Jerkhood of the Year Nominations

[_Gordon]

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.

He seems to be talking about blessings, in general. You seem to be suggesting that the blessings for paying tithing are specific, and cannot be gained any other way. I can't say that I agree with this. However, I was meaning that they can do other things to prevent themselves from being burned.

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.

Perhaps.

[_asbestosman]

However, you seem to be suggesting that the blessings for paying tithing are specific, and cannot be gained any other way.

That is precisely what he is saying in the context of the talk. See below.

I can't say that I agree with this. However, I was meaning that they can do other things to prevent them from being burned.

I know what you're saying, and it doesn't make sense in the context of the talk. Don't forget to include this:
Many of the Lord’s commandments are in the form of covenants promising specific blessings—tithing, for example

with:
These statements make it clear that by failing to honor the tithing covenant one forfeits great blessings

His meaning is clear. You can't fail to honor the tithing covenant and still receive the blessing of not being burned at His coming.

[_Kishkumen]

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

Once again, you have shown that you don't understand how legal precedent works.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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

[_Kishkumen]

? 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.

So, in other words, you don't know. You don't have the details, and you imagine that they went to the homeless shelter just because.

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.

No, Gordon, the problem is that people generally hold a charitable and religious organization to a higher standard--as well they should, since it is the good such organizations do for society that justifies the tax break, or passive subsidization, they receive from the federal government.

[Guest]

Once again, you have shown that you don't understand how legal precedent works.

Simply asserting this without explaining why is, as I stated before, baseless...and rather pathetic. I've explained my position quite clearly. You may want to try to do the same.

[_Gordon]

His meaning is clear. You can't fail to honor the tithing covenant and still receive the blessing of not being burned at His coming.

Ok, maybe we are missing each other here, and perhaps my analogy wasn't the best. Yes, the promised blessing of not being burned is given for those that pay tithing. This is supported in Malachi 3. There are a few blessings given for honoring this covenant:

- Shall not be burned.
- Windows of heaven opened.
- Devourer will be rebuked.

He also gave specific blessings for obeying the WoW.

- Shall receive health.
- Find wisdom and knowledge.
- Destroying Angel shall pass.

Like I said, there is more than one way to gain specific blessings. I am also not aware of any other instance where the specific blessing of not being burned is given, but that still doesn't mean that those who don't pay will be burned...which is the claim.

Let's see who will be burned, though:

"tomorrow all the proud and they that do wickedly shall be as stubble; and I will burn them up" (D&C 64:24, 3 Nephi 25:1, Mal 4:1).

Nothing about not paying tithing. Also, the Church teaches that many nonLDS will not burn and be present during the Millennial Reign of the Christ. Obviously, there are other ways to not get burned at the Second Coming.

[_Gordon]

So, in other words, you don't know. You don't have the details, and you imagine that they went to the homeless shelter just because.

Do I know the all the exact details? No. Neither do you. My statements, though, are based on the obvious, and the facts of the situation.

No, Gordon, the problem is that people generally hold a charitable and religious organization to a higher standard--as well they should, since it is the good such organizations do for society that justifies the tax break, or passive subsidization, they receive from the federal government.

This doesn't take away from the fact that nothing egregious occurred here.

[_sock puppet]

So, in other words, you don't know. You don't have the details, and you imagine that they went to the homeless shelter just because.

Do I know the all the exact details? No. Neither do you. My statements, though, are based on the obvious, and the facts of the situation.

No, Gordon, the problem is that people generally hold a charitable and religious organization to a higher standard--as well they should, since it is the good such organizations do for society that justifies the tax break, or passive subsidization, they receive from the federal government.

This doesn't take away from the fact that nothing egregious occurred here.

Nothing egregious? Not from your perch in front your computer, Gordo, typing away. No nothing egregious as long as you get to remain in your warm home this cold winter night.

Nothing egregious? Nothing Christian either. Your Church is fraud.

[_Simon Belmont]

Your Church is fraud.

Sock,

That isn't a very nice thing to say about someone else's faith.

Tell me something, though. How much money do you charge your clients? Is it based on their income, or is it based on the case?