ttribe Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 If I make a comment specifically about you and you, for personal reasons, found it upsetting or offensive, then yes. Like I keep saying. I don't find domestic abuse funny. I've never (and will never) use the "beating your wife" analogy. It makes light of a crime and I object to it. If it had been a comment between you and Nehor then I'd have probably ignored it. Given it involved me I found it offensive. Not because I worried about my reputation but because I objected to being used context of a trivialisation of a crime. Is wife-beating really so trivial out in your country that it's something to laugh and joke about?No, it isn't. But I'd caution you to not compound the problem by engaging unfounded stereotypes about Americans.
CA Steve Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 No, because the analogy would make no sense. I would not be offended; I would just be confused.It could easily make sense if placed in a context, like your use, where someone was trying to point out a strawman argument regarding the bishop. For example if someone were to say, "Why did the ignorant power hungry bishop want to force the teacher not to teach from the essays." One could reply "When did he stop beating his wife, is what I want to know." Its offensive.
ERayR Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 For example if someone were to say, "Why did the ignorant power hungry bishop want to force the teacher not to teach from the essays." One could reply "When did he stop beating his wife, is what I want to know." Its offensive. Its a stretch.
mormonnewb Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Just a hunch, but I think President Uchtdorf might object to his words being twisted into meaning something he did not say. By the way, you not only spelled the name right, but you got the title right ("President" as opposed to "Elder"). Congratulations. Please educate me as to how I twisted the very plain meaning of President Uchtdorf's words.
mormonnewb Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 I've long maintained it wasn't so much a trial for faithful black members, but as one for the racist white ones. My heart bleeds for those poor white racists. I can't imagine their anguish and torment. Jane Manning James should have baked TWO cakes for them. 4
Damien the Leper Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 All of this upset and negative publicity could have easily been avoided if the Sunday school teacher had simply demonstrated some wisdom by answering the "Mormon youth's" question in a manner becoming a testimony-bearing member of the LDS Church. When the teacher was asked why his Nigerian wife and family joined a church that once barred black men from holding its priesthood, all he had to say in response is that his wife and family know by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's one true Church, and because his wife and family know the Church is true they have full confidence when the time is right God will provide perfectly logical and reasonable answers as to why in His mysterious economy black men were temporarily barred from holding the priesthood.How very PC and naive. This post is all word vomit.
mormonnewb Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 I wouldn't be apt to express displeasure over it, actually. I'd see it for what it was: an illustration of the loaded-question fallacy. Really, Scott? You're the one telling someone to put on his big boy garments and suck it up? To not be offended? You know darn well that, if you could, you would close this thread right now for my mention of the g-word above (not to mention the "darn" in this sentence). Those who close threads at the drop of a hat shouldn't throw "I wouldn't be apt to express displeasure over it" around. Some of us might consider it, shall we say, "inconsistent."
carbon dioxide Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 God can tolerate a lot of things without being "fully on board." The "not yet" could be a result of the lack of unanimity in the FP/Q12 on the issue, or the lack of preparation of the church body for the correction. I'm fine with God being patient and allowing a mistake to continue for greater purposes known to him. I'm not fine with God substantively approving of the ban itself. That conflicts with his assurance that He is no respecter of persons.Its possible but if God but even that would only show that God really did not care about the ban until 1978. God is a respecter of persons. Why is the priesthood denied to females and males under 12? There are plenty of things in the Bible where people are denied things simply because who they are. Not that they did anything.
JLHPROF Posted May 6, 2015 Author Posted May 6, 2015 Really, Scott? You're the one telling someone to put on his big boy garments and suck it up? To not be offended? You know darn well that, if you could, you would close this thread right now for my mention of the g-word above (not to mention the "darn" in this sentence). Those who close threads at the drop of a hat shouldn't throw "I wouldn't be apt to express displeasure over it" around. Some of us might consider it, shall we say, "inconsistent." Well since it's my thread and this seems suitably derailing and offensive, I will close it.
Recommended Posts