Inconsistency of message in Sunday lessons...

[_ldsfaqs]

Hi LDSfaqs and thanks for explaining about that crucial word 'not'.

So applying that to Moroni's promise which states about knowing if the Book of Mormon is 'not' true we can conclude Moroni is telling us the Book of Mormon is not true, right?

Anyway, if the verse was stating "not" to eat meat other than during those times, the verse would not have needed to use the word "not", because in the next two verse the exact same restriction is given (but to creeping things etc. like I mentioned above), but the word "not" IS NOT THERE.

So you're actually going to make me teach you even more basic English (sentence structure)???

At first look, yes it looks like a good question, a nice "gotcha", etc.
But, that's not the actual truth.

The issue is "context".

1. The addition of the "not" in Moroni 10:4 is actually a good example of my original point, because it's a use of the word "not" in a POSITIVE manner, not a negative one. It's the classic reversal of meaning.

2. However, where you falter is the "other words" in the sentence structure in both the word of wisdom and Moroni's promise.

The WOW states "should not be used, only in times"

Moroni states "ask ...., if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth"

Both are reversal of meanings to indicate a "positive". So in that way both are exactly the same. The difference occurs in the "focus" of the words (I don't know the technical jargon, don't remember, but I remember the concepts).

The word "used" and "only" together changes the meaning of the WOW, which makes it not the same as the Moroni verse. The Moroni verse the sentence technically ends, and then a new point starts. The WOW verse isn't complete without the rest.

For example. We often say in our common speech, "Are these things not true"? We are not asking if they "are" true such as in the sentence "Are these things true"? We are asking for conformation of what is already seems known. Another way to put it, is if someone gives you an Apple, you might ask looking at it knowing it looks like an Apple and say "Is this not an Apple"? You might also say "Is this an Apple"? But each is saying the same thing with a subtle difference, the first being that you think it's an Apple and you're just confirming it, and the second is a direct question not sure either way. Likewise with Moroni's verse, the Book of Mormon looks true, but you're taking it to God to confirm it. And the reason others such as anti-mormons the promise doesn't work for them is because they already have pre-judgments of the book. Normal people who read it and are thus ready to harvest would generally say that it looks true to them, and then pray about it to confirm it with God.

Anyway, I don't have time or the ready knowledge to explain every detail and point, make a thesis paper here to try and convince you. The ultimate point is, is that given the history and context of when the WOW was written, it's clear as day that it was asked if it was okay to eat meat at other times, other than winter and famine. So Joseph asked God, and got the revelation. The addition of the word "not" as a part of the "not only" structure only makes it even more clear. No need to make it any more complicated than this.

[_subgenius]

"It would seem that your tenure with bishoprics would have been more edifying is apparent by your postings on such topics" I see from your posts that you are unable to have a conversation and discuss a topic without sniping at a person's character to make yourself fill superior.

are you illustrating that notion here? kinda ironic if you are,
or are you, like me, a turn-about-is-fair-play person?
(for the record, i earnestly attempt to not snipe at a person's character per se, but the character of their posts are obviously a valid target - admittedly it can be easy to assimilate patterns of posts into an assumption about the "person" - much like you have done here, correct?)

But just to prove your point, the next time you go in for a TR interview tell them that you don’t obey the WofW, don’t pay your tithes, and don’t wear your garments. See if you walk out of the room with a recommend.

It would not be my answers that prevented me form receiving the TR, it would be my lack of sincerity and lack of honesty and the Lord would likely manifest that both to me and to the interviewer...which is the point of the interview and and thus my point would be proven, thanks.

[_subgenius]

Yesterdays lesson in both Relief Society and Priesthood was on the subject of the Word of Wisdom, as contained within D&C section 89.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... 9?lang=eng

por que? our ward was on chapter 18...
"Adult Church members will resume studying the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series in 2012, beginning with George Albert Smith."

BUMPity BUMP for Drifting

[Guest]

...

[_ldsfaqs]

WOW!!! (not an acronym) that's a pretty good convolution ldsfaqs ... I got to had it to ya on that one.

Say what????

ac·ro·nym   [ak-ruh-nim] Show IPA
noun
1.
a word formed from the initial letters or groups of letters of words in a set phrase or series of words, as Wac from Women's Army Corps, OPEC from Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, or loran from long-range navigation.

So if that's the case , then I'm guessing they had a pretty big problem with veganism much like chewing and smoking tobacco were. Back when they drafted the word of wisdom ???

Nope, more misrepresentation.....

There was an issue of eating a LOT of meat in Winter and Famine which is when meat was MOST eaten. Thus, people wondered at the time whether it was okay to eat a lot of meat at OTHER TIMES as well.

The Lord thus said that it's okay to eat meat at other times, and in general to simply eat meat sparingly.
Not brain surgery here..... Further, both the Bible and D&C in places forbids "vegetarianism". Again, not brain surgery.

[Guest]

...

[_Drifting]

Yesterdays lesson in both Relief Society and Priesthood was on the subject of the Word of Wisdom, as contained within D&C section 89.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... 9?lang=eng

por que? our ward was on chapter 18...
"Adult Church members will resume studying the Teachings of Presidents of the Church series in 2012, beginning with George Albert Smith."

BUMPity BUMP for Drifting

I cannot help it if your ward is a week behind.

[_subgenius]

I cannot help it if your ward is a week behind.

hardly, the joys of EQP is that i set the calendar for the whole year, accounting for ward conference, stake conference, general conference, 1st Sundays and 4th/5th Sundays....obviously you guys are skipping ahead.

But i do enjoy the Introduction to this manual

If you are teaching a Melchizedek Priesthood or Relief Society lesson, you should not set this book aside or prepare lessons from other materials. Prayerfully select from the chapter those teachings that you feel will be most helpful to those you teach. Some chapters contain more material than you will be able to discuss during class time. Allow good discussions to continue rather than trying to cover all the teachings.

[_subgenius]

excerpt from lesson Drifting is referencing herein:

[url=http://www.LDS.org/manual/teachings-george-albert-smith/chapter-19?lang=eng]The Word of Wisdom is loving counsel from our Father, who knows all things.

I am going to read you a portion of what the Lord said to the Church on February 27th, 1833.

“A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the Church and also the Saints of Zion—

“To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days.”

Now just think of that for a moment—“in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days.”

“Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.” [See D&C 89:1–3.]

Then the Lord continues to tell us the things that are good for us, explains the kind of food that it is desirable for us to use, and then warns us against some of the things that have been most deleterious and harmful [see D&C 89:5–17].

It seems to me that as a people we have been marvelously blessed. … The Lord has been merciful to us, to caution us, advise us and warn us with regard to many things.3

I look upon the Word of Wisdom as kind advice of our Father in heaven, who desires to see His children become more like Him.[/url]

[_Drifting]

excerpt from lesson Drifting is referencing herein:

[url=http://www.LDS.org/manual/teachings-george-albert-smith/chapter-19?lang=eng]The Word of Wisdom is loving counsel from our Father, who knows all things.

I am going to read you a portion of what the Lord said to the Church on February 27th, 1833.

“A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the Church and also the Saints of Zion—

“To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days.”

Now just think of that for a moment—“in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days.”

“Given for a principle with promise, adapted to the capacity of the weak and the weakest of all saints, who are or can be called saints.” [See D&C 89:1–3.]

Then the Lord continues to tell us the things that are good for us, explains the kind of food that it is desirable for us to use, and then warns us against some of the things that have been most deleterious and harmful [see D&C 89:5–17].

It seems to me that as a people we have been marvelously blessed. … The Lord has been merciful to us, to caution us, advise us and warn us with regard to many things.3

I look upon the Word of Wisdom as kind advice of our Father in heaven, who desires to see His children become more like Him.[/url]

If the WoW is just 'kind advice' why did the Church change it into a commandment and worthiness measure?