Jump to content

Vanguard

Members
  • Content count

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

99 Excellent

2 Followers

About Vanguard

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters
  • Birthday 11/28/1965

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    So. Cal.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,486 profile views
  1. Utah good place for Muslims

    Are you claiming it is an "acceptable plank within the Republican Party to demonize Muslims" and are you in agreement with all the other accusations against the Republican Party found in the article? I've already stated my position on it. How about you confirm yours and we'll go from there?
  2. Utah good place for Muslims

    Unfortunately, the positive commentary about Utah's acceptance of our Muslim brothers & sisters is overshadowed by the derogatory and needlessly inflammatory rhetoric aimed at Republicans and the party's leadership. No need to errantly tear down one just to build another up. : (
  3. Your post seemed to suggest that while (not instead of) civil authorities were involved the Church could also investigate as long as they "...tread[ed] lightly so as not to interfere with or impeded the investigative efforts by law enforcement." In that context, do you have any thoughts on what that might look like? It stands to reason there are instances when the Church should investigate an allegation though not of the "Magnum PI" variety. Note: I've just started watching Tom Seleck in "Blue Bloods". So far so good. My parents love it and there isn't too much by way of objectionable material. ; )
  4. Smac - When you speak of "...the Church want[ing] to be more involved in investigating such a claim..." what would you have in mind regards to the scope of such an investigation?
  5. Is the Holy Ghost legitimate?

    Yes, I know it's a bit sloppy though I'm working on it. ; ) And yes, that bed post was a bugger on my toe! That it induced the pain it did is no commentary on ultimate reality but only a practicality I am compelled to reckon with in this fictional existence - BIG difference. ; )
  6. Is the Holy Ghost legitimate?

    I feel silly for chiming in here. I went to this thread and yours was the first post I laid eyes on. I don't even know what else you and mf-ski might be talking about. It was this part of your post that reminded me of an exchange I had about 7-8 yrs ago with another very intelligent Christian on a Christian apologetics website. I'll put it out here now for public consumption though it may well not gain any traction in which case I'll simply retreat to lick my ego wounds... ; ) The following is in my own layman's language and solely on my own steam - "Rocks" aren't out there. They "literally?" do not exist. They gain "existence" solely from our efforts to make sense of our "world" by putting language to them and because their fundamental physical properties sufficiently approximate our own thus compelling us to grapple with their existence. If my atomic (or is it sub-atomic?, or sub-sub-atomic? or super-atomic!?) make-up were sufficiently different, these things we humans call rocks would not exist to us. Innumerable "things" move in and out of our physical bodies and physical world continuously without us ever being aware of them nor capable of tracking them down through technology. Our technology has made it so that we do track down much of what we were unaware of just decades earlier though there can be no end to this discovery. That is to say that if there is no end to this discovery enterprise, then everything is infinitely reducible. And if this is true, there can be no ultimate human descriptor of reality but only our efforts to make sense of our own punctuated existence in that infinite line of reducibility. So I guess I'm saying the "ultimate reality" of things in our temporality is not dependent on or independent of our observations or our putting a descriptor on it. Rather, this reality simply does not exist. If I could find the passage form CS Lewis I think I would find him saying something like "close your eyes and hang on to that which gives meaning to your existence as this temporality is but a fiction that will inevitably and entirely dissolve before our eyes once we die" (I took a lot of license with the paraphrasing!). I am not sure whether mf-ski would agree with any of this though that's my story and I'm stickin' to it. I am confident rocks do not exist. ; ) Van
  7. "...heard no indication of dementia". Wow! It must be nice to be so certain. ; ) And especially gratifying to in turn to disparage those who honestly believed - including myself - that dementia may be playing a roll in his ability to recollect events and how this inability could have colored the details of the "interview". Things would have been so much easier had those apologists simply took your word for it from the getgo. Silly people! Good grief... : (
  8. Tacenda, a couple of things - 1) I assume you don't literally mean "everyone", correct? That would be quite the unreasonable expectation and is not necessary anyway. I'll instead assume you mean "some" when speaking about those who could have shown love and empathy. That being the case, what has led you to believe no one did?, and 2) Are you also suggesting that all it takes is someone to lend an ear in order to avoid all of this drama? Haven't you run across those whose desire to talk about their trials is all consuming and never satiated? If so, what leads you to believe this sister is not one such person? I myself have not made any conclusions about her. I can only go off of what the SP has reported. Do you not believe him?
  9. Did I miss where it has been stated there was no discipline for the man? Or is your point that he was not disciplined in the way you believe he should have been?
  10. But what is your point about the apology? Are you suggesting he therefore would have done things differently regards to the husband? That he would not have taken away the TR of the sister? I don't think the apology bears that out at all. His apology is a commentary on how he would have communicated with her differently not what actions he would have changed up. Big difference. Regardless, had he shown the consideration she complained of not getting do you think it actually would have made the difference with this sister? That she was only needing someone who she felt understood her better? Are you kidding?! Not only was this exchange between the two of them not about the delivery of his message, it was also not about simply clarifying why he did what he did. She was convinced he made several mistakes and there was absolutely nothing he could do to convince her otherwise. When there is a difference of opinion, there are always two issues going on concurrently - 1) the actual disagreement, and 2) how the parties go about discussing it. The SP apologized for his delivery. This was quite the magnanimous thing to do and I believe reflected a genuine desire to understand her. And this brings me to one of my primary issues with this sister. The SP appeared to be acting in good faith whereas she was not, by virtue of her surreptitious recording of the conversation. This by definition skewed her commentary away from what she genuinely would have said otherwise and into a realm that would have her artificially altering her commentary to serve her clandestine purposes. Furthermore, had she simply wanted a recording of the conversation in order to appeal to a higher authority, this would not have been shared with the public in the way that it has been. I am sorry for the pain this sister experiences. Many folks who are in similar circumstances or worse, take action that only exacerbates the situation - actions that sometimes come full circle and make their own grieving all the more difficult. The sister is to be pitied though not excused from these consequences.
  11. I side with the SP on this one. There is nothing in the two recordings that substantively rankle me on how he handled the situation. Though I will agree the tone of his voice comes off as patronizing, I recognize 1) this is a style I would attribute to many a lay leader (as well as the general leadership), and 2) it has nothing to do with gender as I myself have heard this style of speaking. The issue as I see it comes down to whether or not the sister indeed caused an unnecessary ruckus or not during the block. I can fathom many scenarios where the SP is absolutely acting within his purview to censure her in this way and I can fathom many scenarios where he has overstepped his boundaries. Who's to say? On these occasions the "tie goes to the runner" that being the SP. The rest of the issues are merely distractions for others to buttress their own idealogical stances - that is, unless someone can offer up something substantive that would reflect a gender bias against the SP? He struck me as a genuinely kind man his "nails-scratching-on-the-chalk board" tonality notwithstanding. ; )
  12. I don't have quite the problem with the questions as you seem to. I've taken it as axiomatic that the practice of religion through the ages includes exclusionary / discriminatory practices that have done considerable harm to many. That's not to say that every act of exclusion or discrimination is inappropriate (i.e., going to the temple "excludes" and "discriminates" against those who do not have a recommend). I'd rather let this exchange continue with the agreement that indeed there have been abuses. The interesting part will come when the inevitable question is posed - "And so what of it?" Is the "opie" suggesting there are parallels in our own faith as compared to those things that happened centuries ago? Van : )
  13. But it's more than just about numbers. It also depends on whether the "numbers" are viewed as representing the institution and whether said institution is viewed by the individual as representing the will of God. I could virtually care less what the NFL as an institution may or may not think about my standing with God. This reaction flips, however, when the institution is my own faith - a faith that I hold in high regard on matters of inspiration.
  14. I think I've drifted from the point. If we are talking about the motivations of whatever entity expresses hate, that is one argument. If on the other hand we're talking about the potential consequences of an individual hating another as opposed to an institution claiming the wrath of God against another, it is hands down the institutional hate that can cause the most damage. Which issue are we addressing? Van
  15. Hate is hate - that is correct. But collective hate expressed through an institutional mechanism can have much more destructive consequences to the individual than one person simply expressing his hate irrespective of whether the institutional mileu endorses it. Religion - or a distortion of it - has been the purveyor of considerable institutional hatred (guised as the will of God) through the ages. Van
×