RevTestament Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 (edited) del Edited July 14, 2017 by RevTestament
RevTestament Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 (edited) del Edited July 14, 2017 by RevTestament
RevTestament Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 (edited) del Edited July 14, 2017 by RevTestament
RevTestament Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 (edited) del Edited July 14, 2017 by RevTestament
ttribe Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 8 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Yes, or forbidden. to'evot is forbidden. I don't know that gays will find that much kindlier. It is not something God will ever promote or condone, despite efforts to make it so. There are/were many hunter/gatherer societies where hmosexuality was essentially non-existent. There are some where it was part of the rite of passage such as head-hunter societies - not good promotional material for the practice. Some will take this comment as rudeness I'm sure, but it is just anthropology. 8 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Yes, or forbidden. to'evot is forbidden. I don't know that gays will find that much kindlier. It is not something God will ever promote or condone, despite efforts to make it so. There are/were many hunter/gatherer societies where hmosxuality was essentially non-existent. There are some where it was part of the rite of passage such as head-hunter societies - not good promotional material for the practice. Some will take this comment as rudeness I'm sure, but it is just anthropology. 8 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Yes, or forbidden. to'evot is forbidden. I don't know that gays will find that much kindlier. It is not something God will ever promote or condone, despite efforts to make it so. There are/were many hunter/gatherer societies where gayness was essentially non-existent. There are some where it was part of the rite of passage such as head-hunter societies - not good promotional material for the practice. Some will take this comment as rudeness I'm sure, but it is just anthropology. Multi-post much?
RevTestament Posted July 14, 2017 Posted July 14, 2017 Yeah, the software wasn't sending me back to the thread after it posted so I thought it wasn't posting. Hopefully the mods will delete the extras
Scott Lloyd Posted July 14, 2017 Author Posted July 14, 2017 7 hours ago, stemelbow said: I don't think it's a good evaluation to say "Mormons tend to be more civil than average" because Mormons use the term abomination less than others. What other terms or ideas did you consider in your evaluation? How would you know whose being more civil? I will bring up the point I raised earlier though--the Church has officially adopted a position regarding gay marriage that is essentially calling gay marriage an abomination. So I think, if I were in a gay marriage and an LDS person tells me that my marriage "represents a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline", while my Baptist neighbor says me being gay, or practicing or however they wish to say it, "is an abomination", I'm not sure which would be more rude-sounding. I say if your position is that "same-sex marriage as a particularly grievous or significant, serious kind of sin that requires Church discipline" then you should just accept that you are essentially saying gay marriage is an abomination and that both phrases can come off as equally rude--depending on context of course. But, again, if that's your position, don't shy away from it and think you aren't really being rude because you don't use an archaic sounding word. That's just silly semantics, as some have pointed out, I believe. The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ is what it is. It is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect one holding the apostolic office in the Church not to enunciate the doctrine clearly. But I get the feeling that anything short of absolute capitulation and agreement with you would be regarded by you as rudeness. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 14, 2017 Author Posted July 14, 2017 6 hours ago, california boy said: Calm was absolutely right to call you out Scott. Did Calm call me out? I must have missed that. 1
carbon dioxide Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 (edited) On 7/13/2017 at 7:26 PM, USU78 said: My fear is government compelling the Church to open up both local meeting houses and temples to homosexual marriages. This has been the stated goal of many, so I'm not making this up. And every time I see homosexual groups storm the fences or, in their rage, make threatening noises against the Church, I hear those words and remember Reynolds and my great grandfathers going to jail. Compulsory participation in those rites by private citizens is a very small step away. I am the baker. I am the florist. I am the owner of the wedding chapel. I am the wedding planner. And I am the Mormon boy who sees the homosexual Abomination of Desolation in the sealing rooms of LDS Temples, over my dead body. At least in the USA this will not happen as long as the First Amendment is around. Any attempt to mess with the First Amendment will cause the citizens to take use of the Second Amendment to protect the First. You would see a Syria style civil war before the government could force religions to do things against their doctrinal beliefs. I am extremely confident that if the government was to try and force LDS Temples to accept gay couples in those sealing rooms the gay couple would have to get through the wall of members with AR-15 and AK-47 who are there to protect the temple. Edited July 15, 2017 by carbon dioxide 1
USU78 Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 57 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: At least in the USA this will not happen as long as the First Amendment is around. Any attempt to mess with the First Amendment will cause the citizens to take use of the Second Amendment to protect the First. You would see a Syria style civil war before the government could force religions to do things against their doctrinal beliefs. I am extremely confident that if the government was to try and force LDS Temples to accept gay couples in those sealing rooms the gay couple would have to get through the wall of members with AR-15 and AK-47 who are there to protect the temple. Reynolds had the first amendment, too 1
Calm Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Did Calm call me out? I must have missed that. No, it wasn't Scott I was thinking of.
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 22 hours ago, Gray said: It's meant to be offensive... I sincerely doubt that this is always or even often the case. I think it's intended to be communicative: i.e., 'prophet' = I don't believe that Joseph Smith was an actual prophet. I'm fine with people (a) disagreeing with me and (b) expressing that disagreement. Quote ...just like your use of the term "mob." Which was used with literally zero intention of being offensive, so, well, yes exactly. Definition 2a from the OED: 'A large crowd or group of people; esp. a group of people sharing distinctive characteristics or a common identity or occupation. Also: a clique or gang'. Quote I won't tell you how to feel, though. Probably for the best...
Hamba Tuhan Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 22 hours ago, ttribe said: So, do I take that to mean that the tactical use of an emotional barb to score rhetorical points is more important to you than reaching any kind of respectful understanding with the person you are debating? Virtually everything you've written above is off the mark, beginning with the fact that I'm not debating anyone.
stemelbow Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ is what it is. It is unrealistic and unreasonable to expect one holding the apostolic office in the Church not to enunciate the doctrine clearly. But I get the feeling that anything short of absolute capitulation and agreement with you would be regarded by you as rudeness. You're feeling is way off. I simply found your evaluation lacking and said so and explained why. Take care
ttribe Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said: Virtually everything you've written above is off the mark, beginning with the fact that I'm not debating anyone. Well, mine was a general question as it relates to these discussions. Speak plainly and perhaps I'll better understand your point.
Gray Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: I sincerely doubt that this is always or even often the case. I think it's intended to be communicative: i.e., 'prophet' = I don't believe that Joseph Smith was an actual prophet. I'm fine with people (a) disagreeing with me and (b) expressing that disagreement. Which was used with literally zero intention of being offensive, so, well, yes exactly. Definition 2a from the OED: 'A large crowd or group of people; esp. a group of people sharing distinctive characteristics or a common identity or occupation. Also: a clique or gang'. Probably for the best... And now you're insulting our intelligence. No offense though, right?
Scott Lloyd Posted July 15, 2017 Author Posted July 15, 2017 16 minutes ago, Gray said: And now you're insulting our intelligence. No offense though, right? When he candidly expresses his Mormon belief he offends you. When he disagrees with you he insults your intelligence. I guess not all of the snowflakes are on college campuses. 3
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 On 7/13/2017 at 10:42 AM, ttribe said: I might add that, IMO, the rhetorical use of scare quotes around the word *marriage* falls under that description as well. I have never understood why quote marks scare you They are used to denote a word as you have used asterisks above. Why exactly are quotes scarier than asterisks? Did you have huge quote marks hiding under your bed when you were a kid? 4
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 On 7/13/2017 at 10:44 AM, JLHPROF said: Del. Chicken. 1
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 On 7/13/2017 at 10:46 AM, Valentinus said: It is. It's condescending. Personally, when one uses such scare quotes it makes it difficult to consider taking them seriously. I tend to laugh at people like that. And it is ok for ttribe to use asterisks while quotes are scary- used for the same purpose? Just trying to figure out millenials I guess.
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 On 7/13/2017 at 10:38 PM, Yirgacheffe said: I always read them as sarcasm quotes not scare quotes. So if I am talking about the word "word" that is sarcastic but not scary right? How about the word "nice"- is that scary OR sarcastic? Why could it just not be a discussion about the meaning of a word? Why does it have to be either? 1
ttribe Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: And it is ok for ttribe to use asterisks while quotes are scary- used for the same purpose? Just trying to figure out millenials I guess. Uhhh, I'm 45...not a millenial. The term *scare quotes* is an Internet convention. I'll provide you a link later, or Google could help you.
mfbukowski Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 8 minutes ago, ttribe said: Uhhh, I'm 45...not a millenial. The term *scare quotes* is an Internet convention. I'll provide you a link later, or Google could help you. So now you use asterisks to denote a particular *word*? And all this is to be politically correct and not offend the overly sensitive?
ttribe Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 21 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: So now you use asterisks to denote a particular *word*? And all this is to be politically correct and not offend the overly sensitive? Are you actually trying to understand something here, or just being a jerk, again?
Calm Posted July 15, 2017 Posted July 15, 2017 4 minutes ago, ttribe said: Are you actually trying to understand something here, or just being a jerk, again? Why do you use asterisks? 1
Recommended Posts