stemelbow Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So I take it, then that you disagree with Calm, who said, "The above [use of the words abomination or perverse] is different than disagreement or even just using the term "immoral" to describe gay marriage." That is, in your view, a Church leader cannot even teach the law of chastity without you considering it rude, regardless of the terminology he uses. Sounds almost like a question but is written as a statement. You're wrong to take it that way. I explained whether the use of the word abomination is in the mix or not, the effect of such a word can be felt. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 I think it is more productive to speak of why gay marriage and gay intimate (read, "sexual") relationships are inconsistent with The Plan than it is to apply what many consider to be epithets to such relationships or to debate what epithet fits best. That said, in the closed thread, I was taken to task and roundly excoriated for advancing what I would consider to be the thoroughly uncontroversial proposition that without the intervention of a third party, no children would result from such relationships. 4
CV75 Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: So my conclusion from this is that, though homosexuality is often referred to by religionists as an "abomination," it does not occur nearly as much from Mormons as it does from other sources and not nearly as often from Mormons as one might be led to believe. What is the significance of determining how often "abomination" is used in LDS conversation to describe homosexulaity? 2
thesometimesaint Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, ttribe said: Perhaps he meant, uniquely Mormon scriptural text. Could's be, but I can only go by what he actually posts.
ttribe Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said: Could's be, but I can only go by what he actually posts. I get it. He clarified after the fact what he meant, so probably not necessary for either one of us to speculate.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Valentinus said: I'm reminded of Jesus intensifying the Law in Matthew 5. I recall Jesus saying, "Judge righteous judgment." In your view, is it judging "righteous judgment" to condemn an individual not for what he says or does, but what one, with fallible faculties of discernment, guesses he is really thinking whether or not he expresses it? Edited July 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Gray Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 1 hour ago, ttribe said: I might add that, IMO, the rhetorical use of scare quotes around the word *marriage* falls under that description as well. Indeed, extremely rude and hostile behavior. Imagine if someone wrote you an email and said the following: So how is your "marriage" going? 2
Popular Post ttribe Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2017 Just now, Gray said: Indeed, extremely rude and hostile behavior. Imagine if someone wrote you an email and said the following: So how is your "marriage" going? Or replace "marriage" with "church" or "religion" or "faith".... No matter what side of an LDS-themed argument I've found myself on I really dislike when some members of the Post-Mo crowd use the acronym - TSCC (That So Called Church). IMO, the use of scare quotes around *marriage* in the SSM debate is the functional equivalent of TSCC, just from the other side of the aisle. There are no clean hands in any of these debates. It's rather discouraging, really. 5
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, CV75 said: What is the significance of determining how often "abomination" is used in LDS conversation to describe homosexulaity? After Calm identified it as one word that might be deemed a rude expression if one applies it to gay marriage, I got curious about how frequently Mormons thus apply the term. So I used the only quick metric I could think of at the moment, which was to do a Google search. 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I recall Jesus saying, "Judge righteous judgment." In your view, is it judging "righteous judgment" to condemn an individual not for what he says or does, but what one, with fallible faculties of discernment, guesses he is really thinking whether or not he expresses it? Jesus said that if one lusts then they have already sinned. I trust this to stand for other negative emotions or thoughts that are inconsistent with Jesus. 1
ALarson Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, Gray said: Indeed, extremely rude and hostile behavior. Imagine if someone wrote you an email and said the following: So how is your "marriage" going? Or, more specifically: How is your "temple marriage" going? The scare quote usage is definitely rude, insulting and inconsiderate and causes anyone who uses them to look foolish, IMO. 4
ttribe Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: After Calm identified it as one word that might be deemed a rude expression if one applies it to gay marriage, I got curious about how frequently Mormons thus apply the term. So I used the only quick metric I could think of at the moment, which was to do a Google search. A search of the *General Discussions* forum on this board yields 34 pages of the use of the word *abomination*, albeit it in a wide variety of circumstances; not specifically limited to homosexulaity or SSM. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 36 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Sounds almost like a question but is written as a statement. You're wrong to take it that way. I explained whether the use of the word abomination is in the mix or not, the effect of such a word can be felt. Our discussion is about use of that specific term and whether it should be avoided to mitigate rudeness. It is unreasonable to expect that the Church of Jesus Christ will stop teaching the elements of the law of chastity, just because some disagree with that teaching -- which is what it appears you expect of our Church leaders.
Popular Post Gray Posted July 13, 2017 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, ttribe said: Or replace "marriage" with "church" or "religion" or "faith".... No matter what side of an LDS-themed argument I've found myself on I really dislike when some members of the Post-Mo crowd use the acronym - TSCC (That So Called Church). IMO, the use of scare quotes around *marriage* in the SSM debate is the functional equivalent of TSCC, just from the other side of the aisle. There are no clean hands in any of these debates. It's rather discouraging, really. Yes, very similar behavior from exmos. In fact, I tend to think some of the more vociferous pro and anti-Mormons are really alike in many ways. 5
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, Valentinus said: Jesus said that if one lusts then they have already sinned. I trust this to stand for other negative emotions or thoughts that are inconsistent with Jesus. But considering what Tacenda said -- and what you seem to be defending -- you would say that it's OK to guess that someone is being lustful (or hateful or whatever) and to condemn the person based on what you think they are feeling but have not expressed.
ALarson Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: After Calm identified it as one word that might be deemed a rude expression if one applies it to gay marriage, I got curious about how frequently Mormons thus apply the term. Except calm didn't state she was only speaking about Mormons using that term, did she? And, how would a google search even tell you how frequently any Mormon (or Mormons) still use it? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: A search of the *General Discussions* forum on this board yields 34 pages of the use of the word *abomination*, albeit it in a wide variety of circumstances; not specifically limited to homosexulaity or SSM. This discussion is about application of the word to gay marriage. 1
Damien the Leper Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, ttribe said: Or replace "marriage" with "church" or "religion" or "faith".... No matter what side of an LDS-themed argument I've found myself on I really dislike when some members of the Post-Mo crowd use the acronym - TSCC (That So Called Church). IMO, the use of scare quotes around *marriage* in the SSM debate is the functional equivalent of TSCC, just from the other side of the aisle. There are no clean hands in any of these debates. It's rather discouraging, really. This confuses me. It begs the question: "So just because you no longer believe the LDS church is a "so-called church"?" That would be like an active member telling a Post-Mo they're a "so-called good person". Sorry to derail, Scott. 1
ttribe Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: This discussion is about application of the word to gay marriage. Okay. Just pointing out that, generally speaking, it is part of the lexicon.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: Except calm didn't state she was only speaking about Mormons using that term, did she? No, she didn't state that. I wanted to satisfy my own curiosity that arose from what she said. Quote And, how would a google search even tell you how frequently any Mormon (or Mormons) still use it? It's not a perfect metric (never said it was). But it was the quickest and easiest one that occurred to me at the moment. And though it's not perfect, I disagree that it is of no value whatsoever. Edited July 13, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted July 13, 2017 Author Posted July 13, 2017 1 minute ago, ttribe said: Okay. Just pointing out that, generally speaking, it is part of the lexicon. Noted. But I don't see how that's very helpful, considering the wide variety of applications to which the word could be put.
ttribe Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: Noted. But I don't see how that's very helpful, considering the wide variety of applications to which the word could be put. So, I just went back into the Search function to see if Boolean Operators would help...I think I might not be very good at using such operators...or the board software isn't very good...or both.
stemelbow Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Our discussion is about use of that specific term and whether it should be avoided to mitigate rudeness. It is unreasonable to expect that the Church of Jesus Christ will stop teaching the elements of the law of chastity, just because some disagree with that teaching -- which is what it appears you expect of our Church leaders. Well it's just a term. There are plenty of ways to express the same idea that the term conveys. 2
Damien the Leper Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: But considering what Tacenda said -- and what you seem to be defending -- you would say that it's OK to guess that someone is being lustful (or hateful or whatever) and to condemn the person based on what you think they are feeling but have not expressed. No, I'm not asserting that at all. I'm not the type to try to guess what is on a person's heart. That is between the person and God. I'm recommending that we be mindful of our emotions and thoughts so as not to bring divine condemnation upon ourselves. I know we'll mess up along the way and that is why we need the Parakletos. 1
JulieM Posted July 13, 2017 Posted July 13, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: This discussion is about application of the word to gay marriage. But you stated this earlier in the thread: "What is under discussion here is use of the word in association with homosexuality." So, ttribe's search applies here. Or do you want to change the discussion now? Edited July 13, 2017 by JulieM 1
Recommended Posts