…it’s what the members hear.

How many other times have you gotten into a discussion (on let’s say the consumption of Coke for instance) where what the prophets have said and what the members do, are two completely different things.

The problem here is that you have listened to what the prophet said, but most people are just running with the pack and going along with an assumption some – probably the majority of – people have made.

But, all President Hinckley says is from God (D&C 1:38), and is scripture (D7C 68:4). Since the first presidency interprets scripture for us, perhaps I’ll just go along for the ride.

To me, that means there are two possibilities: (1) Pres. Hinckley (or the editor/ghostwriter) made a mistake in the original Ensign article or (2) most people interpreted it as a challenge so eventually the First Presidency went along with it.

Either way, the point is that the First Presidency has challenged us via their letter, which clarifies and changes our previous interpretation of the Ensign article. I understand that you don’t want to sacrifice your previously planned personal study, so don’t. A challenge is just a challenge. It’s not a sin to not read the BOM before the end of the year.

It doesn’t matter much to me, anyway, as I have many, many other things in my reading queue.

The Coke issue is also a good example of a misinterpretation and misguided fanaticism. Unfortunately those people who grasp so tenaciously on to these insignificant issues are the same ones doing far more grievous offenses to mankind whilst obnoxiously preaching about the evils of Coke or tattos or not reading the Book of Mormon by the end of the year. Unfortunately, many members have a heart attack when they see someone with an additional ear piercing, probably the same type of people who like to freak out about facial hair etc. It’s these kinds of people that give religious obedience a bad name. Very unfortunate indeed.

1) Does your “reputation for semantics” help or hurt your ability to be a good Elder’s quorum leader?

2) Since most important communication, such as President Henckley’s Book of Mormon challenge, involves humans, and hence is and always will be imperfect, is it effective or ineffective to always focus on the letter of the law [message] rather than the spirit of the law [message]?

And, it has been my observation that your obsession with precise syntax has resulted in the need for your wife to frequently provide defensive explanations on your behalf. Perhaps this is an image you may want to change, but then again maybe not.

2) Neither.

This is because some people are looking for some hidden message in what he says, honestly, I do NOT know why, and persist in thinking he means something completely different (or they just can’t read properly).

Because they’re too focused on the spirit of the law.