Thinking Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 6 hours ago, smac97 said: I really don't understand the rules here. I'm not sure there are rules here. There are plenty of female posters who would be happy to womansplain them to you. 1
The Nehor Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 4 hours ago, cipriano said: Well, I would definitely leave out words like infidelity or affair because that conflates two different things. If it isn't a physical relationship than a member is not violating the Law of Chastity. 99.9% of the time the term "emotional affair" is used by the incredibly insecure. As far as I can tell, it is not even a clinical or legal term. But it's been pushed into mainstream usage by Evangelicals. Google the term and 80% of the results are stuff like Focus on the Family and it's fellow travelers. Perhaps not the explicit law of chastity but you are violating the “cleave unto each other” commandments and that is just as bad. The Law of Chastity is also not a clinical or legal term so does that make it pointless? Why are you trying to deny this kind of lack of faithfulness exists? 1
Calm Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 5 hours ago, Metis_LDS said: How does one Report a thread out of control! Report button is in upper right hand corner. You may need to get to 25 posts to use it. 1 hour ago, rongo said: No small thing, that! Welcome to the message board, by the way. According to their profile, cipriano has been on the board since 2013. 1
cipriano Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 26 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Why are you trying to deny this kind of lack of faithfulness exists? I am not doing this. I'm just trying to keep concepts organized. I hate to see the Law Of Chastity blurred. When Caeser was 100 miles away from the Rubicon he had not crossed over. When he was 1 inch away he still had not crossed over. When he crossed it was immediate and irreversible. It seems like an obvious line to me. It's better to be welcomed late than never. I think 2013 was when I joined to weigh in on the Hobby Lobby hubbub.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 32 minutes ago, Calm said: Report button is in upper right hand corner. You may need to get to 25 posts to use it. According to their profile, cipriano has been on the board since 2013. According to “their” profile? Is Cipriano a couple, or perhaps a team?
Calm Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 5 hours ago, USU78 said: the instant media attention seeker was given specific counsel and advice.... 4. Thereupon the instant media attention seeker sought media attention. The date of the Mormonleaks release was Feb 14 or 15, 2018. From the mormonleaks info, therefore I will not link to it: "Ms. Hadlock was divorced in April 2016..... Mr. Clayton asked Ms. Hadlock to meet with him in May or June of 2016 to discuss what he viewed as discord among ward members because of the divorce. This meeting was recorded... Mr. Clayton asked Ms. Hadlock to meet a second time on January 15, 2017. This meeting was recorded... On January 16, 2017, Mr. Clayton sent Ms. Hadlock an email.... On June 21, 2017, Mr. Clayton sent Ms. Hadlock and email....." "instant media attention seeker" USU, Is there somewhere else this information was shared 7 months ago? 2
cipriano Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: According to “their” profile? Is Cipriano a couple, or perhaps a team? Nope, I'm just one active member with many opinions. To quote a Modest Mouse song - My Opinions are like kittens I just give them away.
Thinking Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 19 minutes ago, cipriano said: I am not doing this. I'm just trying to keep concepts organized. I hate to see the Law Of Chastity blurred. When Caeser was 100 miles away from the Rubicon he had not crossed over. When he was 1 inch away he still had not crossed over. When he crossed it was immediate and irreversible. It seems like an obvious line to me. Read the Gospel Topics. Quote Merely refraining from sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not sufficient in the Lord's standard of personal purity. The Lord requires a high moral standard of His disciples, including complete fidelity to one's spouse in thought and conduct. Chastity 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 (edited) 19 minutes ago, cipriano said: Nope, I'm just one active member with many opinions. To quote a Modest Mouse song - My Opinions are like kittens I just give them away. Yes. More and more writers these days are using the plural possessive pronoun their, even when the indeterminate antecedent noun is singular. As a somewhat strict grammarian, I disapprove. Edited February 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Calm Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 (edited) 28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: According to “their” profile? Is Cipriano a couple, or perhaps a team? There is no indication ciprano is male or female on their profile. If it has been made clear in posts, I spaced on it. I choose not to assume. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they It has a decent history of use (14-16 century used commonly) and has been used more recently since the 70s. Almost 50 years of usage seems not particularly innovative. Edited February 20, 2018 by Calm 3
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Calm said: There is no indication ciprano is male or female on their profile. If it has been made clear in posts, I spaced on it. I choose not to assume. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they It has a decent history of use (14-16 century used commonly) and has been used more recently since the 70s. Almost 50 years of usage seems not particularly innovative. Obviously, I don’t accept Wikipedia’s authority in this matter. Using a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent still strikes me as careless writing. By the way, it hasn’t been close to 50 years since the 1970s. Edited February 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Thinking Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: More and more writers these days are using the plural possessive pronoun their as an indefinite possessive pronoun, even when the noun is singular. As a somewhat strict grammarian, I disapprove. Perhaps on a discussion board everybody should refrain from sharing their judgement about another poster's grammar. 3
Calm Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Obviously, I don’t accept Wikipedia’s authority in this matter. Using a plural pronoun with a singular antecedent still strikes me as careless writing. By the way, it hasn’t been close to 50 years since the 1970s. 1970-2018 is 48 years, is it not? 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Calm said: 1970-2018 is 48 years, is it not? You said “since the ‘70s.” That would be 1980 and beyond. That’s 38 years. But it doesn’t matter to me anyway, since I’ve never believed in longevity allowances for sub-standard speech or writing. Edited February 20, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 14 minutes ago, Thinking said: Perhaps on a discussion board everybody should refrain from sharing their judgement about another poster's grammar. Perhaps on a discussion board, one should not have the expression of one’s opinion so fettered.
Thinking Posted February 20, 2018 Posted February 20, 2018 6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Perhaps on a discussion board, one should not have the expression of one’s opinion so fettered. With your education there is little doubt that you realize that languages evolve. 2
Recommended Posts