Church news reiterates immigration stance

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Don't know whut u mean? I googled and got:

Dictionary

con·no·ta·tion   /ˌkänəˈtāSH(ə)n/   noun

an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning.

"the word “discipline” has unhappy connotations of punishment and repression"

Philosophy

the abstract meaning or intension of a term, which forms a principle determining which objects or concepts it applies to.

Are you saying to do it "abstractly" which the 10TH Amendment seems NOT to be "abstract" ? Please explain.

Opps!  Fixed it.

Edited February 18, 2025 by Teancum

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, SteveO said:

 

 

You guys are doing great.  Like I said, whatever spin you have to tell yourselves.

LOLZ, what helps you sleep at night buddy.

[rodheadlee]

22 hours ago, Zosimus said:

You remember when 45 was going to force Mexico to do what he wanted and pay for the wall? How did that go?

To understand what the Mexican government really means, watch what the Mexican government does. Have you been following what Pres. Sheinbaum has been doing?

• Mexico threatens US gunmakers with fresh legal action
• Mexico's president takes aim at U.S. gunmakers if cartels are designated as terrorist groups
• Mexican president blasts US for harboring drug cartels

You can be sure that through all the bluster north of the border, the 10K troops south of the border won't be "doing exactly what Trump wants". They'll be looking for evidence of the American government and gun manufacturers not doing enough to keep American citizens from smuggling weapons to terrorist groups that operate on both sides of the US-Mexico border, and building their case that its actually American citizens that are running the fentanyl that is killing Americans. If they are feeling petty, they'll use the $10B they collect from lawsuits to build a wall keeping all those American gunrunners and drug smugglers out of Mexico

Yeah Trump never uses hyperbole to get people to do stuff.

[Zosimus]

4 hours ago, rodheadlee said:

Trump never uses hyperbole to get people to do stuff.

No doubt about it. It’s just that for many people “uses hyperbole” is just a fancy pants way to say “lies”

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, Zosimus said:

No doubt about it. It’s just that for many people “uses hyperbole” is just a fancy pants way to say “lies”

The scriptures must be filled with lies than. Quite a bit of hyperbole there.

[Zosimus]

48 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The scriptures must be filled with lies than. Quite a bit of hyperbole there.

one of these is hyperbole, and one is a lie:

A rich man asks Jesus what good thing he should do to have eternal life, and Jesus explains he must sell all he has and give it to the poor because "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God".

A rich politician runs for the highest office in the land and promises that "we’re gonna build a wall. It’s gonna be a great wall, and it’s gonna be paid for by Mexico. Believe me – 100%, 100%. We’re not paying for it. Mexico is paying for it. Believe me.“ and when asked why Mexico never paid a penny for the wall, the rich politician responds, "So with all those losers out there that say to me 'you never got Mexico to pay for the wall’ you remember....I used to say, ‘Mexico will pay for the piece of the wall.’”

see the difference?

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

The scriptures must be filled with lies than. Quite a bit of hyperbole there.

I am coming to agree with that assessment and find it equally discouraging.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am coming to agree with that assessment and find it equally discouraging.

Not me, as the Lord explains why hyperbole is a used at times:

Doctrine and Covenants 19:7

  "Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory."

 

[Doctor Steuss]

On 2/18/2025 at 6:01 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

The scriptures must be filled with lies than. Quite a bit of hyperbole there.

I dunno, it seemed to be pretty spot on with the part about followers of an anti-Christ wearing his mark on their foreheads.

[Senator]

On 2/19/2025 at 5:12 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Not me, as the Lord explains why hyperbole is a used at times:

Doctrine and Covenants 19:7

  "Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory."

 

In other playgrounds that would rightly be deemed as emotional manipulation.

[ZealouslyStriving]

28 minutes ago, Senator said:

In other playgrounds that would rightly be deemed as emotional manipulation.

OK 🤷🏻‍♂️

[smac97]

45 minutes ago, Senator said:

Quote

Not me, as the Lord explains why hyperbole is a used at times:

Doctrine and Covenants 19:7

  "Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name’s glory."

In other playgrounds that would rightly be deemed as emotional manipulation.

Ironically enough, misplaced or undue usage of the phrase "emotional manipulation" sure can start to look like . . . emotional manipulation.

If my wife were to ask me to improve myself, saying that she is motivated in her request by her love and regard for me, I don't see that as "emotional manipulation."  If, however, I were a stubborn and intransigent person, I might choose to label her request as "emotional manipulation" so as to guilt-trip and/or find fault with her, and to deflect her counsel and justify my resistance to it.

It seems, then, that what does and does not constitute "emotional manipulation" comes down to intent and motive.  

In the law, there is a Latin maxim: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo," which roughly translates to "Your motive gives the name to your act."  Why you do X is what gives rise to the X being good or bad.  

So the only way your position makes sense is if we finite, blinkered humans impute bad motives onto our omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent Father in Heaven.  Just not willing to do that.  Ipso facto, your interpretation of D&C 19:7 does not work for me.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 20, 2025 by smac97

[Senator]

14 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

OK 🤷🏻‍♂️

It instructs me to sleep with one eye open when engaging with religion that instructs that something is morally reprehensible, except when God does it.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Ironically enough, misplaced or undue usage of the phrase "emotional manipulation" sure can start to look like . . . emotional manipulation.

If my wife were to ask me to improve myself, saying that she is motivated in her request by her love and regard for me, I don't see that as "emotional manipulation." 

What if she said, improve yourself or I'll torture you for eternity? But when pressed she admits she was lying about that eternity part. Is it emotional manipulation then?

[smac97]

Just now, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What if she said, improve yourself or I'll torture you for eternity?  But when pressed she admits she was lying about that eternity part. Is it emotional manipulation then?

Respectfully, I reject the premise.  The Plan of Salvation does not involve any such concept.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, Senator said:

In other playgrounds that would rightly be deemed as emotional manipulation.

In reality, those verses are not manipulative. Why? As Sections of Doctrine and Covenants Sections 76 and 138 both plainly testify, the only way anyone can be saved in any of the three post-resurrection kingdoms of heavenly glory is for each individual to make a conscious effort to come unto Christ in faith and accept him as their personal Savior from sin and death. There really is no other way to be saved in one of the three kingdoms of heavenly glory other than through an acceptance of Jesus Christ. And the fact of the matter is that there really is a condition of endless punishment and total estrangement from God that has no end, and that’s the sad condition is reserved for those who become the sons of perdition who utterly refuse to come unto Christ and repent.

The Savior actually speaks the truth when he warns of endless state of damnation reserved for those who have refused to come unto him in faith by the time of the pronouncement of the final judgement. Therefore the reason why the Lord speaks of the expression ‘eternal damnation’ as being “more express” is because those who have as yet not received a more complete picture of the merciful plan of salvation will tend to fear God more due to the fearful tone of finality expressed in the terms ‘endless punishment’ and ‘eternal damnation.’

As in the days of Moses, there are times when the Lord needs to present his immutable justice and expectations for strict compliance to divine law in bold relief as a way put the fear of God into the hearts and minds of those who otherwise might go off the deep end without having a fear of God. The infinite and eternal love of God is revealed to man in wisdom, in a manner best suited to each condition. The goal is to get each individual to understand the timeless and immutable reality that without God all is lost.

Edited February 20, 2025 by teddyaware

[Senator]

29 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

 And the fact of the matter is that there really is a condition of endless punishment and total estrangement from God that has no end, and that’s the sad condition is reserved for those who become the sons of perdition who utterly refuse to come unto Christ and repent.

 

So section 19 is bluffing the bluff?

 

[teddyaware]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

What if she said, improve yourself or I'll torture you for eternity? But when pressed she admits she was lying about that eternity part. Is it emotional manipulation then?

It’s not manipulation because the prophets testify that the sons of perdition would be much more miserable living with God in heaven than existing without him in hell. The Book of Mormon powerfully testifies that for the sons of perdition living in the presence of God truly is the ultimate hell. The worst torture for the unsaved would be to force them to live with God. Therefore, God ultimately gives all men what they want. God cannot change the reality of the need for there being a diametric opposition in all things, for if he did he would cease to be God and all things to vanish into nonexistence (2 Nephi 2).

It’s all a matter of being willing to grow up and accept reality. God cannot change the fact that “there must needs be opposition in all things.” Each one of us is free to chose if we want to gravitate toward God’s eternal light or allow ourselves to sink into the depths never ending darkness (or somewhere in between). It’s simply a matter of growing up and being willing to accept the unchangeable realities upon which existence is affirmed. A foolish child may choose to ignore his father’s warning to not put his hand into a flame, but if he does he’s going to get burned.

I believe one of the reasons why Satan and the one-third host were cast out of heaven is because they foolishly thought they could change the immutable realities upon which existence must be affirmed.

 

[teddyaware]

7 minutes ago, Senator said:

So section 19 is bluffing the bluff?

 

It’s very simple: God wisely chooses to reveal his truths line upon line. That’s why we haven’t yet received the sealed portion of the Book of Mormon. You see, we’re not ready for those deeper mysteries of God, and it would do vastly more harm than good if he were to prematurely allow the cat out of the bag. It’s kind of like why we don’t allow kindergartners to drive cars.

[Senator]

Hmm

So this is what I've learned.  In His communications with us, God can employ word play (manipulate meanings), with the intent on eliciting a desired behavior due to our emotional response (putting the fear of God in them) to an intentional definitional misunderstanding. 

But this is ok because 1)  God is doing it and 2) it is therefore for our own good.

Ok

Just makes me wonder what other "express" scriptural teachings that I can take with a wink.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Respectfully, I reject the premise.  The Plan of Salvation does not involve any such concept.

Thanks,

-Smac

Regardless of how you’d word the concept, the emotional manipulation is with the lies. “Do this or I’ll leave” is not manipulation from a spouse. Unless the spouse is not being honest. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Quote

What if she said, improve yourself or I'll torture you for eternity?  But when pressed she admits she was lying about that eternity part. Is it emotional manipulation then?

Respectfully, I reject the premise.  The Plan of Salvation does not involve any such concept.

Regardless of how you’d word the concept,

It's not the wording of the premise I reject, it is the entirety of the premise.  

Again, the Plan of Salvation does not involve any such "improve yourself or I'll torture you for eternity" or "lying about that eternity part" concepts.  And as I have also noted previously, I reject the imputation of ill motives onto Heavenly Father, and so reject the corollary imputation of "emotional manipulation."

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

the emotional manipulation is with the lies.

Again, I reject the premise.  God does not lie.

7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“Do this or I’ll leave” is not manipulation from a spouse. Unless the spouse is not being honest. 

Again, I reject the premise.  God is not dishonest.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

God does not lie.

Except when he does. Accepting the scriptures that is. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

God does not lie.

Except when he does. Accepting the scriptures that is. 

• Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?"
• Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;"
• Hebrews 6:18: "That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:"
• 1 Samuel 15:29: "And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent."
• Enos 1:6: "And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away."
• Ether 3:12: "I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie."
• 2 Nephi 9:34: "Wo unto the liar, for he shall be thrust down to hell."
• D&C 82:10: "I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise."

This is a matter of perspective and interpretation.  If you want to accuse God of lying, that is certainly your prerogative.  I do not believe it.  What you are imputing to God may be in line with your perspective, but it is foreign to the Latter-day Saint paradigm.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Senator]

36 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 God is not dishonest.

 

I agree

Clever....tricky, maybe?