Kenngo1969 Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 6 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: My point is that the best of us make mistakes and so we should give bronco a break like we should give others a break Marc Bronco Clay Mendenhall's standing before God is between God and him. Your standing before God is between God and you, and my standing before God is between God and me. I hope Coach Mendenhall takes that seriously. I have no reason to believe he doesn't, but even if I thought otherwise, as my previous sentence makes clear, that's not my call.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 16 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: This thread raises a related question I have had for a long time. When friends and relatives move away from the "conservative," "orthodox," "chapel," "traditional" Mormonism either through disaffection, disillusionment, or even complete apostasy, the first things to be jettisoned and then embraced are the Church's emphasis on the Word of Wisdom, proper dress, and non-profane language. Moving on to those areas is worn almost as a badge of pride or honor and we who are left behind wallowing in our stodginess are admonished to "Come. Partake. See what you are missing." Why is that? Having gone down that path, I think people like to try what was once prohibited and sometimes go through an immature stage when leaving and experiment too much. This can lead to some unhealthy outcomes, to be sure. However, I think most realize that high school and college are in the past and move on. 2
SmileyMcGee Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Because this is a discussion board and I'm all for discussing, not cussing. Do you think we should take our cultural and moral cues from folks like Coppola or from folks like Washington, Roosevelt, McKay, and Kimball? how does sharing an opinion with someone equate to taking moral cues from them, or viewing them as an "arbiter of morality"? In addition, asking who we should take cues from implies that value is being placed on who is saying something and not just what they are saying. All I can say is I don't agree with the dichotomy you've proposed. Edited September 25, 2017 by SmileyMcGee 1
Kenngo1969 Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 As a counterpoint to Rongo's story, I'll offer this. I served a mission in the San Diego, California area, which includes Camp Pendleton. I once heard someone speaking about one of the Camp's Drill Instructors. "He's gotta be LDS," he said, "because when he found out I'm a member, he asked me what priesthood I hold, and he calls all of his recruits 'freaks' instead of that other word." 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 11 minutes ago, SmileyMcGee said: how does sharing an opinion with someone equate to taking moral cues from them, or viewing them as a "arbiter of morality"? In addition, asking who we should take cues from implies that value is being placed on who is saying something and not just what they are saying. All I can say is I don't agree with the assumptions of the dichotomy you've proposed. I think this dovetails nicely into why it isn't a good thing to quote authorities too much. It stifles thought if one doesn't look behind the quote and asks why what was said was said. Regardless of what some "authority" says, we can independently think for ourselves. It also promotes the false assumption that people cannot control how they themselves think in the face of outside influences.
clarkgoble Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 51 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: This thread raises a related question I have had for a long time. When friends and relatives move away from the "conservative," "orthodox," "chapel," "traditional" Mormonism either through disaffection, disillusionment, or even complete apostasy, the first things to be jettisoned and then embraced are the Church's emphasis on the Word of Wisdom, proper dress, and non-profane language. Moving on to those areas is worn almost as a badge of pride or honor and we who are left behind wallowing in our stodginess are admonished to "Come. Partake. See what you are missing." Why is that? While that does happen, I'm skeptical it's as common as portrayed. Most people I know left and just continued their usual habits. Maybe they did try coffee and alcohol (after all why not?). But they didn't typically start binge drinking. Some did of course, but most of the people I knew who did that were doing it before falling away. i.e. it was their attraction to such things. In general though I think people don't know what others are doing in their private time and judgments are typically more complicated than they appear. Having said that though, I think particularly in Utah socialization especially for singles is tricky. If you leave, you typically leave most of your social circles. Unless you already have other non-Mormon social circles (say via some sport) how do you meet people? So I've noticed around Utah quite a few people hit the clubbing scene for a bit if only to find some sort of socialization. 2
Kenngo1969 Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: ... Next time someone cuts me off in traffic, I will shout, "Thou reeky sheep-biting pignut!" Now that's an adult insult!
Jeanne Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said: Marc Bronco Clay Mendenhall's standing before God is between God and him. Your standing before God is between God and you, and my standing before God is between God and me. I hope Coach Mendenhall takes that seriously. I have no reason to believe he doesn't, but even if I thought otherwise, as my previous sentence makes clear, that's not my call. I agree...which is why we are not called to judge anyone...not our call..and yet I believe all of us are guilty of that on a daily basis.
Calm Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: . But he could have said what he did say minus the vulgarity and it would have been just as effective.. Probably not. There is likely a shock effect of that language coming from a total stranger. It is seen in our society as aggressive, very aggressive as delivered. Creates greater uncertainty. Less uncertainty might have led them to stick around long enough to figure out there was no knife. The combination of several aggressive behaviours is likely the cause of two men backing off of harming one. Edited September 25, 2017 by Calm 1
Calm Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Having gone down that path, I think people like to try what was once prohibited and sometimes go through an immature stage when leaving and experiment too much. This can lead to some unhealthy outcomes, to be sure. However, I think most realize that high school and college are in the past and move on. There is probably also a desire to create a distinction, even distance, between self and the community one has rejected. LDS see the WoW and often the other stuff as identity markers. Makes sense if one is changing how one perceives oneself, those markers would also change. In most leavetakers I have seen it isn't that drastic, especially if they are married with family. The markers are also markers of the family and so they don't see a need to change (some of those who do from what I see may use such to pressure spouses to question themselves and thus their faith in the Church, in a few cases reported online by the person himself, the manipulation came across to me and others I know as actual abuse). Those who leave while heavily involved in the anti community appear to be the ones most likely to want to portray themselves as rebels either in private or to the community. It would be interesting to be able to observe if now that the internet has allowed so many more exmormons to connect in the process of leaving the faith if such behaviour is more common than in the past when leaving was often a private affair and if it is a longer lasting change. Edited September 25, 2017 by Calm 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 50 minutes ago, Calm said: Probably not. There is likely a shock effect of that language coming from a total stranger. It is seen in our society as aggressive, very aggressive as delivered. Creates greater uncertainty. Less uncertainty might have led them to stick around long enough to figure out there was no knife. The combination of several aggressive behaviours is likely the cause of two men backing off of harming one. I agree with this. When I played rugby back in the day our head coach (former mission president) used a few explitives (not the f variety) to get us motivated to play in the national title game. It worked there as well and it had to be, in part, because we weren't used to hearing these words from him. Anyway, this is football.
Calm Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 1 minute ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I agree with this. When I played rugby back in the day our head coach (former mission president) used a few explitives (not the f variety) to get us motivated to play in the national title game. It worked there as well and it had to be, in part, because we weren't used to hearing these words from him. Anyway, this is football. I will admit to being both a prude and not that big of a fan of football (even more now that the brain injury stuff is coming out) so while I am quite okay with it in a life threatening situation, to win a game is a poor excuse, imo. What I find very distasteful is how frequent it shows up in music these days. There are quite a number of songs out there I might enjoy, but the vulgarity quickly loses my interest. I wonder if such increases its appeal over all, decreases, or doesn't matter in general.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 27 minutes ago, Calm said: I will admit to being both a prude and not that big of a fan of football (even more now that the brain injury stuff is coming out) so while I am quite okay with it in a life threatening situation, to win a game is a poor excuse, imo. What I find very distasteful is how frequent it shows up in music these days. There are quite a number of songs out there I might enjoy, but the vulgarity quickly loses my interest. I wonder if such increases its appeal over all, decreases, or doesn't matter in general. Well rock and roll was about rebellion back in the day and rap music/hip hop seems to have taken on that role today. Kids and teenagers want to act as adults and love going against what parents say. One wonders if vulgar words become commonplace, will they lose their bite? I think yes.
rongo Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 19 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Well rock and roll was about rebellion back in the day and rap music/hip hop seems to have taken on that role today. Kids and teenagers want to act as adults and love going against what parents say. One wonders if vulgar words become commonplace, will they lose their bite? I think yes. Parents swear just as much as their kids nowadays. I think the home influence is more important than the media/peer influence, although swearing is also ubiquitous among peers and in media. Since many LDS swear casually, those who don't are increasingly unique and stand out. My students don't believe that I don't swear, but they come to believe that as they get to know me. I have noticed that my example does minimize their swearing, and I do ask them not to as they do (they usually apologize). That's an interesting thought above about swearing as rebellion. I don't think it's rebellion any more --- it's more the warp and woof of society. I think it represents a cruditization and telestial state. Same as the type of people who just casually and wantonly leave litter and trash around with no attempt to throw it away. There are lots of characteristics like that, of which swearing is one.
Kenngo1969 Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I agree with this. When I played rugby back in the day our head coach (former mission president) used a few explitives (not the f variety) to get us motivated to play in the national title game. It worked there as well and it had to be, in part, because we weren't used to hearing these words from him. Anyway, this is football. Would that be Coach-slash-President Gelwix, aka The Getaway Guru? ("Thanks, Columbus!" ) (You don't have to share, if it's too much IRL info. I just couldn't resist! ) P.S.: "Members of the other team are nothing but a bunch of reeky, sheep-biting pignuts! It's time we recognize that and start playing like it!" Edited September 25, 2017 by Kenngo1969
Jeanne Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I just tell them to shrivel up and rotate...a phrase I kept from my high school days... 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 2 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Would that be Coach-slash-President Gelwix, aka The Getaway Guru? ("Thanks, Columbus!" ) (You don't have to share, if it's too much IRL info. I just couldn't resist! ) I knew it wouldn't be too tough to figure out. 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 7 minutes ago, rongo said: Parents swear just as much as their kids nowadays. I think the home influence is more important than the media/peer influence, although swearing is also ubiquitous among peers and in media. Since many LDS swear casually, those who don't are increasingly unique and stand out. My students don't believe that I don't swear, but they come to believe that as they get to know me. I have noticed that my example does minimize their swearing, and I do ask them not to as they do (they usually apologize). That's an interesting thought above about swearing as rebellion. I don't think it's rebellion any more --- it's more the warp and woof of society. I think it represents a cruditization and telestial state. Same as the type of people who just casually and wantonly leave litter and trash around with no attempt to throw it away. There are lots of characteristics like that, of which swearing is one. Maybe the swearing as rebellion comparison shows my age. But, to your point, it does seem to be commonplace nowadays. So, do you think swearing is no longer swearing if it becomes ubiquitous? It seems to me that certain english words have been promoted from the gutter over time. I can't remember which ones but I recall hearing about the phenomenon.
Bernard Gui Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) 51 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Well rock and roll was about rebellion back in the day and rap music/hip hop seems to have taken on that role today. Kids and teenagers want to act as adults and love going against what parents say. One wonders if vulgar words become commonplace, will they lose their bite? I think yes. Would you please explain how vulgarity is equated with acting like adults? Aren't parents adults, too? Edited September 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
rongo Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 3 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: Maybe the swearing as rebellion comparison shows my age. But, to your point, it does seem to be commonplace nowadays. So, do you think swearing is no longer swearing if it becomes ubiquitous? No, I think swearing is still swearing. Even with the ubiquitousness of swearing, people still know they are swearing. And, it still offends the Spirit, I think, no matter how accepted it is generally. It seems to me that certain English words have been promoted from the gutter over time. I can't remember which ones but I recall hearing about the phenomenon. One that is rapidly gaining acceptance, even among cultured, conservative adults, is "sucks" (stinks, that's awful, that's too bad, etc.). When my wife and I were dating, she used to say that, and I simply said that that was crude. She stopped and hasn't said it since (but, she was crazy about me, and wanted to impress me. ). I basically show through my example. People who want to be like me, imitate my speech patterns. If more LDS were exemplars, more people would emulate them. Our influence is what it is, for better or worse. 1
Bernard Gui Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, rongo said: No, I think swearing is still swearing. Even with the ubiquitousness of swearing, people still know they are swearing. And, it still offends the Spirit, I think, no matter how accepted it is generally. One that is rapidly gaining acceptance, even among cultured, conservative adults, is "sucks" (stinks, that's awful, that's too bad, etc.). When my wife and I were dating, she used to say that, and I simply said that that was crude. She stopped and hasn't said it since (but, she was crazy about me, and wanted to impress me. ). I basically show through my example. People who want to be like me, imitate my speech patterns. If more LDS were exemplars, more people would emulate them. Our influence is what it is, for better or worse. Like I said before, having been in the public schools for decades I have become desensitized to profanity, but it's still jarring to hear it come from adults, especially LDS adults, who should know better. It's a juvenile practice and has nothing to do with being an adult. Being in an environment where it is not only accepted but expected...arts, entertainment, sports, military, etc., doesn't make it less unappealing. Many times I have been in a faculty meeting or social setting where someone lets fly and often they apologize, as if just my presence is what actually made the words offensive. I had a teenage habit of using off-color language. It was very difficult to break. I still try to do my best to avoid it in public and private discourse. None of us is perfect, but that is no excuse for poor vocabulary. Edited September 25, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Would you please explain how vulgarity is equated with acting like adults? Aren't parents adults, too? It's something some adults do. I don't know about you but I was prohibited from saying such things but my parents occasionally would slip up and swear. But they would then say I still wasn't allowed to.
Pete Ahlstrom Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 40 minutes ago, rongo said: No, I think swearing is still swearing. Even with the ubiquitousness of swearing, people still know they are swearing. And, it still offends the Spirit, I think, no matter how accepted it is generally. One that is rapidly gaining acceptance, even among cultured, conservative adults, is "sucks" (stinks, that's awful, that's too bad, etc.). When my wife and I were dating, she used to say that, and I simply said that that was crude. She stopped and hasn't said it since (but, she was crazy about me, and wanted to impress me. ). I basically show through my example. People who want to be like me, imitate my speech patterns. If more LDS were exemplars, more people would emulate them. Our influence is what it is, for better or worse. I agree that swearing is not good conduct. However, you admit that "sucks" is becoming more accepted. I even heard over the pulpit. So, couldn't other words become more accepted over time and lose their vulgarity thereby?
Kenngo1969 Posted September 25, 2017 Posted September 25, 2017 (edited) Shakespeare Insult Kit By Jerry Maguire, [former? Current as of 1996] faculty member of Center Grove High School, Greenwood IN P.S.: I'm reminded of a voice/enunciation exercise my former drama coach taught us: "You bubble-mouthing, fog-blathering, chin-chuttering, chap-flapping, liturgical, turgidical, base old man!" Edited September 25, 2017 by Kenngo1969
rongo Posted September 26, 2017 Posted September 26, 2017 1 hour ago, Pete Ahlstrom said: I agree that swearing is not good conduct. However, you admit that "sucks" is becoming more accepted. I even heard over the pulpit. So, couldn't other words become more accepted over time and lose their vulgarity thereby? Sure, they could. I hope we don't drop down to the world's level, though. As for me and my house . . .
Recommended Posts