Talk:Alma 4:11-15 - Revision history

KurtElieson: Moving content to main commentary page

2014-03-02T15:47:26Z

Moving content to main commentary page

RobertC: thoughts on bad examples causing iniquity

2005-10-21T13:20:34Z

thoughts on bad examples causing iniquity

RobertC: comment on bad example leading to iniquity question

2005-10-21T12:58:40Z

comment on bad example leading to iniquity question

New page

Matthew & all,

If the wickedness of the members is described as a stumbling block for nonmembers in v. 10, and in v. 11 we read that it lead the unbelievers on from one iniquity to another, should these be read as two separate points, or the same point stated differently? Are nonmembers and unbelievers the same people? Is the stumbling block something different than the leading to iniquity? As the question is currently worded, it suggests the stumbling block is easy to understand but the leading to iniquity isn't, suggesting two different notions (unless you are trying to emphasize the how vs. the why...). Any thoughts on that difference? --[[User:RobertC|RobertC]] 12:58, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 2 March 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	~~==Question about bad example leading to iniquity==~~

−	~~Matthew & all,~~
−
−	If the wickedness of the members is described as a stumbling block for nonmembers in v. 10, and in v. 11 we read that it lead the unbelievers on from one iniquity to another, should these be read as two separate points, or the same point stated differently? Are nonmembers and unbelievers the same people? Is the stumbling block something different than the leading to iniquity? As the question is currently worded, it suggests the stumbling block is easy to understand but the leading to iniquity isn't, suggesting two different notions (unless you are trying to emphasize the how vs. the why...). Any thoughts on that difference? --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 12:58, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
−
−	~~==Thoughts on bad example leading to iniquity==~~
−	Verses 10-11 make a strong point about how our actions affect others. I'd love to see some deeper analysis of this point and/or at least cross-references to other passages that teach similar doctrine. For example, here are some related passages I'd like to look up when I get the time:
−	~~:* Cain asking "am I my brother's keeper?"~~
−	~~:* I'm thinking of at least one passage (Jacob in the BOM?) that says something to the effect of "if we didn't preach to them, we knew we'd be held accountable"~~
−	:* though not as directly related, verses related to the "where much is given much is required" (D&C 82 somewhere?) concept and how Lamanites are given more chances than Nephites b/c they were sinning against less light.
−	:* Matthew's recent comment about robbing the poor by not giving to them - those verses also suggest a very strong connection between our actions and their effect on others. (Again, this is only indirectly related and should probably be analysed on a user page or somewhere other than this commentary page.)
−	~~--[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 13:20, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)~~

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 21 October 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	==Question about bad example leading to iniquity==
		+
	Matthew & all,		Matthew & all,

	If the wickedness of the members is described as a stumbling block for nonmembers in v. 10, and in v. 11 we read that it lead the unbelievers on from one iniquity to another, should these be read as two separate points, or the same point stated differently? Are nonmembers and unbelievers the same people? Is the stumbling block something different than the leading to iniquity? As the question is currently worded, it suggests the stumbling block is easy to understand but the leading to iniquity isn't, suggesting two different notions (unless you are trying to emphasize the how vs. the why...). Any thoughts on that difference? --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 12:58, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)		If the wickedness of the members is described as a stumbling block for nonmembers in v. 10, and in v. 11 we read that it lead the unbelievers on from one iniquity to another, should these be read as two separate points, or the same point stated differently? Are nonmembers and unbelievers the same people? Is the stumbling block something different than the leading to iniquity? As the question is currently worded, it suggests the stumbling block is easy to understand but the leading to iniquity isn't, suggesting two different notions (unless you are trying to emphasize the how vs. the why...). Any thoughts on that difference? --[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 12:58, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)
		+
		+	==Thoughts on bad example leading to iniquity==
		+	Verses 10-11 make a strong point about how our actions affect others. I'd love to see some deeper analysis of this point and/or at least cross-references to other passages that teach similar doctrine. For example, here are some related passages I'd like to look up when I get the time:
		+	:* Cain asking "am I my brother's keeper?"
		+	:* I'm thinking of at least one passage (Jacob in the BOM?) that says something to the effect of "if we didn't preach to them, we knew we'd be held accountable"
		+	:* though not as directly related, verses related to the "where much is given much is required" (D&C 82 somewhere?) concept and how Lamanites are given more chances than Nephites b/c they were sinning against less light.
		+	:* Matthew's recent comment about robbing the poor by not giving to them - those verses also suggest a very strong connection between our actions and their effect on others. (Again, this is only indirectly related and should probably be analysed on a user page or somewhere other than this commentary page.)
		+	--[[User:RobertC\|RobertC]] 13:20, 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)