Jerkhood of the Year Nominations

[_Some Schmo]

Ya know, I always felt I had a natural talent for being a jerk. I've always been able to be a jerk at the drop of a hat.

But I have to acknowledge superior jerkdom when I see it, and I'm no match for Gordon. Fine... I acquiesce to the clear winner of this award.

[_Yoda]

Ya know, I always felt I had a natural talent for being a jerk. I've always been able to be a jerk at the drop of a hat.

But I have to acknowledge superior jerkdom when I see it, and I'm no match for Gordon. Fine... I acquiesce to the clear winner of this award.

Hmm...I think there should be a special category for cute, fun, cool, jerk award. You would win that one, Schmo! ;-)

Come to the Goddess Suite to collect your private winings. LOL

[_Gordon]

Dude, it is obvious that you don't understand how lawyers argue case law. Darth has pointed this out clearly enough, and from my experience talking with lawyers and seeing law professors set exams, I would say that he is absolutely correct.

Darth was pointing out case law that doesn't apply. It appears obvious that you have missed the boat.

[_Gordon]

And yet he didn't neglect their physical needs. He also happened to be the one who enjoined his disciples to treat any needy person as though they were him.

Again, you seem to miss the point. Jesus fed them not because they were poor and needy. He fed them because they came to receive spiritual food, and apparently didn't want to go home for lunch. This is not about the compassion of the Christ, but, rather, who He was.

[_Gordon]

What day did they pay rent?

How long a period did their rent cover?

Were they refunded the money for the time they did not use?

Was this sufficient money to get them in another motel through Christmas?

? If they didn't get a refund, then there would be something to bemoan. If it was a week to week payment, then they would had to have had the money to pay to Ogden Lodge to stay, anyway.

I can also, however, see how it is that you have been inured to the corporate character of the LDS Church, such that you might only demand their actions to be legal rather than compassionate.

This is the problem. I'm not looking at the actions of the Church at all. I'm looking at the fact that a motel closed...regardless of the buyer.

[_Gordon]

April 2007 Sessions "Let Virtue Garnish Thy Thoughts Unceasingly" by Gordon B. Hinckley

Gospel Principles "Chapter 32: Tithes and Offerings"

As I pointed out on the original thread, it doesn't say that if they don't pay tithing, that they will be burned.

If I eat an apple, I will receive nourishment. However, if I don't eat an apple, that does not mean I won't receive nourishment...I may have eaten an orange.

April 1981 Sessions :Gospel Covenants" by Marion G. Romney

Elder Romney says it all: "These statements make it clear that by failing to honor the tithing covenant one forfeits great blessings."

Nothing about burning.

The threat is implied even if it was stated differently.

You're incorrectly inferring.

[_Gordon]

But I have to acknowledge superior jerkdom when I see it, and I'm no match for Gordon. Fine... I acquiesce to the clear winner of this award.

Aw-shucks...you're making me blush.

[_Jersey Girl]

But I have to acknowledge superior jerkdom when I see it, and I'm no match for Gordon. Fine... I acquiesce to the clear winner of this award.

Aw-shucks...you're making me blush.

Write this down, Gordon.

"It ain't over 'till the Jersey Girl sings"

:-D

[Analytics]

As I pointed out on the original thread, it doesn't say that if they don't pay tithing, that they will be burned.

If I eat an apple, I will receive nourishment. However, if I don't eat an apple, that does not mean I won't receive nourishment...I may have eaten an orange.

Alright, I'll keep that in mind as I read the next bit.

April 1981 Sessions :Gospel Covenants" by Marion G. Romney

Elder Romney says it all: "These statements make it clear that by failing to honor the tithing covenant one forfeits great blessings."

Nothing about burning.

Nope, you can't have it both ways. He said nothing about an alternative to tithing (i.e. your orange). If you don't pay tithing, you won't get certain blessings. This is basically saying that there are no alternatives. If I fail to eat an apple, do I forfeit nourishment? No, because I may have eaten on orange. But Romney says I forfeit blessings by not paying tithing. Thus your example is not applicable.


Anyhow, I'd rather be arguing with Darth (or heck, even you) about whether D&C 64 is talking about paying tithing or whether I'm right that the historical context indicates that it wasn't about paying tithing.

[_Gordon]

Write this down, Gordon.

"It ain't over 'till the Jersey Girl sings"

If I win, though, do I get an invite to liz's suite?