Watershed Moment in General Conference?

[Scott Lloyd]

section 107

Of what?

[consiglieri]

Nobody's threatening litigation here. It's not my job to enforce the Church's intellectual property rights. I just ran across that section the other day and wondered if LDS Guy was aware of Church policy on the matter. Just thought I'd mention it in case nobody else did.

I looked it up using the link you provided:

The Church

[mercyngrace]

I abjure you in the name of all that is holy to resist the temptation to seek out Will's words elsewhere.

It is a fate not to be visited on the TBMest of TBMs.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

...based as it is in the practice of coprophagia...?

[consiglieri]

...based as it is in the practice of coprophagia...?

Somebody's been peeking . . .

Normally Will doesn't dress up his vile postings in so much Greek.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[zerinus]

If that is so, it should make full equality of women in the priesthood that much shorter a trip to the candy shop.

That is not such a far fetched idea. If my understanding of Church history is correct, there is evidence that Joseph Smith gave some form of the priesthood to women, or at least said that it was a possibility. The temple ceremony also seems to imply such a thing.

[LDS Guy 1986]

On an unrelated note, are you aware your use of the Church's official logo as your avatar may amount to copyright or trademark infringement? See the new Handbook 2: Administering the Church under "Selected Church Policies," "21.1.10 Church Name and Logotype."

If so then I will gladly face the justice of the prophet and allow him to give me my 30 lashes on temple square at high noon tomorrow.

Correction it is 60 lashes since it is also part of my screen saver?

Unless it is 30 lashes for each time the logo rotates on as part of my screen saver picture group, if that is the case the prophet might as well go ahead and tell Mrs. Monson he going to be home later tomorrow!

[LDS Guy 1986]

Take up for Consiglieri and a lawsuit is in the offing.

Cool.

And thanks to those of you who understand me well enough to know what makes me tick while not getting too ticked off at my antics.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I hope to grow up to be just like you one day! ROFL

[zerinus]

If so then I will gladly face the justice of the prophet and allow him to give me my 30 lashes on temple square at high noon tomorrow.

The maximum is 40 under the law of Moses.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The maximum is 40 under the law of Moses.

Is that total or per offense though?

[mercyngrace]

Somebody's been peeking . . .

Normally Will doesn't dress up his vile postings in so much Greek.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It was at Will's encouragement. Earlier in the thread, he encouraged anyone interested to seek his posts in any venue.

I'm done though. The investigation has proven unworthy of my time.

[Scott Lloyd]

I looked it up using the link you provided:

This strikes me as offensive on a number of levels.

Somewhere along the way, the LDS Church seems to have forgotten we are the LDS Church.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri (Italian for "Keeps ticking away")

See my reply on the separate thread you started.

[Scott Lloyd]

If so then I will gladly face the justice of the prophet and allow him to give me my 30 lashes on temple square at high noon tomorrow.

The question is whether you are going to continue to act in violation of the policy now that you have been made aware of it.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The question is whether you are going to continue to act in violation of the policy now that you have been made aware of it.

I see no violation, it is a private non commercial use, so I fail to see how this is copyright infringement, especially seeing that I found the logo on a LDS blog. So they are the real criminal and I the innocent victim, mr law man!

[Scott Lloyd]

I see no violation, it is a private non commercial use, so I fail to see how this is copyright infringement, especially seeing that I found the logo on a LDS blog. So they are the real criminal and I the innocent victim, mr law man!

Whether or not the Church has the legal right to forbid you from using its logo is a separate issue. The fact is, the policy has been stated and published and you (apparently) have chosen deliberately to violate it. That would give me pause, as a Church member, were I to find myself in such a position.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Whether or not the Church has the legal right to forbid you from using its logo is a separate issue. The fact is, the policy has been stated and published and you (apparently) have chosen deliberately to violate it. As a Church member, that would give me pause if I were to find myself in such a position.

Like I said according to your outhouse lawyer baloney, the ward Bishop cannot put the logo on the weekly programs, or use the logo when promoting a ward social event, nor can a missionary make holiday cards with the logo on it.

Stop being a crappy lawyer and look at reality, it is non commercial private use, it is not a violation of any copyright law in the United States, and the Church doesn't intend it that way either.

Only outhouse lawyers like to see things that way.

[Pahoran]

Under the Correlation Program instituted by Harold B. Lee circa 1970, all Church programs and auxiliaries, including Relief Society, were subsumed under the Priesthood.

We are now seeing a trend away from that patriarchal hegemony, as women have been allowed on councils that make decisions over priesthood holders, thus extending the stewardship of at least some women over the priesthood.

You are daydreaming, as usual.

Women have participated in those councils for years.

Just as Primary Presidents have presided over male teachers and pianists for years.

Evidently the "watershed moment" was when you finally found out about how the Church has been running all along.

Women have gone from being relatively independent of the priesthood, to being completely subject to the priesthood, to having authority and stewardship by way of their inclusion on councils over those who hold the priesthood.

No. They have not.

The Relief Society, although it had its own magazine and budget, was originally established after the pattern of the Priesthood, and under the auspices of the President -- and presiding high priest -- of the Church. IOW, like everything else in the Church, it has always functioned under Priesthood direction.

And it still does.

The only participants in Church councils who have "authority and stewardship ... over those who hold the priesthood" are those who have such authority and stewardship outside of the council as well. Such councils do not make their decisions by vote, and they get their authority from the presiding officer.

This is remarkably elementary stuff, Consig. I'm really suprised that you just don't get it.

I continue to see this as a significant shift in power.

Do you?

The Priesthood is not about "power" in the political sense (see D&C 121:34-46); it is about service.

You know, I distinctly remember another participant who used to insist, in the face of overwhelming evidence against his argument, that he was still right. In fact, over the years, he has developed a technique of arguing that evidence against his argument actually supports it.

What was his name again?

That's right: "Dr Scratch."

Someone you evidently admire.

And if this trend should continue, the natural culmination will be women ordained to priesthood offices.

Really? How?

Explain how that radical departure would constitute a "natural culmination." Perhaps you'd like to sketch out the flow of projected events that goes to that point. I rather suspect that the diagram might look like the one shown here.

Incidentally, I very distinctly remember June 1978. Nobody saw that as any "natural culmination" of anything that had gone before. I mention it, not because there's any meaningful analogy between the situations of women now and blacks pre-1978, but because all the slipshod slogan-thinkers rather mindlessly assume that there is, and because the change you blissfully daydream about -- entirely unlike the June 1978 revelation -- would in fact be a significant structural change in the Church.

Regards,

Pahoran

[consiglieri]

It was at Will's encouragement. Earlier in the thread, he encouraged anyone interested to seek his posts in any venue.

I'm done though. The investigation has proven unworthy of my time.

Wow.

A double-link zinger!

Time for Will to slowly back away from this pistol packing mama.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Scott Lloyd]

Like I said according to your outhouse lawyer baloney, the ward Bishop cannot put the logo on the weekly programs, or use the logo when promoting a ward social event, nor can a missionary make holiday cards with the logo on it.

Stop being a crappy lawyer and look at reality, it is non commercial private use, it is not a violation of any copyright law in the United States, and the Church doesn't intend it that way either.

Only outhouse lawyers like to see things that way.

Again, the legality is a separate issue. I'm talking about one's personal integrity as a member of the Church. But again, we can resolve this question by your contacting Church representatives, making them aware of your intentions and then reporting back their response.

[consiglieri]

You are daydreaming, as usual.

A customarily nice introduction, Pahoran.

This is remarkably elementary stuff, Consig. I'm really suprised that you just don't get it.

You say this in practically every post, Pahoran. One would think you would stop being surprised after a while.

The Priesthood is not about "power" in the political sense (see D&C 121:34-46); it is about service.

Within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, priesthood office is the consummate political power.

You know, I distinctly remember another participant who used to insist, in the face of overwhelming evidence against his argument, that he was still right. In fact, over the years, he has developed a technique of arguing that evidence against his argument actually supports it.

What was his name again?

That's right: "Dr Scratch."

Someone you evidently admire.

Good zinger, Pahoran.

The punch line didn't live up to the protracted delivery, but you really put me in my place with that one.

I think the technical term for what you are aiming at is guilt by association, but you would have to first think linking my name with Scratch's somehow harms me.

I'm really surprised that you just don't get it.

Incidentally, I very distinctly remember June 1978. Nobody saw that as any "natural culmination" of anything that had gone before.

Surely you jest. One can look back and see the stepping stones leading to that decision as clear as day.

It will be the same when women receive the priesthood.

It will all become clear for you, then.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Anijen]

Just a humble observation;

On Will Schryver I have never seen a post of his that has offended me or made me feel "uncomfortable." I will not go looking for dirt as it would be a waste of time (like me posting isn't already enough of one). We all from time to time have probably wanted to take a post back. I for one welcome his remarks,

On LDSguy I too find that the LDS logo use on an avatar or sacrament program harmless, nevertheless after reading Scott's post I myself would not do so on either an avatar nor a program any longer. Quibbling over small things always seems to go before the larger ones, when one day we wake up feeling the brethren are wrong and we know better, this becomes a slippery slope I for one never want to be on.

On Women and revelation I see no evidence of any undermining of priesthood authority at all. I for one am very grateful for all that they do and in most cases do so in a manner much better than us grumpy old men.

I hope that we all can be united and one in spirit, were not quite there.

My favorite scripture; Moroni 7:48 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, pray unto the Father with all the energy of heart, that ye may be filled with this love, which he hath bestowed upon all who are true followers of his Son, Jesus Christ; that ye may become the sons of God; that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is; that we may have this hope; that we may be purified even as he is pure. Amen.

[consiglieri]

I'm talking about one's personal integrity as a member of the Church.

LDS Guy has no integrity because he uses the Church logo in his avatar?

Don't you think that's a tad extreme?

P.S. to Anijen--thank you for your good hearted remarks.

[bookofmormontruth]

Whether or not the Church has the legal right to forbid you from using its logo is a separate issue. The fact is, the policy has been stated and published and you (apparently) have chosen deliberately to violate it. That would give me pause, as a Church member, were I to find myself in such a position.

With all due respect Scott, LDSGuy1986 is harmless and shouldn't be thrown under the bus in a public forum.

It is on him.

Back in the day, members supported other members unconditionally. They were loyal through thick and thin. And when needed to be "corrected" it was done in private.

Now, I am hoping I don't receive a private message that my image is in "violation".

[Scott Lloyd]

LDS Guy has no integrity because he uses the Church logo in his avatar?

Don't you think that's a tad extreme?

It's not merely a matter of using the Church's logo. It's deliberately defying a stated and published policy. If he feels he has good reasons not to abide by it, let him be above board about it and inform the people responsible for it at Church headquarters, explaining his reasoning. If he does so, and they tell him they're OK with it, and he produces evidence of that response, I'll be satisfied.

If I were going to use someone's physical property, the decent thing would be for me to obtain that person's permission first. The same logic applies to the use of intellectual property.

[Scott Lloyd]

With all due respect Scott, LDSGuy1986 is harmless and shouldn't be thrown under the bus in a public forum.

Perhaps, in hindsight, I should have mentioned this in a personal e-mail. My bad for not doing so. I think, though, that any harm from his having been "thrown under a bus in a public forum" is mitigated by the fact that he posts anonymously and presumably none of us knows his identity. So it is, essentially, an academic discussion and there may be some value to be gained from that discussion.

Initially, I thought that he probably wasn't aware of the policy and his behavior was due to lack of that awareness. There is, of course, no shame in that. Only after he asserted his intention to ignore the policy after having been informed of it (and Consiglieri started a separate thread to evaluate the policy itself) did this become a matter of protracted discussion.

[Calm]

With all due respect Scott, LDSGuy1986 is harmless and shouldn't be thrown under the bus in a public forum.

It is on him.

Back in the day, members supported other members unconditionally. They were loyal through thick and thin. And when needed to be "corrected" it was done in private.

Now, I am hoping I don't receive a private message that my image is in "violation".

To the board guidelines....probably. You might want to reread the section about copyright and ask for clarification from the moderators if they mean something like your avatar or not.