Bernard Gui Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, california boy said: Just as marrying 14 year olds in the 1830's was culturally acceptable, so evidently is men having sex with boys in Afghanistan today. I find both acts appalling and frankly condemnable even if it is a cultural thing. Joseph Smith was still a grown man and certainly did not need another wife that was 14 years old. How about you? Do you find what Joseph Smith did appalling as well? If not, why not. What you seem to be completely missing, is that the DoD DID accommodate BYU. Your attitude is just the type of entitlement attitude I was addressing with Scott. Just because you are Mormon does not give you the right to call army officers idiots and incompetent just because they didn't solve the ROTC situation to conform to Mormon beliefs. What arrogance to think that the world needs to follow the beliefs of the Mormon church before you will be happy. Joseph will answer to God for anything he did that was wrong just as we all will. Is there evidence that he abused her like the Afghans abuse boys? In the meantime, we move along best we can. Just because I am Mormon I can point out the apparent hypocrisy. Do you think the Region Manager who appointed the applicant to the position should have known about the BYU employee Honor Code? If he did not know, do you think he was competent? If he knew but made the appointment anyway, do you think he was forthright? How about the officer who accepted the position? He may be the greatest guy in the world, and probably is if he has come this far in the military, but should he have informed himself with the particulars of the job before he accepted it? Did he refuse to sign the code before or after he was hired? Did BYU spring it on him at the last minute? The Armed Services conform their policies to accommodate barbaric Afghan behavior. Why would it be so very difficult to find a fellow who wouldn't bolt because of coffee? It's hardly arrogant to expect honesty and competence. The world does not have to follow any Mormon beliefs to make me happy. I have plenty else that does that. But when the world and the Church intersect, I do have some expectations. To expect the world to make you happy is a fool's errand. Edited January 29, 2017 by Bernard Gui 3
Johnnie Cake Posted January 29, 2017 Author Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know what you want from me at this point. I never said I would grovel, if that's what you're expecting. There's no shame in being skeptical about undocumented rumor. And there's no shame in calling something into question. Isn't that what I keep hearing from antagonists of the Church of Jesus Christ, its leaders, and it's doctrines, beliefs, principles and standards? Scott..I don't expect you to grovel...I'm just holding you accountable for doing what you said you'd do...and so far you haven't done so...your acknowledgement didn't even say what you were acknowledging... remember I gave up a lunch for this...I just want you to type the words and tell the board what you're acknowledging...simple as that your acknowledgement Quote I promised Johnnie Cake that as soon as this was confirmed, I would come on here and acknowledge it. Consider this my acknowledgment. What you promised you'd do Quote If it turns out you are right, I will cheerfully acknowledge it on this thread (or another one if this ends up being shut down). Sorry but I don't think you've done what you said you'd do and I'm left unsatified... Edited January 29, 2017 by Johnnie Cake
Calm Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 "A lot of this had been decided before I even showed up, knowing that there might have been a conflict of interest here,” Hogan said. “So my predecessor, as well as the Holm Center — which is the ROTC headquarters — came out and discussed with UVU their capability and willingness to host the detachment, and they are all on board.”" From the Universe link I put up two days ago. I would like to know if this means they were discussing it after he was assigned, but before he arrived or discussing the possible appointment of someone like him and what should happen in a generic sense prior to his appointment. Reading it as the latter is what has swayed me to think it was a decent way to approach what is likely inevitable given the drive to end alleged discrimination within the government. If it was the former, I would really like to know the reasoning of the DoD and if it was anticipation of a more difficult issue...most likely a married gay or unmarried sexually active commander...or if they felt that BYU was being unreasonable and should give a waiver and they weren't going to compromise with a petty requirement or something else. 3
Calm Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) On 2017-01-27 at 11:22 AM, Scott Lloyd said: I promised Johnnie Cake that as soon as this was confirmed, I would come on here and acknowledge it. Consider this my acknowledgment. Horrors of horrors, Scott! You forgot the smilie face. Thirty lashes for breaking your word! Edited January 29, 2017 by Calm 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said: Scott..I don't expect you to grovel...I'm just holding you accountable for doing what you said you'd do...and so far you haven't done so...your acknowledgement didn't even say what you were acknowledging... remember I gave up a lunch for this...I just want you to type the words and tell the board what you're acknowledging...simple as that your acknowledgement What you promised you'd do Sorry but I don't think you've done what you said you'd do and I'm left unsatified... How do you know whether Scott was smiling cheerfully or glaring resentfully when he typed the acknowledgement? How much in your OP report of the situation was factual? Edited January 29, 2017 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Calm said: "A lot of this had been decided before I even showed up, knowing that there might have been a conflict of interest here,” Hogan said. “So my predecessor, as well as the Holm Center — which is the ROTC headquarters — came out and discussed with UVU their capability and willingness to host the detachment, and they are all on board.”" From the Universe link I put up two days ago. I would like to know if this means they were discussing it after he was assigned, but before he arrived or discussing the possible appointment of someone like him and what should happen in a generic sense prior to his appointment. Reading it as the latter is what has swayed me to think it was a decent way to approach what is likely inevitable given the drive to end alleged discrimination within the government. If it was the former, I would really like to know the reasoning of the DoD and if it was anticipation of a more difficult issue...most likely a married gay or unmarried sexually active commander...or if they felt that BYU was being unreasonable and should give a waiver and they weren't going to compromise with a petty requirement or something else. Pretty much what I have been saying all along, but, as usual, said much better and in fewer words. Will you be my ghostwriter? Edited January 29, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Popular Post Bernard Gui Posted January 29, 2017 Popular Post Posted January 29, 2017 (edited) Good luck to BYU, the UVU Air Force ROTC and it's new commander, God bless our military services and veterans, and God bless the USA! Please pray for our vets who are still fighting an awful war of their own. Over and out. Edited January 29, 2017 by Bernard Gui 5
sjdawg Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 On 1/28/2017 at 1:23 AM, california boy said: I absolutely agree with you. It is exactly what I said in my post. Blaming the move on the DoD and calling them Idiots and intolerant officers because they didn't bow done to the church's requirements is a misdirection. The DoD acted honorably, respected BYU's position and MOVED. The entitlement comes in when members start to blame the DoD for complying with BYU's demands as if the church has the authority to dictate how the military assigns their officers. This is why the ROTC should not be at a private university at all. It should have always been located at a public state university 2
sjdawg Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 12 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Apples and grapes. In the 1830's of the US marriage to 14 year old's was legal. I believe you meant several month shy of their 15th birthday
Yirgacheffe Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 On 1/23/2017 at 11:11 PM, Calm said: Not partaking is different than partaking. But BYU does require religious attendance, why should an unaffiliated agnostic "go to church" that is requiring partaking. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: How do you know whether Scott was smiling cheerfully or glaring resentfully when he typed the acknowledgement? How much in your OP report of the situation was factual? I'm inclined to ignore Johnnie Cake's silly grumbling except for the part where he said he could have had a free meal. He never had a meal to lose. As he well knows, I immediately refused his wager proposition, explaining that I am opposed on principal to gambling. That's true. I eschew gambling in all its forms and under all circumstances. While in college, I did an internship with the Las Vegas Review-Journal. In five months of living and working in Las Vegas, when my job frequently took me into the hotels and casinos, I never so much as put a quarter in a slot machine. Standing on principal in this matter, I have been able to assure myself I wouldn't be in a position that someone like Johnny Cake could extort money from me by reason of an imprudent wager. My response to his proposition would have been the same even if I had been 100 percent certain the rumor was false, which I wasn't. As it is, it costs me nothing to acknowledge that it turned out to be substantially factual. As I said, there is no shame in being skeptical. 1
sjdawg Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Standing on principal in this matter, I have been able to assure myself I wouldn't be in a position that someone like Johnny Cake could extort money from me by reason of an imprudent wager. I think "extort" might be a little strong
Calm Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 6 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said: But BYU does require religious attendance, why should an unaffiliated agnostic "go to church" that is requiring partaking. The one year waiver probably covers Church attendance. There are also groups that include agnostics in their worship services. It would be interesting to find out if the admin is rigid on this aspect for teachers.
The Nehor Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Maybe you need a therapy puppy to calm you down. I prefer therapy dinosaurs.
The Nehor Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 12 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: Scott..I don't expect you to grovel...I'm just holding you accountable for doing what you said you'd do...and so far you haven't done so...your acknowledgement didn't even say what you were acknowledging... remember I gave up a lunch for this...I just want you to type the words and tell the board what you're acknowledging...simple as that your acknowledgement What you promised you'd do Sorry but I don't think you've done what you said you'd do and I'm left unsatified... Awwwwww. Have you considered therapy to help you cope with this horrific ill-treatment?
california boy Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 15 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: Joseph will answer to God for anything he did that was wrong just as we all will. Is there evidence that he abused her like the Afghans abuse boys? In the meantime, we move along best we can. Just because I am Mormon I can point out the apparent hypocrisy. Do you think the Region Manager who appointed the applicant to the position should have known about the BYU employee Honor Code? If he did not know, do you think he was competent? If he knew but made the appointment anyway, do you think he was forthright? How about the officer who accepted the position? He may be the greatest guy in the world, and probably is if he has come this far in the military, but should he have informed himself with the particulars of the job before he accepted it? Did he refuse to sign the code before or after he was hired? Did BYU spring it on him at the last minute? The Armed Services conform their policies to accommodate barbaric Afghan behavior. Why would it be so very difficult to find a fellow who wouldn't bolt because of coffee? It's hardly arrogant to expect honesty and competence. The world does not have to follow any Mormon beliefs to make me happy. I have plenty else that does that. But when the world and the Church intersect, I do have some expectations. To expect the world to make you happy is a fool's errand. I think abstaining from coffee is not a requirement for advancement in the Army.
thesometimesaint Posted January 29, 2017 Posted January 29, 2017 1 hour ago, california boy said: I think abstaining from coffee is not a requirement for advancement in the Army. It wasn't when I was in the Air Force.
Recommended Posts