Jump to content


Time To Revisit


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#61 Log

Log

    Everyone loves Log!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,286 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 02:03 PM

View Postcalmoriah, on 24 April 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

What, lawyers don't make mistakes in communication?
I would not expect them to, no - don't they go to school for an additional 6 years to make them masters of communication?

Edited by Log, 24 April 2012 - 02:07 PM.

Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme. - Karl Popper

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane

#62 calmoriah

calmoriah

    Dulce de labris loquuntur, corde vivunt noxio.

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 33,075 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:00 PM

Do you know any lawyers personally?  I do and they make mistakes all the time, even in their legal work.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith

#63 Log

Log

    Everyone loves Log!

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,286 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:21 PM

View Postcalmoriah, on 24 April 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Do you know any lawyers personally?  I do and they make mistakes all the time, even in their legal work.
Let's see, there's at least three in my ward, one of which is the Stake President.

I just figure if a lawyer uses a rhetorical trick to gain the upper hand in an argument, they mean to use it.  Would you not agree?
Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme. - Karl Popper

If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane

#64 ERayR

ERayR

    Stranger in a Strange Land

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,476 posts

Posted 24 April 2012 - 03:28 PM

View PostBuckeye, on 24 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

I think the amount of scholarship on the priesthood ban is larger than that for MMM.  Thus, if the Church could "apologize" or "express regret" (choose your phrase) for MMM, it could also do so for the priesthood ban.  If additional understanding is needed, then it should be sought.  Perhaps the Church could commission an independent review of all the historical materials relating to the ban, just at it did with MMM.

You are a smart fellow so I think you know the difference between an apology and expressing regret.  I often express regret that I didn't win the lottery but I do not apologize for not buying a ticket.

Are you willing to swear unequivocally that you know what was in the minds of those who started this practice?

#65 Bob Oliverio

Bob Oliverio

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 210 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 03:54 PM

http://www.chron.com...-in-3520651.php

Again, this is the very problem.  Unofficial individuals and unofficial websites that simply don't have the official backing of The Church trying to come across as making official statements.  I have know idea who these two guys mentioned in the article are nor have I ever heard of this website.  But anyone, including the media can google onto all of the embarrassing statements of past prophets and leaders, as well as the whole "white and delightsome" of our scriptures, and is it any wonder they think our Church is racist!!!!

It's absolutely amazing to me that the best the Church can do is leave it those who have zero capacity to officially speak on behalf of the Church to attempt to provide official answers.  

Why is President Monson and/or The First Presidency so afraid to put themselves out in the public to answer questions  and explain our doctrines in an official capacity?

I mean how many in the general population would ever even see this websight?

#66 volgadon

volgadon

    Crazy Israeli & Filthy Socialist

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,763 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 04:04 PM

Quote

Again, this is the very problem.  Unofficial individuals and unofficial websites that simply don't have the official backing of The Church trying to come across as making official statements.

You have no idea how ironic that sounds.
Calba Savua's Orchard


I assure you that it is you that is ignorant of ancient Judaism. Read the Bible instead of listening to your teachers who appose [sic] the bible. -Echo

i REALLY NEVER NEW YOU WAS A UNLEARNED PERSON. -Lucy Ann Harmon, a facebook anti-Mormon

#67 ERayR

ERayR

    Stranger in a Strange Land

  • Contributor
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,476 posts

Posted 30 April 2012 - 08:11 PM

View PostBob Oliverio, on 30 April 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

http://www.chron.com...-in-3520651.php

Again, this is the very problem.  Unofficial individuals and unofficial websites that simply don't have the official backing of The Church trying to come across as making official statements.  I have know idea who these two guys mentioned in the article are nor have I ever heard of this website.  But anyone, including the media can google onto all of the embarrassing statements of past prophets and leaders, as well as the whole "white and delightsome" of our scriptures, and is it any wonder they think our Church is racist!!!!

It's absolutely amazing to me that the best the Church can do is leave it those who have zero capacity to officially speak on behalf of the Church to attempt to provide official answers.  

Why is President Monson and/or The First Presidency so afraid to put themselves out in the public to answer questions  and explain our doctrines in an official capacity?

I mean how many in the general population would ever even see this websight?

Because your interpretation of the events is not so cut and dried as you seem to think it is.


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users