CA Steve Posted March 30, 2018 Posted March 30, 2018 Live feed from a local helicopter of the march going on. Hard to tell but there looks like a lot of people there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDu2YmTTdzg
stemelbow Posted March 30, 2018 Posted March 30, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, CA Steve said: Live feed from a local helicopter of the march going on. Hard to tell but there looks like a lot of people there. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDu2YmTTdzg Wrong March. This was the student led gun march last week. I attended the march today. It was fun enough. It failed in that we went to the cob instead of the cab where the brethren’s offices are. But what can you do? It was peaceful with a couple hundred people Edited March 30, 2018 by stemelbow
stemelbow Posted March 30, 2018 Posted March 30, 2018 17 hours ago, rongo said: Anyone still think that Sam Young is not dangerously close to apostasy territory, if not already there: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/prnewswire/press_releases/Texas/2018/03/29/UN50362 He also notably omits "Jesus Christ" from the Church's name: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11VDVsFi2sQ2zU5XfMh-muQRjCIeddwUY/view This is looking more and more like a basketball player mugging the guy he's guarding, and then going full out drama queen when whistled for a foul. I kind of agree. Anyone interested to in labeling this guy or anyone else an apostate is embracing drama. Maybe I’m thinking opposite of you though.
Jeanne Posted March 30, 2018 Posted March 30, 2018 36 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Wrong March. This was the student led gun march last week. I attended the march today. It was fun enough. It failed in that we went to the cob instead of the cab where the brethren’s offices are. But what can you do? It was peaceful with a couple hundred people Just saw this on ABC news. It was good coverage..from me to you..thank you for going.
carbon dioxide Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 23 hours ago, Calm said: I think you can have an extensive conversation about sexual morals without ever once going to "sex with robots". That seems like a very modern, first world problem that the vast majority of humanity has not even imagined. The vast majority of humanity never envisioned gay marriage but here we are. Welcome to the 21st century. Eventually robots will be given rights and who knows what else will happen. We are living in the Twilight Zone.
carbon dioxide Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 20 hours ago, Storm Rider said: Well now, for a thread about Sam Young and apostasy this thread seems to have wandered very far form the topic. How about we focus on the topic of the thread and then start another thread to address sex with robots and any other permutation that you guys would like to discuss? I went about 6 pages. That is pretty good.
bsjkki Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) Link to news story about march today. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5561505/Mormon-youth-interviews-bishops-scrutiny.html Edited March 31, 2018 by bsjkki
Marginal Gains Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: The vast majority of humanity never envisioned gay marriage but here we are. Welcome to the 21st century. Eventually robots will be given rights and who knows what else will happen. We are living in the Twilight Zone. In your mind gays are more the equivalent of robots than of other human beings? The 1967 version of you would have said - the vast majority of humanity never envisioned interracial marriage but here we are. Welcome to the 20th century. Edited March 31, 2018 by Marginal Gains 1
Gray Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 On 3/30/2018 at 12:43 AM, rongo said: Anyone still think that Sam Young is not dangerously close to apostasy territory, if not already there: https://www.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/prnewswire/press_releases/Texas/2018/03/29/UN50362 He also notably omits "Jesus Christ" from the Church's name: https://drive.google.com/file/d/11VDVsFi2sQ2zU5XfMh-muQRjCIeddwUY/view This is looking more and more like a basketball player mugging the guy he's guarding, and then going full out drama queen when whistled for a foul. Anyone whose lips utter the phrase "LDS Church" is surely on the fast track to hell! 1
rongo Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: Anyone whose lips utter the phrase "LDS Church" is surely on the fast track to hell! Come on. He didn't say "LDS Church," but nice try running interference for him. Calling the Church "Church of the Latter-day Saints" in something meant to be seen by the media and public, and for someone touting himself as organizing a march to help the Church is really odd --- especially for someone touting himself as an active Mormon. Even Mormon Church wouldn't have batted an eye. That wording is intentional, and it is a sign of disrespect nobody not trying to be antagonistic would do. 1
Gray Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, rongo said: Come on. He didn't say "LDS Church," but nice try running interference for him. Calling the Church "Church of the Latter-day Saints" in something meant to be seen by the media and public, and for someone touting himself as organizing a march to help the Church is really odd --- especially for someone touting himself as an active Mormon. Even Mormon Church wouldn't have batted an eye. That wording is intentional, and it is a sign of disrespect nobody not trying to be antagonistic would do. I had only seen this bit: Quote There should be no place in the LDS Church for sexually-explicit conversations between male Church elders and young boys and girls, and that policy should be in writing. Seems a bit odd to leave it out, but it also seems silly/thin skinned to get offended at "Church of the Latter-day Saints"
rongo Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: I had only seen this bit: Seems a bit odd to leave it out, but it also seems silly/thin skinned to get offended at "Church of the Latter-day Saints" The thing is that *nobody* says that other than really ill-informed outsiders in news articles (where it isn't a big deal). Mormons --- active, inactive, or whatever, are always going to use a) the full name of the Church, b) Mormon Church, c) LDS Church, or d) the Church. This is a blatant refusal to include "Jesus Christ" on the part of an ostensibly active member who ostensibly just wants to drive needed change in the Church. To me, "the Church of Latter-day Saints" is a purposeful and blatant exclusion and separation of the Church from Jesus Christ. Which tells a lot about a) how he publicly perceives the Church, and b) how he wants his movement to influence how non-Mormons perceive the Church. Get the candles for the vigil ready, and book the interview with John Dehlin. 1
Calm Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 20 hours ago, stemelbow said: Wrong March. This was the student led gun march last week. I attended the march today. It was fun enough. It failed in that we went to the cob instead of the cab where the brethren’s offices are. But what can you do? It was peaceful with a couple hundred people Here is some video of the correct march, I believe: https://mobile.twitter.com/CourtneyLTanner/status/979795127047614464
Tacenda Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 1 hour ago, rongo said: The thing is that *nobody* says that other than really ill-informed outsiders in news articles (where it isn't a big deal). Mormons --- active, inactive, or whatever, are always going to use a) the full name of the Church, b) Mormon Church, c) LDS Church, or d) the Church. This is a blatant refusal to include "Jesus Christ" on the part of an ostensibly active member who ostensibly just wants to drive needed change in the Church. To me, "the Church of Latter-day Saints" is a purposeful and blatant exclusion and separation of the Church from Jesus Christ. Which tells a lot about a) how he publicly perceives the Church, and b) how he wants his movement to influence how non-Mormons perceive the Church. Get the candles for the vigil ready, and book the interview with John Dehlin. I am in agreement Rongo, I wish Sam hadn't done that. At one time the church had that name, but it's too bad Sam put it that way and on the letter sent to the presidency? That doesn't help the cause because the leaders will see it as anti.
california boy Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 17 hours ago, carbon dioxide said: The vast majority of humanity never envisioned gay marriage but here we are. Welcome to the 21st century. Eventually robots will be given rights and who knows what else will happen. We are living in the Twilight Zone. The vast majority of humanity is not gay. Humm. Wonder if that is why they never envisioned themselves with a committed spouse that they love and want to share this life with even when , shockingly, they were the same sex. I know, crazy huh? Gay people wanting similar things in life to the rest of humanity.
flameburns623 Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 2 hours ago, rongo said: The thing is that *nobody* says that other than really ill-informed outsiders in news articles (where it isn't a big deal). Mormons --- active, inactive, or whatever, are always going to use a) the full name of the Church, b) Mormon Church, c) LDS Church, or d) the Church. This is a blatant refusal to include "Jesus Christ" on the part of an ostensibly active member who ostensibly just wants to drive needed change in the Church. To me, "the Church of Latter-day Saints" is a purposeful and blatant exclusion and separation of the Church from Jesus Christ. Which tells a lot about a) how he publicly perceives the Church, and b) how he wants his movement to influence how non-Mormons perceive the Church. Get the candles for the vigil ready, and book the interview with John Dehlin. Do what? The Church has a preposterously long name. We all reference it using abbreviations, shorthand, etcetera. Some shortcuts are deliberately, evidently insulting. This one, not particularly so. No idea if the guy had referenced the name in full earlier or subsequently, cueing his intended audience as to the religious body intended.. Or if the general tone of the passage which you cited was sneering or provocative, which might lend credence to your surmisr that insult was intended. But in a Twitter and sound byte sort of world, we should not assume that a truncated reference is meant to be demeaning.
CA Steve Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 3 hours ago, rongo said: The thing is that *nobody* says that other than really ill-informed outsiders in news articles (where it isn't a big deal). Mormons --- active, inactive, or whatever, are always going to use a) the full name of the Church, b) Mormon Church, c) LDS Church, or d) the Church. This is a blatant refusal to include "Jesus Christ" on the part of an ostensibly active member who ostensibly just wants to drive needed change in the Church. To me, "the Church of Latter-day Saints" is a purposeful and blatant exclusion and separation of the Church from Jesus Christ. Which tells a lot about a) how he publicly perceives the Church, and b) how he wants his movement to influence how non-Mormons perceive the Church. Get the candles for the vigil ready, and book the interview with John Dehlin. Most times when I am talking with other members I use the term LDS as a way of self identification between members. So when I am asking someone if they are a member I usually ask: Are you LDS? Do I think he intentionally did it the way he did? Yes Do I find it insulting? Not really.
rongo Posted March 31, 2018 Posted March 31, 2018 2 hours ago, CA Steve said: Most times when I am talking with other members I use the term LDS as a way of self identification between members. So when I am asking someone if they are a member I usually ask: Are you LDS? Had he said LDS Church, I wouldn't have batted an eye. Do I think he intentionally did it the way he did? Yes Do I find it insulting? Not really. I agree. I don't find it insulting. I find it telling. I have yet to see an apostate who can resist twisting the knife, especially when playing to an audience.
SJR3t2 Posted April 27, 2018 Posted April 27, 2018 On 2018-03-27 at 1:19 PM, phaedrus ut said: We will have to protect the good name of the church. It is scary at this is any part of any motivation for the church.
smac97 Posted April 27, 2018 Posted April 27, 2018 2 minutes ago, SJR3t2 said: It is scary at this is any part of any motivation for the church. Why? Isn't your reputation important to you? -Smac
Jeanne Posted April 27, 2018 Posted April 27, 2018 3 minutes ago, smac97 said: Why? Isn't your reputation important to you? -Smac My reputation is very important to me...but not to the expense of others...ever.
smac97 Posted April 27, 2018 Posted April 27, 2018 12 minutes ago, Jeanne said: My reputation is very important to me...but not to the expense of others...ever. I can respect that. So we've established that the Church is entitled to maintain and protect it's reputation. Not by any and all means, to be sure. Thanks, -Smac
Recommended Posts