Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2017 Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I believe we may have met at that conference. It was a good one. That may well have been. I think it was also the first time I saw Brant Gardner. As I recall it was held on campus at UVU, before that stretch of years when they held them in Sandy at the Southtowne Expo Centre. Edited May 28, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
juliann Posted May 28, 2017 Posted May 28, 2017 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Dr. Shades was there and introduced himself to me. It was indeed a memorable conference for me. I ran into him in the UVU hall and let him into the conference. We had a lot less people then. Abanes was so intellectually dishonest Cowen critiqued his nonsense in his book Bearing False Witness.https://books.google.com/books/about/Bearing_False_Witness.html?id=gPq9YEzIZJwC I always wondered what happened to him. He needs a go fund me to get a book off the ground now. https://www.gofundme.com/rise-of-the-altright-exposing-hate 1
juliann Posted May 28, 2017 Posted May 28, 2017 7 hours ago, ttribe said: My recollection is he was kind of jerk here...but it's been a while. Those were the days when only the Mormon religion was racist, not them. I recall reminding him that even the abolitionists weren't free of racism and he had a meltdown. He is one of the most historically ignorant guys around ....but a good salesman.
Calm Posted May 28, 2017 Posted May 28, 2017 (edited) 59 minutes ago, juliann said: He needs a go fund me to get a book off the ground now. https://www.gofundme.com/rise-of-the-altright-exposing-hate Might not be so popular a topic among his usual market. Edited May 28, 2017 by Calm
Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2017 Posted May 28, 2017 1 hour ago, juliann said: I ran into him in the UVU hall and let him into the conference. We had a lot less people then. Abanes was so intellectually dishonest Cowen critiqued his nonsense in his book Bearing False Witness.https://books.google.com/books/about/Bearing_False_Witness.html?id=gPq9YEzIZJwC I always wondered what happened to him. He needs a go fund me to get a book off the ground now. https://www.gofundme.com/rise-of-the-altright-exposing-hate And all this time I thought he (Shades) had been open and expansive enough to register as an attendee. Color me disillusioned.
juliann Posted May 28, 2017 Posted May 28, 2017 27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: And all this time I thought he (Shades) had been open and expansive enough to register as an attendee. Color me disillusioned. I let Brent Metcalfe in, too. He did go to some conferences, though. It was great. We would hug and then go back on the internet and fight. LOL 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 28, 2017 Posted May 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Calm said: Might not be so popular a topic among his usual market. Maybe not. But his obvious affliction with Trump Derangement Syndrome is consistent with the histrionics with which he has approached other subjects, Mormonism among the rest.
Popular Post maj Posted May 29, 2017 Popular Post Posted May 29, 2017 On 2017-5-15 at 5:48 PM, bluebell said: ... When I've heard of members in the U.K. getting married before their temple sealing, it's not a wedding like we typically think of. They go to the equivalent of the justice of the peace and have a very simple ceremony-no walking down the isle or flower girls, bridesmaids, etc. and then they go right to the temple. Maybe what i've heard is the exception and not the norm though. My husband served his mission in England, but accurately remembering LDS wedding culture there was not really on his mind at the time. Being LDS and from the UK, I just wanted to clarify the above point, if I may. Although members who are going to be sealed can have a simple ceremony done by a JP, the majority will have a full wedding ceremony, walking down the aisle with bridesmaids, flowers, the whole 9 yards - and the marriage carried out by their bishop or branch president in an LDS chapel. Very often, they will have an after wedding reception of some kind with food, speeches etc. Then, the couple will travel to the temple to be sealed that same day, or as soon as is practical. Often, friends and family that are endowed will travel with them to witness the sealing. There is an exception made for the sealing to be within a year after the civil ceremony, namely if the husband or wife has not been a member of the church for a year. They can be sealed as soon as they have both been members for a year. Other than that, the sealing can not be done for at least a year after the civil marriage. 10
rockpond Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 21 hours ago, maj said: Being LDS and from the UK, I just wanted to clarify the above point, if I may. Although members who are going to be sealed can have a simple ceremony done by a JP, the majority will have a full wedding ceremony, walking down the aisle with bridesmaids, flowers, the whole 9 yards - and the marriage carried out by their bishop or branch president in an LDS chapel. Very often, they will have an after wedding reception of some kind with food, speeches etc. Then, the couple will travel to the temple to be sealed that same day, or as soon as is practical. Often, friends and family that are endowed will travel with them to witness the sealing. There is an exception made for the sealing to be within a year after the civil ceremony, namely if the husband or wife has not been a member of the church for a year. They can be sealed as soon as they have both been members for a year. Other than that, the sealing can not be done for at least a year after the civil marriage. Thank you for sharing that, maj. It's good to know that, in the UK, couples are able to have both a full wedding ceremony held in an LDS chapel and a temple sealing. 4
CV75 Posted May 30, 2017 Posted May 30, 2017 2 hours ago, rockpond said: Thank you for sharing that, maj. It's good to know that, in the UK, couples are able to have both a full wedding ceremony held in an LDS chapel and a temple sealing. Of course we need to do whatever it takes to get married in the temple. In some jurisdictions that requires a preliminary civil ordinance. In either case, the attendant traditional celebrations are optional. Case in point: can anyone tell if this video was taken at a civil ceremony, a temple ceremony, a year after or before either (respectively), or at the wedding reception? The year waiting period for a church after an optional civil ceremony only punctuates the relative importance of the church ordinance in the eyes of that religion, no matter how extravagant or thrifty or inclusive the celebrations may be, before, after or during.
Yirgacheffe Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 5/26/2017 at 2:59 PM, Scott Lloyd said: I don't deny that it happens and happens a lot. I just question that it's the heart's desire of most young girls to have their fathers walk them down the aisle. I've already mentioned this, but the rite has roots in medieval notions about the bride as property to be conveyed from the possession of one man (her father) to another (her husband-to-be). Certainly it should have no significance or importance to anyone within the LDS faith tradition. And pentagrams are widely associated with Satan worship.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 24 minutes ago, Yirgacheffe said: And pentagrams are widely associated with Satan worship. I'm not afraid of pentagrams. But I don't cherish them either.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 On 5/26/2017 at 2:13 PM, Scott Lloyd said: I thought Brigham's wives were likened (by Heber C. Kimball) to sheep. But maybe there was other imagery used as well that I'm not acquainted with. You mean, "other imagery used as well, with which I am not acquainted"? Never prend a sentence with an eposition! Sincerely, Your Friendly Neighborhood Grammar Nazi (Sorry. Couldn't resist! Since you're one of my favorite wordsmiths, I cannot let such instances as this pass without comment! ) 1
Jeanne Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: You mean, "other imagery used as well, with which I am not acquainted"? Never prend a sentence with an eposition! Sincerely, Your Friendly Neighborhood Grammar Nazi (Sorry. Couldn't resist! Since you're one of my favorite wordsmiths, I cannot let such instances as this pass without comment! ) You must have a field day with my posts...ain't got none lady here.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: You mean, "other imagery used as well, with which I am not acquainted"? Never prend a sentence with an eposition! Sincerely, Your Friendly Neighborhood Grammar Nazi (Sorry. Couldn't resist! Since you're one of my favorite wordsmiths, I cannot let such instances as this pass without comment! ) As Winston Churchill is reported to have responded to a grammar Nazi, this is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put. 2
Popular Post Calm Posted June 9, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 9, 2017 On 2017-05-26 at 1:59 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Certainly it should have no significance or importance to anyone within the LDS faith tradition. Nothing inherent probably, but individuals can find their own meaning in the symbols of rituals...we pretty much require that in much of the Temple rite by not providing extensive, detailed explanations of the various rituals and instead allow the patron to explore and discover much for themselves. So it might have much of significance and importance to an individual Saint. 6
Scott Lloyd Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, Calm said: Nothing inherent probably, but individuals can find their own meaning in the symbols of rituals...we pretty much require that in much of the Temple rite by not providing extensive, detailed explanations of the various rituals and instead allow the patron to explore and discover much for themselves. So it might have much of significance and importance to an individual Saint. So it then becomes a matter of superimposing secular rites and pageantry upon what for Latter-say Saints is or should be a sublime ordinance that already has it's own sacred symbolism. I'm confident the Brethren will act with divine inspiration on this matter, but the more we discuss it here, the more I'm seeing good reasons for them not to change the status quo. Edited June 9, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Maureen Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As Winston Churchill is reported to have responded to a grammar Nazi, this is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put. Are you sure that was Winston Churchill that said that? Sounds more like Yoda. M.
Kenngo1969 Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: As Winston Churchill is reported to have responded to a grammar Nazi, this is the sort of nonsense up with which I shall not put.
ksfisher Posted June 9, 2017 Posted June 9, 2017 11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: You mean, "other imagery used as well, with which I am not acquainted"? Never prend a sentence with an eposition! Sincerely, Your Friendly Neighborhood Grammar Nazi (Sorry. Couldn't resist! Since you're one of my favorite wordsmiths, I cannot let such instances as this pass without comment! ) I'm really not clear on how to "prend a sentence with an eposition." Perhaps Captain Spell Check could pay a visit to the Grammar Nazi.
ttribe Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So it then becomes a matter of superimposing secular rites and pageantry upon what for Latter-say Saints is or should be a sublime ordinance that already has it's own sacred symbolism. I'm confident the Brethren will act with divine inspiration on this matter, but the more we discuss it here, the more I'm seeing good reasons for them not to change the status quo. Why do the "secular rites and pageantry" have to be superimposed on the temple ordinance? Why couldn't it simply be an addition to it? Not everything is a zero-sum game. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 (edited) On 6/9/2017 at 6:14 PM, ttribe said: Why do the "secular rites and pageantry" have to be superimposed on the temple ordinance? Why couldn't it simply be an addition to it? Not everything is a zero-sum game. If that's what the Lord wants, I'm confident He will make it known to His servants in the usual way, i.e. revelation (as opposed to social pressure/ark steadying). Edited June 12, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Popular Post jcake Posted June 11, 2017 Popular Post Posted June 11, 2017 I think that the big reason many prospective couples who want to be sealed, also want a civil wedding first, is to prevent heartbroken non-member parents from missing their child's wedding, and the subsequent relationship struggles that can bring. I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat the idea that I think would be a good possibility. If a very simple civil wedding could be held in a designated waiting room at the temple, followed by the bride and groom going to the sealing room with those who can attend and having the sealing performed. The parents, and close relatives that couldn't attend would remain in the waiting room, where a temple worker could explain and teach them about the temple sealing and what it means, that would show such love and respect to those family members, and rather than causing hurt, the marriage could be be a wonderful opportunity to strengthen bonds with new family members and prevent much heartache. I don't think it would in any way be disrespectful of the sealing ordinance. Just my two cents. jcake 5
ttribe Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 On 6/10/2017 at 0:11 PM, Scott Lloyd said: If that's what the Lord wants, I'm confident He will make it know to His servants in the usual way, i.e. revelation (as opposed to social pressure/ark steadying). Well, that's good and all, but that doesn't really answer my question as to why you feel that having both on the same day would somehow diminish the importance of the temple ceremony. Moreover, your responses don't clarify why you hold non-temple weddings in such apparent contempt.
Scott Lloyd Posted June 12, 2017 Posted June 12, 2017 8 minutes ago, ttribe said: Well, that's good and all, but that doesn't really answer my question as to why you feel that having both on the same day would somehow diminish the importance of the temple ceremony. Moreover, your responses don't clarify why you hold non-temple weddings in such apparent contempt. My responses are what they are. If they don't satisfy you, well, I can only invoke the words of the Dread Pirate Roberts: Get used to disappointment.
Recommended Posts