Jump to content

canard78

Contributor
  • Content Count

    5,599
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,053 Excellent

5 Followers

About canard78

  • Rank
    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,864 profile views
  1. This must be approaching something of a record... I think I've got pairs of socks that have lasted longer than this policy. If you believe Russel Nelson is divinely inspired then we're looking at the leaders being inspired to introduce it and then inspired to revoke it in about 3 1/2 years. What was particularly critical for the whole world membership to be subjected to this policy for 2016, 2017 and 2018? What is different about 2019 in the world or church compared to 2016-2019.
  2. Discussing the Endowment: Edit: formatting on mobile isn’t my friend! The quote should end after “...correct.”
  3. As does replying to both (and yes, sometimes it seems to have not sent from mobile and then hitting send duplicates).
  4. I attended a parents’ briefing meeting for a school trip. The entire focus for clothing was aimed at the girls and their bodies. It’s the sexualisation of girls that is particularly problematic in this skewed focus of attention. If schools and churches must put down clothing guidelines, I wish they would at least treat children and teens equally.
  5. I attended a parents’ briefing meeting for a school trip. The entire focus for clothing was aimed at the girls and their bodies. It’s the sexualisation of girls that is particularly problematic in this skewed focus of attention. If schools and churches must put down clothing guidelines, I wish they would at least treat children and teens equally.
  6. You highlight those versions of modesty as excessive but your version as acceptable. Such subjectiveness!
  7. I think you’re right on this. I started to work through the two sides of the arguement about 6 years ago. It was pretty much mostly worked out by then. The infamous CES letter was only a (poor) consolidation of the issues into a laundry list of what had already been discovered and debated previously. These days, the only new items of controversy tend to be new decisions or directions taken by the leadership (such as the Nov 2015 policy). LGBT+ apologetics (and perhaps gender equality apologetics) might be all that’s left for new content and debate.
  8. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45283401 “Analysing data from 15 to 95-year-olds, the researchers compared people who did not drink at all with those who had one alcoholic drink a day.” That’s a fairly extreme pair of samples. 0 consumption vs daily consumption. There are plenty of people who have a few at a weekend and nothing in between. The headline of “no safe consumption” is not supported by the evidence presented in this article. I’d be interested to know whether “one bar of chocolate a day” vs someone who had never eaten chocolate would create a similar difference in health results. Or a cake a day vs never eating cake. Or maybe a beef burger every day vs never eating meat? “They found that out of 100,000 non-drinkers, 914 would develop an alcohol-related health problem such as cancer or suffer an injury.” So the study found that if you drink no alcohol you’ve a 0.914% chance of developing an alcohol related problem (even though you didn’t ever drink alcohol in the first place). Drinking a unit every day increases your risk by 0.004%. While there’s plenty of arguments against alcohol in excess, I don’t think this new evidence is convincing against drinking alcohol in moderation.
  9. It’s not a question of giving me heartburn. It’s the practicality and also the implication for a news or academic publisher, as well as for a regular secular conversation.
  10. The announcement was a media focused delivery (press conference and newsroom publication) rather than membership focused. This is primarily a media request. They’ve made a request of the media to do something that is impractical.
  11. It’s likely that the same message will be delivers in October at General Conference. I agree though that a newsroom style guide is aimed at the media and publishers and not the general membership.
  12. If the aim is to bring the name of Jesus Christ into more prominence and to be a greater focus to its members then it seems odd to make “latter-day saints” the only legitimate short-form option for describing its members.
  13. I think that’s where some of the chiasmuses (chiasmi???) happen organically. The writer plays out a concept that has KJV commonality and then plays it back a second time, working backwards before commenting on it further and exploring around the topic some more. I had found several examples of that some years ago (one where Peter was quoted I think). I’ve since lost the notes to the mists of time. It was for personal conclusions, not publication, so I didn’t keep it all in a meticulous structure.
  14. “The Church” is easy on this board. When referring to the church itself, that’s probably the way I’ve always referenced it on here too. I might have used “the LDS church” a few times too, which I’ll likely drop in this context. In wider circles, such as when my former membership of the church comes up in conversation (such as when I tell people why I’ve only been drinking alcohol for a few years), I’ll almost certainly refer to it as “the Mormon church” / “Mormon” / “Mormonism.” Not because of any spite or even indifference towards Pres. Nelson or the church members, but because communication is about sending and receiving information. “Mormon” does that among non-church members (especially outside USA, or perhaps even Utah). In marketing and rebranding, it’s the organisation’s job, not the public’s, to raise awareness and meaning for a new name and label. At the moment, the style guide is suggesting that when I want to talk with non-members about “Mormonism” I should talk about “the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.” You and I both work (or worked?) in media and communication. As a label, the 99.9% of the world population who are not active church members are highly unlikely to replace “mormonism” with that phrase.
  15. Reminds me of the town in Wales. Frustrated at the trains not stopping at the station, the local minister wanted a way of getting the train drivers’ attention so put up a new town name on the platform: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyndrobwyllllantisiliogogogoch... having written it out, Bangkok’s full name has it beat by a country mile. Locals just call it “Llanfairpwll”
×
×
  • Create New...