Rain Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 (edited) Perhaps when one is sinning and can't have a calling they were foreordained to, then their children are missing out on blessings that they would have had through their parent having the calling? I don't know. Not very obvious to me though I can somewhat grasp the idea. Edited September 25, 2014 by Rain
tonie Posted September 25, 2014 Author Posted September 25, 2014 Perhaps when one is sinning and can't have a calling they were foreordained to then their children are missing out on blessings that they would have had through their parent having the calling? I don't know. Not very obvious to me though I can somewhat grasp the idea. The damage to a child, when the parents do not have a calling, is not obvious; but saying/posting it is obvious makes for great sound/text bites.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 The damage to a child, when the parents do not have a calling, is not obvious; but saying/posting it is obvious makes for great sound/text bites.It does? I don't agree with Bob that it causes kids harm. I think it might cause the person that never gets a calling harm but that is probably the extent there of.
tonie Posted September 25, 2014 Author Posted September 25, 2014 There are unfortunate circumstances, and then there is mockery of God's commandments. And there is also a hierarchy of sins. I am sometimes too easily annoyed with my lovely spouse. That's a sin, but I am working on getting better at it. But there is no comparison between that imperfection (and of course, plenty of others), and openly living in and indulging in a sin that has been identified as next to the taking of innocent human life in seriousness. Likewise, a wife, abandoned by her spouse and left to raise children without him is a hard row to hoe, but does not compare with blatant, open defiance of the law of chastity. I defy you to find a sexually active homosexual couple with children who bring them each week to LDS services and attend themselves. I might be surprised, but I'd put my money on there not even being one. So your point is merely hypothetical in any case. This discussion is not about homosexual activity, but is specifically about the apparent obvious damage to children when the childs parent does not have calling.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 I know. I hate those signs that say "Will work for questions".I prefer to donate my questions to responsible organizations that will help people get off the dole and earn their own questions. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 I think all this question begging needs to stop. People need to learn to stand on their own two feet and get off the question begging dole. I shudder to think that I live in a day when honest men are forced to survive by begging questions on the corners of intersections like common mimes.Perhaps they could earn their questions by selling opinions pendants on the street.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 .Though as Scott has so thoroughly made this post a his personal soap box. ...Well, had you accepted mfb's and my correction in good faith, or even just ignored it, and just moved on rather than belligerently resisting it, I daresay we wouldn't still be talking about it at this point. 1
mfbukowski Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 And all those out of work philosophers.Unless of course you go to a Certified Public Philosopher who does not have to beg for questions; in that case you get to beg for answers.
mfbukowski Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 Well, had you accepted mfb's and my correction in good faith, or even just ignored it, and just moved on rather than belligerently resisting it, I daresay we wouldn't still be talking about it at this point.Yep. Attitude is everything.
tonie Posted September 25, 2014 Author Posted September 25, 2014 Well, had you accepted mfb's and my correction in good faith, or even just ignored it, and just moved on rather than belligerently resisting it, I daresay we wouldn't still be talking about it at this point.You have by and large been only are unpleasant person to me online. The mental gymnastic you engage are gold medal worthy. You rarley have anything worthwhile, in response to me. You have repeatedly harrassed me over insignificant off topic issues in multiple threads. Using mfbs source I have demonstrated that my usage is acceptable, your unwillingness to accept that proof, is your own belligerent stubbornness. You have not provided a single thoughtful point of conversation that is on topic to this thread. Please stay out of the thread if cant not muster the maturity to stay on topic.
Buzzard Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 This discussion is not about homosexual activity, but is specifically about the apparent obvious damage to children when the childs parent does not have calling.I understand that, but the context going back to the thread that spawned this thread was damage to children from actively gay parents. To broaden the context, it's not the lack of a calling so much that since with few exceptions, ever active LDS has some form of calling. Whatever is keeping the parents from not being able to have a calling extended to them is what is causing the damage.
stemelbow Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 I understand that, but the context going back to the thread that spawned this thread was damage to children from actively gay parents. To broaden the context, it's not the lack of a calling so much that since with few exceptions, ever active LDS has some form of calling. Whatever is keeping the parents from not being able to have a calling extended to them is what is causing the damage. I'm not sure children are necessarily damaged because parents may not at some point in time be able or worthy to have a calling. The individual parents may be damaged, but I don't see how the children are.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 (edited) Using mfbs source I have demonstrated that my usage is acceptable, your unwillingness to accept that proof, is your own belligerent stubbornness. On the contrary, you didn't demonstrate (much less, prove) that your substandard usage is acceptable, only that it happens. Description is not validation. Otherwise, everything would be acceptable. Edited September 25, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 1
Buzzard Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 I'm not sure children are necessarily damaged because parents may not at some point in time be able or worthy to have a calling. The individual parents may be damaged, but I don't see how the children are.Depends on the why. If they don't hold a calling because of a WoW problem (which isn't a reason to not issue a calling), not much damage. But if it is because they are shacked up, or work almost every Sunday, that's another story.
LOSTONE Posted September 25, 2014 Posted September 25, 2014 I believe that we are all given a calling, believers and non-believers both. I think it’s more of a matter to if we hear or want to hear our calling.Some may not like what they have been called to do or where they need to go so they ignore the calling and try to justify not ever getting it. I think this applies more to non-believers because they don’t want to believe so they don’t want to answer their calling. However, I do see some believers doing the same thing.To what damage this does to kids is beyond my scope to reply.
tonie Posted September 26, 2014 Author Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) I understand that, but the context going back to the thread that spawned this thread was damage to children from actively gay parents. To broaden the context, it's not the lack of a calling so much that since with few exceptions, ever active LDS has some form of calling. Whatever is keeping the parents from not being able to have a calling extended to them is what is causing the damage. The context is unnecessary, given that the assertion that children are damaged when the parents do not have a calling. Which would mean that regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, a child is damaged when the parent does have a calling. Also it is very presumptuous and judgmental of you to claim that a person without a calling is due to sin. Edited September 26, 2014 by tonie
stemelbow Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Depends on the why. If they don't hold a calling because of a WoW problem (which isn't a reason to not issue a calling), not much damage. But if it is because they are shacked up, or work almost every Sunday, that's another story. I think there are many cases in which parents are shacked up and children are not suffering from ill effects. And there are perhaps millions of cases wherein parents work on sundays and the children do not suffer.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 On the contrary, you didn't demonstrate (much less, prove) that your substandard usage is acceptable, only that it happens. Description is not validation. Otherwise, everything would be acceptable.You what might not be damaging to kids, is parents not having a calling, but I am sure if they read this thread they would be damaged. OK there is my rather lame attempt at humor for the day. This is just a joke. I can only conclude that some people are delusional. There is nothing wrong about being called out about using something wrong. Why defend it your self when it is clear you did something wrong? Maybe they could come out with a new product sort of like beggin' strips and call it beggin' questions. Ha !
Scott Lloyd Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) You what might not be damaging to kids, is parents not having a calling, but I am sure if they read this thread they would be damaged. OK there is my rather lame attempt at humor for the day. This is just a joke. I can only conclude that some people are delusional. There is nothing wrong about being called out about using something wrong. Why defend it your self when it is clear you did something wrong? Maybe they could come out with a new product sort of like beggin' strips and call it beggin' questions. Ha !In endeavoring, for illustrative purpose, to find a real-world example of begging the question, I realized one need look no further than this very thread. Person A: Using the phrase "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" or "prompts the question" or "leads one to ask the question" is appropriate and acceptable. Person B: Why is it appropriate and acceptable? Person A: Because people do it. Person B: And why do people do it? Person A: Because it is appropriate and acceptable. Person B: And why is it appropriate and acceptable? Person A: Because people do it. Ad infinitum Voila! A clear example of circular reasoning, or, well, begging the question. Edited September 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 3
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) In endeavoring to find a real-world example of the proper use of the phrase beg the question, I realized one need look no further than this very thread. Person A: Using the phrase "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" or "prompts the question" or "leads one to ask the question" is appropriate and acceptable. Person B: Why is it appropriate and acceptable? Person A: Because people do it. Person B: And why do people do it? Person A: Because it is appropriate and acceptable. Person B: And why is it appropriate and acceptable? Person A: Because people do it. Ad infinitum Voila! A clear example of circular reasoning, or, well, begging the question.No no no it's now beggin' questions. But you are right. Rofl, I even missed it. This is funny. Edited September 26, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram
tonie Posted September 26, 2014 Author Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) In endeavoring to find a real-world example of the proper use of the phrase beg the question, I realized one need look no further than this very thread. Person A: Using the phrase "begs the question" to mean "raises the question" or "prompts the question" or "leads one to ask the question" is appropriate and acceptable. Person B: Why is it appropriate and acceptable? Person A: Because people do it. Person B: And why do people do it? Person A: Because it is appropriate and acceptable. Person B: And why is it appropriate and acceptable? Person A: Because people do it. Ad infinitum Voila! A clear example of circular reasoning, or, well, begging the question. You are inconsiderate and immature too intentially obsess. You lack common courtesy in conversation. You have not offered an iota of anything constructive that is on topic. You rely on your childishness to derail a conversation. How very considerate and thoughtful of you. You really do your self and your image a diservice by being so entirely inconsiderate and immature. How old are you? Edited September 26, 2014 by tonie
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 You are inconsiderate and immature too intentially obsess. You lack common courtesy in conversation. You have not offered an iota of anything constructive that is on topic. You rely on your childishness to derail a conversation. How very considerate and thoughtful of you. You really do your self and your image a diservice by being so entirely inconsiderate and immature. How old are you?Stop being the victim. Just own up. The victim card is OLD. It has been over played. Do you need a wambulance?
DBMormon Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Not possible for everyone to have a calling. But being a home teacher / visiting teacher is / are arguably the most important callings. Every member is or should be one of those.not a calling but rather a obligation. One is called to a calling. one is assigned a HT/VT route
Scott Lloyd Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 (edited) You are inconsiderate and immature too intentially obsess.I'm having trouble making sense of this sentence. You lack common courtesy in conversation. You have not offered an iota of anything constructive that is on topic. You rely on your childishness to derail a conversation. To be candid, the topic of this thread doesn't interest me. The misuse of a time-honored English expression does. And your reaction to being corrected on it is a source of amusement to me. How very considerate and thoughtful of you. You really do your self and your image a diservice by being so entirely inconsiderate and immature. Yes, I'm dethpicable. I realized that a long time ago when I picked my avatar. How old are you? To my dismay and consternation, I just passed my 60th birthday. How old are you? Edited September 26, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
DBMormon Posted September 26, 2014 Posted September 26, 2014 Lack of a calling is a symptom, living a sinful lifestyle is the disease.all them sinners who don't have callings..... we should just throw them out.
Recommended Posts