Scott Lloyd Posted December 10, 2015 Author Posted December 10, 2015 (edited) 3 hours ago, Buckeye said: Cynical? The "article" is barely 3 paragraphs of little substance followed by the "top 10" recommended designs with links to purchase them from deseretbook. This isn't even close. It's a sham article. I couldn't disagree more strongly. Do you deny that the CTR ring is pervasive among the culture of the Latter-day Saints? Can you discount out-of-hand the possibility that many Latter-day Saints are curious to know more of the details about how the ring came into being? The article provides some of those details. It is simply not true that it has "little substance." It just isn't. Nor is it true that it is a "sham" article. As I said in a follow-up post above, cut off the last paragraph it could reasonably be placed in any news or information publication directed primarily to a general LDS readership. It is non-controversial. It is informational in nature. Look, I grant that part of the intent of the article's publication seems to be promotional, given the last paragraph. I didn't write the article. Nor am I associated with Deseret Book or those who produce LDS LIving online magazine. It's just that I was taken aback by your over-the-top, hostile, harsh, cynical reaction to it. I'll say it again: It struck me as weird. Fact is, I don't care whether Deseret Book sells any merchandise from this. I posted the link because I found the information interesting. Edited to add: All of which makes me wonder if you are opposed to the concept of a CTR ring in concept and principle. It wasn't Deseret Book who invented it, you know. It was the Church under the auspices of the Primary organization. Edited December 10, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
SmileyMcGee Posted December 10, 2015 Posted December 10, 2015 59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It's just that I was taken aback by your over-the-top, hostile, harsh, cynical reaction to it. I'll say it again: It struck me as weird. All of which makes me wonder if you are opposed to the concept of a CTR ring in concept and principle. Are you kidding? Take it easy, Scott. I can't help but think that you're just trying to push buttons.
hagoth7 Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) posted a LOTR pic in an attempt to break the tension....decided it wasn't appropriate after all... Edited December 11, 2015 by hagoth7
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: 28 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said: Are you kidding? Take it easy, Scott. I can't help but think that you're just trying to push buttons. I couldn't disagree more strongly. Do you deny that the CTR ring is pervasive among the culture of the Latter-day Saints? Can you discount out-of-hand the possibility that many Latter-day Saints are curious to know more of the details about how the ring came into being? The article provides some of those details. It is simply not true that it has "little substance." It just isn't. Nor is it true that it is a "sham" article. As I said in a follow-up post above, cut off the last paragraph it could reasonably be placed in any news or information publication directed primarily to a general LDS readership. It is non-controversial. It is informational in nature. Look, I grant that part of the intent of the article's publication seems to be promotional, given the last paragraph. I didn't write the article. Nor am I associated with Deseret Book or those who produce LDS LIving online magazine. It's just that I was taken aback by your over-the-top, hostile, harsh, cynical reaction to it. I'll say it again: It struck me as weird. Do you agree with Buckeye that the article lacks substance, is a sham, and has no other purpose that crass commercial promotion? Why aren't you jumping on him for overreacting?
SmileyMcGee Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 31 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Do you agree with Buckeye that the article lacks substance, is a sham, and has no other purpose that crass commercial promotion? Why aren't you jumping on him for overreacting? Critique of a piece vs. critique of a person's character. Scott, I think you're a good guy. I just think you rely too much on ad hominem. I can see where I may be unfair, so for that I apologize. I'll bow out of this one. ETA: I wouldn't characterize the article as a "sham." I think it was an honest promotional piece. Edited December 11, 2015 by SmileyMcGee
JeremyOrbe-Smith Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 We all clearly have way too much time on our hands if this is the best thing we can find to bicker about. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XcKBmdfpWs
mfbukowski Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Especially in politics, I always Choose The Right.
Buckeye Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: All of which makes me wonder if you are opposed to the concept of a CTR ring in concept and principle. It wasn't Deseret Book who invented it, you know. It was the Church under the auspices of the Primary organization. As I said in my first post on this thread, I have no problem with the concept of a CTR Ring. My kids rather like theirs. I do dislike the commercialization of religious things. CTR Rings are sometimes an example of that - such as in the article in you linked to. The idea of the rings started off innocently with basic rings being given to all primary children. But now its grown to be something of a status symbol. "My ring is made of titanium." "My ring has gold inlay." And so forth. FWIW, I see the same thing with other items, such as priesthood oil vials made of wood from olive trees. It seems that our focus is being directed to the item itself, rather than using the item to direct our focus to the Savior. It's a mild form of idolatry. ETA: i called the article a "sham" because it's primary purpose is to sell goods, not convey information. Marketing is fine and good, but it's not journalism. Whatever little substance is found in the article, the purpose that LDS Living had in publishing it was to sell goods, not to spread information. The article is just a hook to direct people to where they can purchase rings. Edited December 11, 2015 by Buckeye 2
Rain Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 36 minutes ago, Buckeye said: As I said in my first post on this thread, I have no problem with the concept of a CTR Ring. My kids rather like theirs. I do dislike the commercialization of religious things. CTR Rings are sometimes an example of that - such as in the article in you linked to. The idea of the rings started off innocently with basic rings being given to all primary children. But now its grown to be something of a status symbol. "My ring is made of titanium." "My ring has gold inlay." And so forth. FWIW, I see the same thing with other items, such as priesthood oil vials made of wood from olive trees. It seems that our focus is being directed to the item itself, rather than using the item to direct our focus to the Savior. It's a mild form of idolatry. ETA: i called the article a "sham" because it's primary purpose is to sell goods, not convey information. Marketing is fine and good, but it's not journalism. Whatever little substance is found in the article, the purpose that LDS Living had in publishing it was to sell goods, not to spread information. The article is just a hook to direct people to where they can purchase rings. How do you know that the information was not added after the fact? I don't mean just sticking it in there. I mean someone got an idea to write about this and then decided people might start wondering about the rings so they added that part as well. It may seem obvious that it is a marketing piece, but I don't think we can automatically assign motivations. 1
Buckeye Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 29 minutes ago, Rain said: How do you know that the information was not added after the fact? I don't mean just sticking it in there. I mean someone got an idea to write about this and then decided people might start wondering about the rings so they added that part as well. It may seem obvious that it is a marketing piece, but I don't think we can automatically assign motivations. I judge it at the time I read it. It's a marketing piece. Pure and simple.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: 3 hours ago, Buckeye said: As I said in my first post on this thread, I have no problem with the concept of a CTR Ring. My kids rather like theirs. Fair enough. Quote I do dislike the commercialization of religious things. CTR Rings are sometimes an example of that - such as in the article in you linked to. The idea of the rings started off innocently with basic rings being given to all primary children. But now its grown to be something of a status symbol. "My ring is made of titanium." "My ring has gold inlay." And so forth. FWIW, I see the same thing with other items, such as priesthood oil vials made of wood from olive trees. It seems that our focus is being directed to the item itself, rather than using the item to direct our focus to the Savior. It's a mild form of idolatry. I'm not defending excessive commercialization. The ring I wear is rather modest -- probably the least expensive one that was available at the time my wife purchased it, other than the ones available at the Distribution Center that are handed out to the Primary kids. I had always been a bit regretful that I was born too early to enjoy the CTR culture in Primary, so I was glad to receive it as a gift from her. I endorse the concept; what people make of it is up to them. It's not something I lie awake at night worrying about. Quote ETA: i called the article a "sham" because it's primary purpose is to sell goods, not convey information. Marketing is fine and good, but it's not journalism. Whatever little substance is found in the article, the purpose that LDS Living had in publishing it was to sell goods, not to spread information. The article is just a hook to direct people to where they can purchase rings. Whatever. I disagree that it is all that devoid of substance. But the vehemence and harshness with which you expressed it took me aback, as has the pushback there has been on this thread toward what I thought was quite axiomatic within the Mormon faith: learning and knowing right from wrong, and then choosing the right. Quote 1. Choose the right when a choice is placed before you. In the right the Holy Spirit guides; And its light is forever shining o'er you, When in the right your heart confides. (Chorus) Choose the right! Choose the right! Let wisdom mark the way before. In its light, choose the right! And God will bless you evermore. 2. Choose the right! Let no spirit of digression Overcome you in the evil hour. There's the right and the wrong to ev'ry question; Be safe thru inspiration's pow'r. 3. Choose the right! There is peace in righteous doing. Choose the right! There's safety for the soul. Choose the right in all labors you're pursuing; Let God and heaven be your goal. Text: Joseph L. Townsend, 1849-1942 Music: Henry A. Tuckett, 1852-1918 Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 16 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said: We all clearly have way too much time on our hands if this is the best thing we can find to bicker about. I didn't start the thread for the purpose of bickering. As I said, the pushback here has taken me by surprise.
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 17 hours ago, SmileyMcGee said: Critique of a piece vs. critique of a person's character. Scott, I think you're a good guy. I just think you rely too much on ad hominem. I can see where I may be unfair, so for that I apologize. I'll bow out of this one. I withdraw the question about whether Buckeye has a problem with the concept of choosing the right, and I apologize for casting doubt. It was a question raised in the heat of dispute. Quote ETA: I wouldn't characterize the article as a "sham." I think it was an honest promotional piece. OK. I think it has value beyond a promotional intent. Quite honestly, the promotional aspect had entirely escaped my notice until Buckeye brought it up. LDS Living is produced and published by Deseret Book, as I said, but very little of its content is directly related to promoting a product. It seems to be mostly news-and-information-oriented. That's why I was not alert to the promotional aspect of this particular piece.
Zakuska Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) He would sell it and give the money to the poor. Edited December 11, 2015 by Zakuska
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 (edited) 58 minutes ago, Zakuska said: He would sell it and give the money to the poor. As He did with the expensive oil with which the woman anointed him. Oh, wait! That's not what happened. Edited December 11, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
Zakuska Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 Since when are Ctr rings put on corpses in tombs?
Scott Lloyd Posted December 11, 2015 Author Posted December 11, 2015 24 minutes ago, Zakuska said: Since when are Ctr rings put on corpses in tombs? ?????? I was thinking of the incident in John 12:4-6.
halconero Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 On December 9, 2015 at 11:11 AM, Scott Lloyd said: Here's an interesting piece from the online "LDS Living" magazine about the origin of the CTR ring. Originating in the early 1970s, the CTR ring came along a bit late for me to have encountered it while in Primary. But soon after our marriage, my wife gave me a CTR ring, which I now wear constantly on the opposite hand from the one on which I wear my wedding ring. Today, more than ever, when there are such marked societal trends to redefine and eliminate bedrock values, a determination to choose the right, as symbolized by the ring, is as important, if not more important, than it was when the ring was introduced. I love material religion, and the CTR ring, along with the garments, are awesome examples of it. Interesting anecdote. Toronto saw an influx of Sikh converts over the past few years, most of whom continued to wear the iron bracelet afterwards. A common response when asked why was that it was their "CTR bracelet." I even knew one brother who continued carrying the ceremonial dagger, wearing undergarments, the turban, and comb. For him, the promises of the initiatory and endowment had a greater impact because of it. The only change he made was swapping the Church's garment for the traditional Sikh one. He now has an awesome picture of him standing outside the temple in a white suit, white beard, and white turban on top. 2
Zakuska Posted December 11, 2015 Posted December 11, 2015 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: ?????? I was thinking of the incident in John 12:4-6. Correct... but CTR rings arnt oil foranointing for death.
Calm Posted December 12, 2015 Posted December 12, 2015 Is there any reason to believe that Jesus did not wear the ceremonial clothing that typicals Jewish males wore at that time? 1
St. Bookmark Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 Before I joined the church I liked the wwjd what would Jesus do now as a member I like the ctr also we have fun trying to make words for the ctr choose the right christ the redeemer choose to repent cook the rice choose to return and a lot more 1
Zakuska Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 On 12/12/2015 at 0:19 AM, Calm said: Is there any reason to believe that Jesus did not wear the ceremonial clothing that typicals Jewish males wore at that time? John the Baptist sure didn't.
Jeanne Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 Well...this is a ring I could never give my Nascar friends,,
Stargazer Posted December 21, 2015 Posted December 21, 2015 On 12/10/2015 at 0:31 PM, Buckeye said: There's another theme called "Return With Honor". I like "Return with your shield, or on it!" "This! Is! Sparta!"
Recommended Posts