thesometimesaint Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 So? Other people are also Americans whether or not they claim to be.Right of first choice. Ask a person from the New Republic of the United States of Brazil(its legal name) what they want to be called. They'll tell you Brazilian
mfbukowski Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Heh, some people can see whatever they want to see in a picture, I guess.It is not a bunny, or a duck, although it may make some people think of one, I guess.This makes the same point:http://en.wikipedia....chery_of_Images Edited August 16, 2012 by mfbukowski 2
cwald Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) I'm not talking about church membership. I'm talking about a coherent intellectual content associated with the term Mormon.No.Well, this is has been an interesting discussion.But, at the end of the day. I am a Mormon, whether any of you like it or agree with it. I am Mormon. And I don't meet the requirements set in the OP.Perhaps that was the whole purpose of the I am a Mormon campaign. Perhaps the church leadership were trying to teach THE MEMBERS that there is no creed or list of requirements that a person must accept or believe to be part of this family? Edited August 16, 2012 by cwald 2
thesometimesaint Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 cwald:Actually there is. They are contained in your baptismal covenant.
Ahab Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 They do to confuse the issue rather than clarify it. Ask 100 people whom they think of as Mormon. The answer 99% of the time it is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. <1% are going to think of the Community of Christ. A tiny minority of that <1% is going to think of the FLDS.Find the truth by consensus, huh. Surely the majority is never wrong.Sheesh. You'd think that kind of thinking would have died out by now, but nope, here it is yet again.And btw, I'm listening to a story on NPR radio about some women from the Catholic church. You think we should ask them who the one true Church is? Most people who are Christians would agree with them since the majority of Christians are Catholic.
Ahab Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Right of first choice. Ask a person from the New Republic of the United States of Brazil(its legal name) what they want to be called. They'll tell you BrazilianSo? They're still Americans, too, even though they may not want to be called that.
cwald Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) cwald:Actually there is. They are contained in your baptismal covenant.You might believe so...but that does not make it so. The church leaders have not kicked me out. The church leaders have not told me that I am not a Mormon or that I am not welcome to be Mormon. I claim Mormonism as my spiritual pathway...whether anyone here likes it or not. And I do not meet the four criteria set up by the OP. It doesn't matter if you or Bill Hamilton or anybody else on this board feels I need to meet those requirements, because the church leadership apparently doesn't agree with you.And I'm not talking about church membership. I'm talking about spiritual journey to find peace and the gods, in this life, and perhaps the next. Edited August 16, 2012 by cwald
thesometimesaint Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 I suppose a grapefruit not wanting to be called a banana should be called a banana anyway. After all they're both fruits. 1
CV75 Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 YeahYou mean anyone can call themelves whatever they want? Never heard that before--how did you come up with such a concept?!
Ahab Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 You might believe so...but that does not make it so. The church leaders have not kicked me out. The church leaders have not told me that I am not a Mormon or that I am not welcome to be Mormon. I claim Mormonism as my spiritual pathway...whether anyone here likes it or not. And I do not meet the four criteria set up by the OP. It doesn't matter if you or Bill Hamilton or anybody else on this board feels I need to meet those requirements, because the church leadership apparently doesn't agree with you.And I'm not talking about church membership. I'm talking about spiritual journey to find peace and the gods, in this life, and perhaps the next.That is as it should be, cwald. Church leadership has no real desire to cast you out from among us, and they would rather avoid that at almost all costs. They'll usually initiate that only when someone really wants to leave us, but on rare occasions they will cast someone out if they're making a lot of big trouble. Heh, it's not as if they can stop or hinder the work of our Lord, though.In the early days of the Restoration it wasn't like it is now, and they would cast some out for what we now consider minor offenses, but I think it's good that we're more tolerant now. We don't really want anyone to be against us, because we know they would be in big trouble.
Ahab Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 You mean anyone can call themelves whatever they want? Never heard that before--how did you come up with such a concept?!No, that's not what I mean.Would you like to guess again based on what the words I used really mean now?
thesometimesaint Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 You might believe so...but that does not make it so. The church leaders have not kicked me out. The church leaders have not told me that I am not a Mormon or that I am not welcome to be Mormon. I claim Mormonism as my spiritual pathway...whether anyone here likes it or not. And I do not meet the four criteria set up by the OP. It doesn't matter if you or Bill Hamilton or anybody else on this board feels I need to meet those requirements, because the church leadership apparently doesn't agree with you.And I'm not talking about church membership. I'm talking about spiritual journey to find peace and the gods, in this life, and perhaps the next.That is what the Church publishes as its rules for membership. So it's not me making the claim.The Church seldom kicks anyone out who wants to be there. I welcome you to sit with me anytime in Church services you want. I'll be glad to save you a seat. I usually sit in the front row of the Chapel.Anyone whom is not an Atheist is on a spiritual journey. But a Buddhist can't reasonably claim to be a Mormon, and still claim to be a Buddhist at the same time.
Ahab Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) That is what the Church publishes as its rules for membership. So it's not me making the claim.The Church seldom kicks anyone out who wants to be there. I welcome you to sit with me anytime in Church services you want. I'll be glad to save you a seat. I usually sit in the front row of the Chapel.Do you mean up there on the stand against the wall there, or the first row as you come in through the door? Just wondering. I might pop in and join you sometime, if you'll let me sit with you.Anyone whom is not an Atheist is on a spiritual journey. But a Buddhist can't reasonably claim to be a Mormon, and still claim to be a Buddhist at the same time.What do you think there would be about their claim to be a Buddist that would disqualify them from being a Mormon, too? You might not think they would mix in any degree whatsoever, but I can see someone having a little of this and of that. Heck, a person can even be both a Catholic and a Mormon.And btw, even Atheists are on a spiritual journey, even though they may not realize it.We're all spirits and we're all going somewhere. Edited August 16, 2012 by Ahab
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Heh, that was funny. You said you had never heard someone not from the United States refer to themselves as an American, and your wife had told you that she did. Listen to your wife, more, Mola. You have an excellent example of an American not from the United States living with you.Um no. They never said that they were American when referring to their nationality or their country of citizenship. Please pay attention.I'm talking about the American continent, which is divided into North, Central, and South America. America isn't a term that refers only to the United States, as some people seem to think. People from the United States are considered Americans, too, though. When referring to a nationality or a country, America, is the only country identified as such in the Americas.Did you miss the part about Uruagauy?No, some people know what they mean and just don't agree with their claim to have sole ownership of the term American. It actually refers to a lot of other people, too.Yeah but when some one asks what country are you from only those people from the USA commonly referred to as "America" ever make that claim.People from Argentina when asked "what country are you from" would never say "America". Why? Because it is not a descriptor of Argentina. Got it? America is a continent and it is also a country. I wish you could see that. Only smug ignorance does not. Edited August 16, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) So? They're still Americans, too, even though they may not want to be called that.Not when we are talking about a country or some one's national identity. Please pay attention.You are so conflating the issue here.Country and continent are not the same thing are they?I knew there was a reason I largely ignore you. Edited August 16, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
mfbukowski Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 No.Well, this is has been an interesting discussion.But, at the end of the day. I am a Mormon, whether any of you like it or agree with it. I am Mormon. And I don't meet the requirements set in the OP.Perhaps that was the whole purpose of the I am a Mormon campaign. Perhaps the church leadership were trying to teach THE MEMBERS that there is no creed or list of requirements that a person must accept or believe to be part of this family?This is probably the only time ever I have agreed with you, brother! 1
Ahab Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Um no. They never said that they were American when referring to their nationality or their country of citizenship. Please pay attention.Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying your wife was from Argentina and when asked she would say she was from America, in which case she would be right, because Argentina is on the American continent and therefore part of America.When referring to a nationality or a country, America is the only country identified as such in the Americas. Did you miss the part about Uruagauy?Whether or not it is identified as being the United States of America or not, any place on the American continent can correcdtly be referred to as part of America. Did you miss my point, or were you so stuck on your point that you couldn't see the truth I was sharing?Yeah but when some one asks what country are you from only those people from the USA commonly referred to as "America" ever make that claim.Okay, but whether or not they claim it, they are American if they are citizens of someplace in America. People from Argentina when asked "what country are you from" would never say "America". Why? Because it is not a descriptor of Argentina. Got it?It actually is a descriptor of Argentina because it identifies Argentina as being part of the continent we call America.America is a continent and it is also a country. I wish you could see that. Only smug ignorance does not.I see what you see but I'm adding more that I see that you don't seem to see yet.Is smug ignorance the reason you don't see what I see? In any event, whether you see it or not, what I am saying is true.
Analytics Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 So? They're still Americans, too, even though they may not want to be called that.When I'm in Latin America, I tell people I'm an estadounidense when asked. The literal translation of "estadounidense" is "United Statsian." The accepted, standardized definition of "estadounidense" is "a citizen of the United States." But I now wonder if Mexicans should object to that--after all, the offidial name of the country of Mexico is "the United States of Mexico" (Estados Unidos Mexicanos). So shouldn't Mexicans be free to call themselves estadounidenses too? They live in their own United States.By the way, if you translate estadounidense into English, you get American.
cwald Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 This is probably the only time ever I have agreed with you, brother!
Analytics Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Sorry, I guess I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying your wife was from Argentina and when asked she would say she was from America, in which case she would be right, because Argentina is on the American continent and therefore part of America...Here is the latest Fox News Headline:7 American troops die in Afghan helicopter crashhttp://www.foxnews.c...licopter-crash/I'd suggest that in the modern English language, this headline is not in any way ambiguous regarding what nation the troops are from. Can you imagine somebody from Brazil reading this and saying, "7 Americans died? How awful--I hope they weren't Brazilian!" Edited August 16, 2012 by Analytics
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) Here is the latest Fox News Headline:7 American troops die in Afghan helicopter crashhttp://www.foxnews.c...licopter-crash/I'd suggest that in the modern English language, this headline is not in any way ambiguous regarding what nation the troops are from. Can you imagine somebody from Brazil reading this and saying, "7 Americans died? How awful--I hope they weren't Brazilian!"Well, At least you understand me. This is a great example of what I am talking about. When talking about a national identity or country the U.S. is the only country that is or has been referred to as "America" Or "American".Incidentally it appears that a Brazilian has no problem referring to a United States citizen as an American. From what I understand it is only Canadians and Spanish speaking Latino's that take issue with the word and how we American's (And most the rest of the world) use it. You can Google American and read the wiki article about it. Edited August 16, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram 1
harfad Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Yeah, like someone who is not a member of the Church thinking they are a Mormon, too, even though some other Mormons do not like them using that term.How about what we often call a Fundamentalist Mormon, who is not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints?Still a Mormon, although a Fundamentalist kind of Mormon, and they don't have to use the term "Fundamentalist" to define what kind of Mormon they are. They could just say they're a Mormon, and they would be right about that, just as an American doesn't have to be a citizen of the United States.Wasn't it Gordon B. Hinckley who said that "there is no such thing as a fundamentalist Mormon"? 1
Rich Hansen Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 The Lord calls them "shepherds":And, btw, it is my calling."I think the Lord is saying that He will drive out the wolves to protect HIs flock. The Saviour was using "shepherd" and "flock" to represent Himself and the Church. Not sure how you fit in the picture.
harfad Posted August 16, 2012 Posted August 16, 2012 Heh, that was funny. You said you had never heard someone not from the United States refer to themselves as an American, and your wife had told you that she did. Listen to your wife, more, Mola. You have an excellent example of an American not from the United States living with you.I'm talking about the American continent, which is divided into North, Central, and South America. America isn't a term that refers only to the United States, as some people seem to think. People from the United States are considered Americans, too, though.No, some people know what they mean and just don't agree with their claim to have sole ownership of the term American. It actually refers to a lot of other people, too.I have heard some Latin American people (who obviously like the people of the United States a lot) refer to them as "Americanos" (in a derisive manner). I don't think they would want to refer to themselves in the same way!
Recommended Posts