I want to have some fun with Hoya’s reasoning …

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's too bad, pardner. You have an internet connection. You can always look up the US rating for any movie.

www.imdb.com

Neener, neener.

[tooblue]

Internet as we know it didn't exist back when, so na na na boo boo!

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I don't understand hoya's viewpoint.

It seems he's saying some people can view pornography and suffer no harm.

Is that really true, or can some people view it and successfully countermand or overcome the harm?

hoya also seems to disagree with the notion that there is benefit in some level obedience for the sake of obedience. While I would disagree completely, especially in light of covenants and teachings made, it seems he also argues we need also obey only those things for which we know the reasons behind a recommendation.

It seems sometimes following a recommendation will reveal the reason behind it.

Not at all. Of course there are blessings for obedience for the sake of obedience. And perhaps over time you would begin to understand the reasoning behind the counsel. Through blind obedience, however, you may also be complying with the letter of the law while not seeing the spirit of the law at all (which Christ has repeatedly warned about in the New Testament).

My position is that counsel is just that: counsel. It is not a commandment. While you may not go terribly astray by following it, for some people (or even most people) the counsel may not be completely appropriate. In some instances, the counsel may even be plain wrong. You won't be held accountable (I think) for following wrong counsel before God, but there may be other unintended consequences here on Earth.

Not following counsel involves an inherent amount of risk. If the counsel is wrong, I think you are better for not following it. If it is right and you don't follow it, it isn't a sin, but you could find yourself on a path leading to sin. It isn't easy to determine when it is right and when it is wrong, but that to me is exactly why we have been "counseled" to study each issue through thought and prayer and come to our own conclusions.

It may sound a bit complicated, but it seems eminently clear to me.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by hoyacoug

Not at all. Of course there are blessings for obedience for the sake of obedience. And perhaps over time you would begin to understand the reasoning behind the counsel. Through blind obedience, however, you may also be complying with the letter of the law while not seeing the spirit of the law at all (which Christ has repeatedly warned about in the New Testament).

My position is that counsel is just that: counsel. It is not a commandment. While you may not go terribly astray by following it, for some people (or even most people) the counsel may not be completely appropriate. In some instances, the counsel may even be plain wrong. You won't be held accountable (I think) for following wrong counsel before God, but there may be other unintended consequences here on Earth.

Not following counsel involves an inherent amount of risk. If the counsel is wrong, I think you are better for not following it. If it is right and you don't follow it, it isn't a sin, but you could find yourself on a path leading to sin. It isn't easy to determine when it is right and when it is wrong, but that to me is exactly why we have been "counseled" to study each issue through thought and prayer and come to our own conclusions.

It may sound a bit complicated, but it seems eminently clear to me.

It would seem to me that counsel coming from a Prophet of God is much more correct than counsel coming from anyone else. Yes, I don't have to follow that counsel, but I'd much rather receive the spiritual benefits of following counsel from a mouthpiece of the Lord than receive any temporal benefits of following counsel from another.

This is perfectly clear to me.

This is

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

It would seem to me that counsel coming from a Prophet of God is much more correct than counel coming from anyone else.

Like I said, ignoring such counsel involves an inherent amount of risk. In this instance, I think getting this issue wrong leads to very bad consequences and actually runs counter to the purpose of the Plan of Salvation.

I think everyone understands that prophets have been wrong in the past. The church as a whole has been wrong in the past. They don't claim to be infallible. They ask us to ponder and pray about issues. The end result has to be a system where a certain amount of people determine they are wrong and accept whatever consequences that may entail. In some instances, those people will be right, and they will be quite happy that they ignored poor counsel to begin with.

[il Padrino Ute]

I appreciate your comments. I can agree that there is risk involved, but I believe that the risk is less when one follows counsel from the First Presidency.

I can respect that you feel as you do with regard to this amendment perhaps running counter to the Plan of Salvation, though I disagree simply because keeping the Commandments of the Lord is what allows the Plan of Salvation to be implemented, we in teh LDS Church have the benefit of knowing that marriage between a man and a woman is not only sanctioned of God, but is necessary to be able to achieve the ultimate degree of progression. Marriage between two of the same sex seems more out of touch with the Plan than this amendment does.

That said, my support of the amendment is based more on how much more it would cost me in taxes than it running counter to the Proclaimation of the Family.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

That said, my support of the amendment is based more on how much more it would cost me in taxes than it running counter to the Proclaimation of the Family.

In reality, you are honest. I won't write my Senators, not because I don't wish to follow the counsel, but because John and Harry already know my viewpoint, and my writing them will just burn capital with them when I need them.

My primary reason for favoring the amendment is economic. If we keep expanding our rights to everybody for everything, just imagine the cost and the rate of taxation. There is a cumulative effect and I don't pay for it. I always vote in opposition to all bond issues, unless it's simply to replace retiring bonds and simply oppose direct benefit increases.

Government gives me crappy service in most instances and I don't want anything from it. I know I won't get any social security, will only live off of pension I've saved personally and will probably not receive any Medicare benefits. In other words, the "Great Social Net" will not benefit me or my family.

Unlike most liberals, who cloak their policies in dishonest arguments of selflessness, you and I are at least honest in our economic motivations.

I like France, as a country to visit on vacation, but I do not wish to see our costs soar like there and do not wish to see our already bloated bureaucracy to their proportions.

I can already hear the siren's song, it won't cost that much. Sure, and Medicare was only intended to cost 4 billion dollars per year. Liars all of them.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Government gives me crappy service in most instances and I don't want anything from it.

Ain't that the truth? Bureaucrats simply don't believe in customer service.

As for that "great social net", what a joke. Let me keep my money and invest it in my future. You can't spell socialism without social.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

Ain't that the truth? Bureaucrats simply don't believe in customer service.

Ouch.