Comments on: Neighbors and stumblingblocks http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/ A Mormon Blog Tue, 14 Feb 2012 01:03:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Ray http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91683 Sun, 20 May 2007 03:41:54 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91683 I just checked back in before logging off and going to sleep. Please, no humor-impaired responses to rtt while I slumber.

]]> By: riki tiki taki http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91682 Sun, 20 May 2007 03:24:28 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91682

I don’t understand why this situation would relate particularly to a single woman — or a woman at all for that matter; why not a man.

Indeed! We know that in many communities the missionaries are thought to be gay because of their constant companionship and cohabitation (of course they can’t see that they ‘sleep in the same room but not the same bed’). The church PR dept should act quickly and recommend Elders and Sisters serve together in companionships to ensure there is no confusion about the ‘one man and one woman’ principle!

]]> By: chanty http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91681 Sun, 20 May 2007 03:16:12 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91681

As a single woman, I have to agree that it’s dangerous for a married man to ride in a car alone with a single woman, no matter what you think the circumstances are. I (and many women I know) have puposely arranged to “need a ride” or be in distress in some way in order to be alone with a man. It’s the oldest trick in the book!

I don’t understand why this situation would relate particularly to a single woman — or a woman at all for that matter; why not a man. Depending on one’s sexual orientation, the choice to give into tempation would be the same.

]]> By: Ray http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91680 Sun, 20 May 2007 02:45:49 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91680 You’re welcome. I’m headed to bed early tonight, so I wish you the best inspiration in your lesson prep.

]]> By: MCQ http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91679 Sun, 20 May 2007 02:24:07 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91679 That’s an excellent comment Ray, thank you.

]]> By: Ray http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91693 Sun, 20 May 2007 02:20:58 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91693 I read the lesson and would say ATAOE relates IF you define “appearance” as “kinds” or “forms” or “manifestations” – not “anything that looks like evil to someone even if it really isn’t evil”. Given the way the lesson is structured, and since the Thess. verse is never referenced in it and the word “appearance” is never mentioned, I would hesitate to apply much of the discussion in this thread to the lesson.

Having said that, I might be tempted to mention that Satan can disguise evil in physically attractive and/or intellectually appealing packages, so the Thess. verse applies with the Greek footnote about meaning. Paragraphs 5-8 of the 2nd section teach that basic concept.

]]> By: MCQ http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91692 Sun, 20 May 2007 02:09:09 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91692 Ray, you are probably right, but isn’t this another instance where we are being warned of the power of satan and “avoiding the appearance of evil” is just good common sense? Or is ATAOE a completely different concept from what the lesson is talking about?

]]> By: MCQ http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91691 Sun, 20 May 2007 02:05:45 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91691 The lesson is not about “avoiding the appearance of evil” per se, but the direct thrust of the lesson is consisent with that idea. In the words of the lesson, is failing to “avoid the appearance of evil” the same as “leaving the door ajar” or “letting the camel’s nose into the tent?”

]]> By: Ray http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91690 Sun, 20 May 2007 01:59:49 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91690 I think he was avoiding evil in one of its more obvious forms.

]]> By: MCQ http://bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/19/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91689 Sun, 20 May 2007 01:59:05 +0000 http://www.bycommonconsent.com/2007/05/neighbors-and-stumblingblocks/#comment-91689 Kevin: I have found that the people who are scandalized by it have (uniformly) not read it. But that’s consistent. Those who were most scandalized by the PBS docs turned off the TV in the first few minutes.

]]>