clarkgoble Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 29 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: I'd love to see mfbukowski weigh in on this, as he is the resident philosopher who believes that the LDS church is fully post-modern and that is its strength IMO "postmodernism" ceased being a useful label way back in the 90's.
rongo Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 1 minute ago, clarkgoble said: IMO "postmodernism" ceased being a useful label way back in the 90's. It's a useful shorthand label that generally describes an approach. People who are precise terminology Nazis are like logical fallacy Nazis. Absolutely any argument can be categorized as one of the myriad of logical fallacies, so people who are constantly throwing yellow flags over it basically halt discussion. Postmodernism is fine for a message board, in a way that it wouldn't be in an academic discussion among literary critics or philosophers. "Conservative" and "liberal" are the same way (and there are many other examples. You can get pulled out into the weeds arguing over what is and isn't "anti-Mormon"), but people constantly blowing the whistle about using them as general labels on a general message board come across as Ralph Nader nagging the auto industry. 1
MiserereNobis Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 1 minute ago, rongo said: come across as Ralph Nader nagging the auto industry Ralph Nader's nagging has over the years probably saved tens of thousands of lives...
MiserereNobis Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) 12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said: IMO "postmodernism" ceased being a useful label way back in the 90's. Perhaps. My English and philosophy degrees date to the early 2000s. In school, we pretty used much post-modern to mean contemporary. It makes me wonder what the intellectual movement after post-modernism is going to be called. I think post-modernism is hard to nail down precisely because of its tenants. But that would be a derail for this thread and let's not go down it. Edited November 3, 2017 by MiserereNobis
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, Alan said: I certainly can, but they don't get to take the sacrament. Why?
stemelbow Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 13 hours ago, Avatar4321 said: I'm less interested in what scholars have been saying and more interested in what the spirit says Good. Now if we can cut out lies and distortions from our manuals to make room for the spirit, we'd be on our way. It'd be nice to have many voices to consider as we live our lives. Embrace goodness and truth no matter from whence ti comes, I say.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 15 hours ago, filovirus said: Do you know of a country that would licence a private kitchen? Honestly, I've never looked into it. Just imagine the extra workload governments employees would have if they needed to inspect every church kitchen from every religion. Glad I work in the states. If food prepared in the kitchen is sold to the public, then private kitchens need to be licensed and inspected in the U.S. as well. I'm sure you know that but I'm just putting that out there for general information.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 1 hour ago, rongo said: But in those cases, you don't get to take the sacrament (in my view, but again, this is ideally an individual policing). Why?
rongo Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 29 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Ralph Nader's nagging has over the years probably saved tens of thousands of lives... Yes, some of it has, and that is to his credit. Not all of it, though. Just like not all of OSHA's regulations are reasonable and necessary for safety. I'm thinking back to the MSDS sheets at the Richards building at BYU. According to OSHA, hand soap is classed as a chemical that requires gloves and goggles to put it into the dispensers. It is designed to . . . be used on bare hands.
rongo Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: Why? If they are absent to listen to and say Amen to the prayers? Do you think people who aren't present for the prayers should take the sacrament? Again, I think God completely understands when parents can't because life happens. Edited November 3, 2017 by rongo
clarkgoble Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Perhaps. My English and philosophy degrees date to the early 2000s. In school, we pretty used much post-modern to mean contemporary. It makes me wonder what the intellectual movement after post-modernism is going to be called. I think post-modernism is hard to nail down precisely because of its tenants. But that would be a derail for this thread and let's not go down it. I think after Sokal it became pejorative. But more particularly the people in this thread using the term are using it to mean no truth or relativism which is not at all what even major figures in postmodernism like Derrida meant. (Although Derrida never liked the term as I recall) Admittedly it was Lyotard who really got the term rolling and it was English departments more than philosophy that popularized it. Many of those self-embracing the term admittedly did have pretty egregiously bad views. Often aping Heideggarian or Derridean "word mysticism" without really understanding what they were doing. I used to call myself postmodern but don't anymore. As for what came next, I think object oriented philosophy has been the popular new movement of the last decade. There's some major Mormons working in that field like Adam Miller whose Speculative Grace was a well received volume in the field. One way of viewing postmodernism is to not see it as separate so much from modernism as a recognition of being trapped in modernism yet recognizing its flaws. In that sense it's really not "post" at all. Without derailing the thread I do think we need to figure out a way to discuss truth without conflating sollipsism with certain ontological differences over truth. For instance Mark, who's deeply influenced by Dewey and Rorty might differ with me regarding the ontology of truth, but I suspect as a practical matter we both largely agree on most truth claims. Contrast this with a certain class of people from literature or anthropology departments who embrace a thoroughgoing relativism well beyond the points someone like Dewey makes. I actually do agree that a lot that's been going on in the academy undermines a lot of social development. Although I think I could easily make my case within a community embracing Rorty, Dewey, Foucault and so forth. The danger was always there even in "good" postmodernism. After all if truth is just power a Trumpian like denial of respecting truth seems natural to attempt.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 23 minutes ago, rongo said: If they are absent to listen to and say Amen to the prayers? Do you think people who aren't present for the prayers should take the sacrament? Again, I think God completely understands when parents can't because life happens. No, if they are not in the chapel, why can't they receive the sacrament?
rongo Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: No, if they are not in the chapel, why can't they receive the sacrament? We take the sacrament to people in the foyer all the time (with the prayer audio piped out to the foyer) --- and we don't determine how long they've been there. I thought you were referring to people whose children had a diaper emergency and missed the prayer. Do you think that people (any people, late-comers, whatever) who don't hear and say Amen to the prayers should take the sacrament? Edited November 3, 2017 by rongo
Jeanne Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 22 minutes ago, rongo said: We take the sacrament to people in the foyer all the time (with the prayer audio piped out to the foyer) --- and we don't determine how long they've been there. I thought you were referring to people whose children had a diaper emergency and missed the prayer. Do you think that people (any people, late-comers, whatever) who don't hear and say Amen to the prayers should take the sacrament? The deacons have always taken the sacrament to anyone outside the doors of the chapel into the foyer. I do commend the church that they always have a sacrament meeting for those living in rest homes and assisted living places. In times past, this has been the highlight of my father's week. Also, in days past, I remember many musical numbers and full sacrament meetings taken over 40 miles away from my ward in participation with the stake in making sure that these elderly were remembered. 1
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, rongo said: We take the sacrament to people in the foyer all the time (with the prayer audio piped out to the foyer) --- and we don't determine how long they've been there. I thought you were referring to people whose children had a diaper emergency and missed the prayer. Do you think that people (any people, late-comers, whatever) who don't hear and say Amen to the prayers should take the sacrament? No, I was referring to the question, that has been discussed by other posters, on whether or not people who arrive late and sit in the foyer should be allowed to take the sacrament. Alan, for example, believes that they should not be allowed to take it. It's in reference to thesis point #24- "Relatedly, those wards that only provide the Sacrament to those who are seated in the chapel because the people in the lobby didn’t get to church on time?? Stop that right now. Limiting access to the Sacrament based on arrival time is high-level Pharisee nonsense." Edited November 3, 2017 by bluebell
ksfisher Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Not sure, but their outfits are way cooler than any of the security hanging out around the church office building... That's the upside that I'm seeing. Do they carry halberds? If we had Swiss guard with halberds it might cut down on the number of protestors around conference time.
rongo Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 23 minutes ago, bluebell said: No, I was referring to the question, that has been discussed by other posters, on whether or not people who arrive late and sit in the foyer should be allowed to take the sacrament. Alan, for example, believes that they should not be allowed to take it. As I've said, we (the Church everywhere) already takes the sacrament out into the foyer, and the deacons offer it to everyone. They don't withhold it from anyone; it's not up to them to determine who does and who doesn't. This is like pulling teeth with you. Let me try it this way. Do you, bluebell, think that people who (for whatever reason) are not present for the prayers and can't say Amen to them, should take the sacrament? Alan, I, and others are talking in terms of "should," not what actually takes place in practice. Are you, bluebell, personally okay with someone who just walks in the building as the sacrament is being passed to the people in the foyer scrambling to take it? Your answer, Alan's, and mine don't set policy or make earthshaking changes. We're just having a discussion here at the "should" level. ----- A related question, because it does happen: if a latecomer walks in just as the water is being passed in the foyer (or walks into the chapel just as the water is being passed), should that person take the water? The person wasn't there for the bread at all (obviously), and missed the water prayer as well. Nobody is out there slapping people's hands, but as far as propriety goes, I think the sacrament is a package deal. I don't think one should take only half of it, myself. The sacrament represents the renewal of our baptism covenant. We wouldn't even consider allowing someone who walks into the room after the baptismal prayer was said (i.e., who wasn't there in the water during the prayer) to walk down into the font and be baptized. For those who think Alan and I are too rigid on this, why would the sacrament be different from baptism? 1
nuclearfuels Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: Not sure, but their outfits are way cooler than any of the security hanging out around the church office building... They that be with us are greater than they that be with them. (They = our Cherubic Guards that make the Swiss guard look like Swiss cheese. True story.)
nuclearfuels Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 19 hours ago, kiwi57 said: Do you have a death wish? No, most noble kiwi57. I do not have a death wish. I have a wish to LIVE fully.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 12 minutes ago, rongo said: As I've said, we (the Church everywhere) already takes the sacrament out into the foyer, and the deacons offer it to everyone. They don't withhold it from anyone; it's not up to them to determine who does and who doesn't. This is like pulling teeth with you. Let me try it this way. Do you, bluebell, think that people who (for whatever reason) are not present for the prayers and can't say Amen to them, should take the sacrament? Alan, I, and others are talking in terms of "should," not what actually takes place in practice. Are you, bluebell, personally okay with someone who just walks in the building as the sacrament is being passed to the people in the foyer scrambling to take it? Your answer, Alan's, and mine don't set policy or make earthshaking changes. We're just having a discussion here at the "should" level. ----- A related question, because it does happen: if a latecomer walks in just as the water is being passed in the foyer (or walks into the chapel just as the water is being passed), should that person take the water? The person wasn't there for the bread at all (obviously), and missed the water prayer as well. Nobody is out there slapping people's hands, but as far as propriety goes, I think the sacrament is a package deal. I don't think one should take only half of it, myself. The sacrament represents the renewal of our baptism covenant. We wouldn't even consider allowing someone who walks into the room after the baptismal prayer was said (i.e., who wasn't there in the water during the prayer) to walk down into the font and be baptized. For those who think Alan and I are too rigid on this, why would the sacrament be different from baptism? I was actually a member of a ward 5 years ago (in Montana) that didn't allow the sacrament to be taken out to the foyer and also openly taught over the pulpit that if you didn't take the bread (for whatever reason) deacons were not to offer you the water. I think there is more variety in how wards handle the sacrament than you are aware of. But as I said, i was specifically asking in reference to point #24 and those who agreed with it. If you don't agree with it, then I suppose our discussion is done.
rongo Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: But as I said, i was specifically asking in reference to point #24 and those who agreed with it. If you don't agree with it, then I suppose our discussion is done. I'm simply asking what you think, personally. It seems to me that you are fine with people just taking the sacrament, even if they aren't there for the prayers, but it's hard to tell, because you won't say. If you don't want to answer that, then that's fine. I don't know why you wouldn't want to answer it, though.
bluebell Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 6 minutes ago, rongo said: I'm simply asking what you think, personally. It seems to me that you are fine with people just taking the sacrament, even if they aren't there for the prayers, but it's hard to tell, because you won't say. If you don't want to answer that, then that's fine. I don't know why you wouldn't want to answer it, though. No, I don't think that people should take the sacrament if they weren't there for the prayers, and I don't personally take it if that happens to me (which has only happened once, due to a baby).
ksfisher Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 (edited) 22 minutes ago, rongo said: I'm simply asking what you think, personally. It seems to me that you are fine with people just taking the sacrament, even if they aren't there for the prayers, but it's hard to tell, because you won't say. If you don't want to answer that, then that's fine. I don't know why you wouldn't want to answer it, though. Personally, there have been a few times in the past when a calling has taken me to another ward and I've been late for my own sacrament meeting. There have been times when I've walked into the foyer at various stages of the sacrament. If I've not been present, at least in the foyer, for the start of the prayer on the bread I've declined to take the sacrament. This is what feels right for me to do. In my mind it would be sort of like walking into a temple session late. The way I understand the sacrament, and this is just for me, I want to be there from the moment the prayer starts. This to me shows proper reverence for this sacred ordinance. Officially I've never heard of any direction. In our ward, after the water is blessed, we do not take the bread to anyone who missed it. This feels right to us, but again I'm not aware of any formal directive on this. I have heard Elder Cook say that it is appropriate to take the sacrament to those who've had to take children out of the chapel. Edited November 3, 2017 by ksfisher 1
mnn727 Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 18 hours ago, filovirus said: Heck, we licence movie theatres that only serve soda with ice. Size and ability of a kitchen is a non factor for licensure. Have you ever looked at a soda head or an ice machine that is not cleaned/sanitized on a regular basis?
mnn727 Posted November 3, 2017 Posted November 3, 2017 Hope-for-things, are you a member? if so, why?
Recommended Posts