead be concerned about yourself.  24 years later, Ahab demonstrates that there is STILL need for improvement there.

It is interesting to see how far President Oaks has come in discussing this issue.  He certainly would not give such a talk/message today.  For example, he stated that our “religious doctrine dictates” that a person should not identify as gay/lesbian, etc. 24 years later and we have Mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org.  That is kind of ironic because “gay” is now in while “Mormon” is now out.  Funny how things change!   We also have this:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

Something else you wouldn’t hear today from President Oaks is his refutation that people are born gay.  Today, the church does not take a position on the subject; see:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/same-sex-attraction

So, I see a lot of good said back then, I see progress today, and I hope for more progress to come.  

Thanks again for the reading, I enjoyed them!

Edited by pogi
  • Like 2
Link to post
7 hours ago, pogi said:

 

Thanks for posting.  I really loved the first article - everything about it!

The second article had some very good parts.  Especially relevant  to my conversation with Ahab was the member’s letter who articulated their concern that when gay people are judged to be “evil people” it simply acts to push them away further from the church.  That is exactly as I described the effects of toxic shame becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy.  To this, Elder Oaks acknowledged a need for improvement, and to stop judging others and instead be concerned about yourself.  24 years later, Ahab demonstrates that there is STILL need for improvement there.

It is interesting to see how far President Oaks has come in discussing this issue.  He certainly would not give such a talk/message today.  For example, he stated that our “religious doctrine dictates” that a person should not identify as gay/lesbian, etc. 24 years later and we have Mormonandgay.churchofjesuschrist.org.  That is kind of ironic because “gay” is now in while “Mormon” is now out.  Funny how things change!   We also have this:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-topics/same-sex-attraction?lang=eng

Something else you wouldn’t hear today from President Oaks is his refutation that people are born gay.  Today, the church does not take a position on the subject; see:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/same-sex-attraction

So, I see a lot of good said back then, I see progress today, and I hope for more progress to come.  

Thanks again for the reading, I enjoyed them!

I think there has not been so much change in President Oaks’s position as you suppose on the matter of nature vs nurture. My impression is that the Church doesn’t take a position precisely because the matter of cause is not settled science. Which is essentially what Elder Oaks said in the article. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 1
Link to post
7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there has not been so much change in President Oaks’s position as you suppose on the matter of nature vs nurture. My impression is that the Church doesn’t take a position precisely because the matter of cause is not settled science. Which is essentially what Elder Oaks said in the article. 

I don’t think you would see President Oaks attempt to refute the claim of some scientists that people are born gay - because that IS taking a position on the matter (which the church doesn’t do today). Interestingly, he used science (which he admitted was unsettled) to support his position.  You simply wouldn’t see that today. 

In the conclusion of his article he compared the scientific approach and the doctrinal approach on the matter.  He concluded that the doctrinal approach is far superior, saying the “best and most complete” method is to read the owners manual (scriptures) written by the manufacturer - which is why he felt confident refuting the science.

I think the scriptures are rather silent on the issue, personally.  Sure, they are clear about freedom and agency, but they are totally silent about nature vs nurture.  He was making inferences based on doctrines we do know - but without a new revelation, doctrine tells us NOTHING. Otherwise, we would be taking a position today.  We would uphold and defend the doctrine if there was any.  Perhaps his doctrinal confidence in the matter has become more nuanced.

Edited by pogi
  • Like 1
Link to post
On 11/15/2019 at 4:22 PM, Ahab said:

I am not an expert but I am not seeing the image of Christ engraved in your countenance based on your posting so I have my doubts.

Link to post
22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not an expert but I am not seeing the image of Christ engraved in your countenance based on your posting so I have my doubts.

I have noticed that there are many things that you either can't see or don't see that I have seen and am able to see.  No biggie that you can't see them right now.  Maybe later you'll develop the ability to see some of the things that I see that you haven't seen yet.

Link to post
46 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I have noticed that there are many things that you either can't see or don't see that I have seen and am able to see.  No biggie that you can't see them right now.  Maybe later you'll develop the ability to see some of the things that I see that you haven't seen yet.

True, those are called hallucinations. I am hoping to avoid developing that ability.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...