The Unwritten Order Of Things™

[mercyngrace]

Actually it's the fat of rams, not the blood of bulls. The blood of bulls was used to propitiate Artemis (Diana) the goddess of the hunt, worshipped especially at Ephesus.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

edit: Numbers 29 indicates bulls were offered for the Feast of Tabernacles.

Edited March 21, 2012 by mercyngrace

[mercyngrace]

Believe it or not, I've heard of that. I've even done it.

Being too unmotivated to get to Sacrament Meeting on time, or too happy socialising in the foyer to come into the meeting, is not quite the same as being in combat, snowed in or bedfast though, is it?

Regards,

Pahoran

And yet, those weren't descriptions I posed. They were your interpretations based on your preconceived idea about the unwritten order of things.

[Pahoran]

And yet, those weren't descriptions I posed. They were your interpretations based on your preconceived idea about the unwritten order of things.

You are relying upon mind-reading skills that have yet to be demonstrated.

You have not the slightest inkling of what my "preconceived idea about the unwritten order of things" might be; if, indeed, I have one.

I have not been talking about any "preconceived idea about the unwritten order of things." I have been talking about the Sacrament as a sacred ordinance and not a casual thing to be worked in wherever convenient. If I have any "preconceived idea about" any subject at all, it is the "preconceived idea" that people show what matters most to them by how they order their priorities.

This particular "preconceived idea," while it might seem so obvious as to be tautological, is one that I only gradually came to understand; but having understood it, everything I have since seen has tended to confirm it.

And so we are back to this: if a ward has a continuous problem of members showing up late for Sacrament Meeting, then that is most likely explained by the hypothesis that partaking of the Sacrament is not a priority for those members.

Yes, emergencies will arise, and it is altogether appropriate for the bishop to make provision for them. But it would be a highly unusual ward in which such emergencies were so routine as to require a weekly "second round" on the Sacrament.

Or to put it another way: I doubt very much that this situation is really caused by emergencies.

Now if you can manage to reply without presuming to tell me about my "preconceived idea" on a subject I have actually not thought much about, or casting aspersions upon how I view God, then please do so.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

As a convert what if I just did stuff and only worried about what was written as opposed to what is unwritten?

I have kind of struggled with that for the last 32 years.

How am I supposed to know about what nobody cares enough about to write down?

[mercyngrace]

Now if you can manage to reply without presuming to tell me about my "preconceived idea" on a subject I have actually not thought much about, or casting aspersions upon how I view God, then please do so.

Regards,

Pahoran

In the first place, I haven't made any comments about how you see God. You jumped into a conversation late and retroactively applied that comment to yourself. You put that shoe on, Pahoran, it's up to you to determine if it fits.

In the second place, I'm not attempting clairvoyance. I'm reading your posts. You've decided that people were demanding. You've decided they don't care about the sacrament. You've decided it was the same bunch week after week. You've been doling out judgment without facts ever since you arrived in the thread. What are you basing that judgment on? Since, you didn't ask for any more information, you can only be basing it on your ideas, as you have expressed them about (1) people who arrive late for church and (1) how the sacrament ought to be administered. Those are "preconceived" as in conceived before you started reading this thread.

You admitted so yourself in your latest comment when you said "This particular "preconceived idea," while it might seem so obvious as to be tautological, is one that I only gradually came to understand; but having understood it, everything I have since seen has tended to confirm it."

For someone who hasn't given this much thought, you still came in with a preconceived notion and are convinced that it is right based on your experiences. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion formed by your experiences. So why are you so annoyed that I point it out?

Edited March 21, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Pahoran]

In the first place, I haven't made any comments about how you see God. You jumped into a conversation late and retroactively applied that comment to yourself. You put that shoe on, Pahoran, it's up to you to determine if it fits.

I'm sorry, but wasn't this judgemental little throwaway line yours?

The rigidity with which some members interpret the gospel, church policies, and practices makes me wonder how they must perceive God.

Or were you talking about something else?

In the second place, I'm not attempting clairvoyance. I'm reading your posts.

In which I've said nothing about "the unwritten order of things."

You've decided that people were demanding.

That's false. Mtomm described someone demanding something.

You've decided they don't care about the sacrament. You've decided it was the same bunch week after week.

No, you described a ward that administered a second round of the Sacrament, in the chapel, week after week.

You've been doling out judgment without facts ever since you arrived in the thread. What are you basing that judgment on? Since, you didn't ask for any more information, you can only be basing it on your ideas, as you have expressed them about (1) people who arrive late for church and (1) how the sacrament ought to be administered. Those are "preconceived" as in conceived before you started reading this thread.

Two list items numbered one and one? You wouldn't be getting flustered now, would you?

I point out that yet again you are engaged in mind-reading. The conclusions I reached are entirely reasonable based upon the information provided in this thread.

You admitted so yourself in your latest comment when you said "This particular "preconceived idea," while it might seem so obvious as to be tautological, is one that I only gradually came to understand; but having understood it, everything I have since seen has tended to confirm it."

For someone who hasn't given this much thought, you still came in with a preconceived notion and are convinced that it is right based on your experiences. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with having an opinion formed by your experiences. So why are you so annoyed that I point it out?

As you really ought to know, Mercy, the fact that I have a "preconceived" idea on one subject does not mean that I have "preconceived" ideas on any other.

Now: is it just my imagination, or are your posts looking increasingly Harmonious? And Serene?

And if so, should we start expecting some WAZingers from you soon?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

I'm sorry, but wasn't this judgemental little throwaway line yours?

Or were you talking about something else?

It wasn't judgmental. It was sincere. I wonder how people who are so rigid about the gospel perceive God.

In which I've said nothing about "the unwritten order of things."

Are you aware of the thread title?

That's false. Mtomm described someone demanding something.

No, Pahoran, you are misstating again. Mtomm did not use the word demanding at all. Here are her exact words:

Here's one for ya:

Young adult woman misses Sacrament meeting but is there in time to tell the Priests that she wants to partake of the Sacrament now even though the meeting is over. In a perusing of the CHI it appears to be mute on the subject.

Your thoughts? I won't say yet what the Bishop did but he was taken off-guard.

Mtomm doesn't say she demanded it. She says she wanted to partake. She could have just asked if it were possible. You were the one who negatively described this situation. That was your bias coming through.

No, you described a ward that administered a second round of the Sacrament, in the chapel, week after week.

And you assumed that the same ward members were regularly showing up late, which was not the case. For the record, it was a huge ward and people were not socializing in the foyer per your description, they were typically tending to small children.

Two list items numbered one and one? You wouldn't be getting flustered now, would you?

Flustered? Not even a bit. Disracted? Definitely. It's almost 1 a.m. here and that's a little late for me. The better question is why you are pointing out a typo instead of addressing the the mislabeled points. You wouldn't be getting flustered now, would you?

I point out that yet again you are engaged in mind-reading. The conclusions I reached are entirely reasonable based upon the information provided in this thread.

I disagree. I read Mtomm's post and did not immediately presume the young woman described therein marched into the chapel demanding to have the sacrament. I read it as the young woman wanted to partake and the bishop was caught off guard by the request.

As you really ought to know, Mercy, the fact that I have a "preconceived" idea on one subject does not mean that I have "preconceived" ideas on any other.

I don't even know what you are referring to here, Pahoran. What other subjects are we discussing now?

Now: is it just my imagination, or are your posts looking increasingly Harmonious? And Serene?

If you are being sarcastic and implying that I'm getting annoyed, you couldn't be more wrong. Not only am I not bothered, I'm wondering why you are. I don't know why you are so offended by me but we seem unable to agree on anything and y'know what? I'm okay with that. I usually opt not to respond to your posts because I believe that experience has shown we don't communicate well with one another or bring out the best in one another.

And if so, should we start expecting some WAZingers from you soon?

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't know what a WAZinger is. But if it has caffeine I should probably wait until morning.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I find it rather frustrating that mercyngrace says everything I would have said, except in such a way that she proves she is a nicer and more patient person than I am. And as if that wasn't enough, I'm outta rep points for the day!

It is a cold, cruel world.

[Senator]

I'm outta rep points for the day!

Well, I'm not!

I could sit and sup with M&G all day long!

[Scott Lloyd]

No, Pahoran, you are misstating again. Mtomm did not use the word demanding at all. Here are her exact words:

Here's one for ya:

Young adult woman misses Sacrament meeting but is there in time to tell the Priests that she wants to partake of the Sacrament now even though the meeting is over. In a perusing of the CHI it appears to be mute on the subject.

Your thoughts? I won't say yet what the Bishop did but he was taken off-guard.

Mtomm doesn't say she demanded it. She says she wanted to partake. She could have just asked if it were possible. You were the one who negatively described this situation. That was your bias coming through.

Perhaps you missed Mtomm's subsequent post wherein he described the woman as being "put out" when the bishop hesitated. And she argued the point, saying what had been done in other wards she attended. Sounds rather demanding to me.

It was at that point when I made my post linking to the Eagles' song "Get Over It" and the YouTube video about the woman who called the police because Burger King got her order wrong.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, I'm not!

I could sit and sup with M&G all day long!

I, on the other hand, think Pahoran has made some astute points about not trivializing the sacrament according to one's whim or sense of entitlement.

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't know what a WAZinger is. But if it has caffeine I should probably wait until morning.

Have you gone by the screen name "Serenity" or "Harmony" here or on other boards? If so, I understand Pahoran's reference perfectly.

[mercyngrace]

Have you gone by the screen name "Serenity" or "Harmony" here or on other boards? If so, I understand Pahoran's reference perfectly.

No. I have not. Which should be evident since I didn't even get Pahoran's implication.

Fortunately, Scott, not everyone in the world lives down to Pahoran's low expectations.

And frankly, he and I have butt heads enough that I would think he would know better but apparently, personal attacks and lumping everyone who dares disagree with him into the anti-mormon camp is the fallback position.

Classy.

PS If you feel so inclined, ask members of the UMW if I am or was either of the posters you mentioned. They all know my IRL identity. If you spent more time getting to know the members on your own team rather than lobbing grenades randomly all over the ball field, neither you or Pahoran would have to make such asinine assertions.

Edited March 21, 2012 by mercyngrace

[Calm]

Mercyngrace is most definitely not Serenity/Harmony. I am clueless as to how you think there is any connection. I see no resemblance between either Harmony's alleged real onboard persona or the combo 'gotcha' persona she introduced herself with.

Edited March 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[Pahoran]

It wasn't judgmental. It was sincere. I wonder how people who are so rigid about the gospel perceive God.

Yeah, right.

No, Pahoran, you are misstating again. Mtomm did not use the word demanding at all. Here are her exact words:

Here's one for ya:

Young adult woman misses Sacrament meeting but is there in time to tell the Priests that she wants to partake of the Sacrament now even though the meeting is over. In a perusing of the CHI it appears to be mute on the subject.

Your thoughts? I won't say yet what the Bishop did but he was taken off-guard.

Mtomm doesn't say she demanded it. She says she wanted to partake. She could have just asked if it were possible. You were the one who negatively described this situation. That was your bias coming through.

Really?

Did you notice the following from mtomm?

Well, needless to say this bishop was taken aback and wasn't sure what to do. The priests come up to ask him because they thought they needed to re-bless it. He kinda hemmed and hawed and the gal was getting pretty put out and saying that she had been allowed to in other wards (being new to our ward). The bishop didn't really see the need for her to take if she missed it during the meeting. But in order to not offend and not knowing if there was anything to prohibit it he just told her to take it. It did not get a new blessing.

Mtomm doesn't use the word "demand" or any of its cognates. But he certainly describes someone demanding something, doesn't he?

But if you can't see the demanding behaviour described, perhaps it's just your bias coming through.

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Mercyngrace is most definitely not Serenity/Harmony. I am clueless as to how you think there is any connection. I see no resemblance between either Harmony's alleged real onboard persona or the combo 'gotcha' persona she introduced herself with.

Thanks Cal.

I'm not sure either Scott or Pahoran actually believe I am Harmony/Serenity. I'm thinking this was a well-poisoning tactic designed to marginalize and discredit creating a false association.

[mercyngrace]

Yeah, right.

Do you have any ability to take people at face value? Do you always inject your intonation and abundance of sarcasm into their words? Talk about preconceived notions.

But if you can't see the demanding behaviour described, perhaps it's just your bias coming through.

Regards,

Pahoran

Very possible. But then, I never pretended that I came into the thread without preconceived notions, did I?

[Pahoran]

Do you have any ability to take people at face value? Do you always inject your intonation and abundance of sarcasm into their words? Talk about preconceived notions.

Yes, I'm sure you will. Incessantly.

But the fact is that your statement works far better as a disdainful aspersion than anything else. There is no logical connection between how a person sees their duty vis-a-vis the rules, procedures and/or traditions of the Church, and how they perceive God.

None at all.

Very possible. But then, I never pretended that I came into the thread without preconceived notions, did I?

Nor did I. As in fact you know.

Thanks Cal.

I'm not sure either Scott or Pahoran actually believe I am Harmony/Serenity. I'm thinking this was a well-poisoning tactic designed to marginalize and discredit creating a false association.

Harmony/Serenity was (1) a female poster who (2) chose screen names that represented positive, peaceful concepts; who (3) consistently argued for "liberal" positions; who (4) frequently reminded us of how loyally she sustained her Priesthood leaders; who (5) showed practiced skill at taking out-of-context snippets from her opponents' posts and interpreting them to mean something entirely other than what they actually meant; and who (6) has shown up with sockpuppet accounts more than once.

Now why on earth would anyone wonder whether she might be doing it again?

Regards,

Pahoran

[mercyngrace]

Harmony/Serenity was (1) a female poster who (2) chose screen names that represented positive, peaceful concepts; who (3) consistently argued for "liberal" positions; who (4) frequently reminded us of how loyally she sustained her Priesthood leaders; who (5) showed practiced skill at taking out-of-context snippets from her opponents' posts and interpreting them to mean something entirely other than what they actually meant; and who (6) has shown up with sockpuppet accounts more than once.

Now why on earth would anyone wonder whether she might be doing it again?

Regards,

Pahoran

Flail much?

[MorningStar]

Mercy is not Harmony.

[Scott Lloyd]

Thanks Cal.

I'm not sure either Scott or Pahoran actually believe I am Harmony/Serenity. I'm thinking this was a well-poisoning tactic designed to marginalize and discredit creating a false association.

For my part, it was just a question attached to an if-then conditional, not a devious attempt at well-poisoning, as you allege. Pahoran's allusion did raise the suspicion in my mind, and I really was wondering. Serenity/Harmony/Wazing has quite a history on this and other boards of posing behind sock puppets, and I make no apology for doing some occasional probing.

But, of all the people on the board, I find calmoriah to be the most trustworthy and I do believe her.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

If you spent more time getting to know the members on your own team rather than lobbing grenades randomly all over the ball field, neither you or Pahoran would have to make such asinine assertions.

Read my post again. It was a question, not an assertion.

[mercyngrace]

Read my post again. It was a question, not an assertion.

Fair enough, but the descriptor stands. I've been posting on this board for three years, Scott. You and I have interacted various times and even when we have disagreed, you've never suggested that I was a sockpuppet or anything less than genuine.

Suddenly Pahoran throws out an assertion and questions come to mind? You could have just listened to the Spirit. He knows the truthfulness of all things.

[Pahoran]

And frankly, he and I have butt heads enough that I would think he would know better

I see.

I should know better, but apparently you don't need to.

Got it.

PS If you feel so inclined, ask members of the UMW if I am or was either of the posters you mentioned. They all know my IRL identity. If you spent more time getting to know the members on your own team rather than lobbing grenades randomly all over the ball field, neither you or Pahoran would have to make such asinine assertions.

Do you understand the difference between an assertion and a question?

If you want to lend some credibility to your pose of enlightened superiority, you might want to re-think some of your tactics; especially the one where you flat-out misrepresent the positions of your ideological opponents.

Just a suggestion.

Flail much?

Not really, no.

And now since having the last word seems so important to you, why don't you go ahead?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

For my part, it was just a question attached to an if-then conditional, not a devious attempt at well-poisoning, as you allege. Pahoran's allusion did raise the suspicion in my mind, and I really was wondering. Serenity/Harmony/Wazing has quite a history on this and other boards of posing behind sock puppets, and I make no apology for doing some occasional probing.

But, of all the people on the board, I find calmoriah to be the most trustworthy and I do believe her.

I'm Pahoran and I endorse this message.

Regards,

Pahoran