canard78 Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Who is wanting Mormons to be called “restored Christians”? I thought the expressed preference was “Latter-day Saints.” Hence the bracket. The style guide refers to the “restored gospel of Jesus Christ” twice.
Calm Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, canard78 said: Hence the bracket. The style guide refers to the “restored gospel of Jesus Christ” twice. There are other Restorationist groups, but I wouldn't have a problem being grouped with them as Restored Christianity" assuming we are similar enough for it to make sense. This would be similar to Protestant grouping. Very few denominations rate being called their own category, use of "Catholicism" often assumes Orthodox are included from what I have seen, though they are also often separated out. Edited August 23, 2018 by Calm 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, canard78 said: Hence the bracket. The style guide refers to the “restored gospel of Jesus Christ” twice. But not as a name for referring to members. It is Latter-day Saints or members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or (shortened form) members of the Church of Jesus Christ. Not “restored Christians.” What does that even mean?
california boy Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Why are you saying “them” where grammatically it should be “they”? Did she really want you using the object form all the time, even where a subject form should be? she — they (subject) her - them (object) her - their (possessive) It was about 9 months ago so I am not positive. I admit it was confusing to me. I just did the best I could. Even if I didn’t always get it right, they appreciated it. Honestly it is not the easiest issue to deal with for both the person dealing with it personally or those trying to understand and respect ther wishes 2
smac97 Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Why are you saying “them” where grammatically it should be “they”? Did she really want you using the object form all the time, even where a subject form should be? she — they (subject) her - them (object) her - their (possessive) Scott, from here on out, I would like you to refer to me using the following pronouns: "You" is now replaced with "Toodle Pip McFizzlewhizzle." "Your" is now replaced with "Carrot Top Is Really a Great Actor." "He" is now replaced with "Burpmeister Schnicklegruber." "His" (object) is now replaced with "Ima Justa So Crazay, Ima Ghostin' Like Swayze." "His" (possessive) is now replaced with "Wow, That Tasted Better Going Down Than Going Up." I look forward to your compliance with this directive. And if you don't, I'm going to kidnap you, drag you up north to Canada, and get our neighbors up north to fine you into oblivion. 😀 Thanks, -Smac Edited August 23, 2018 by smac97 4
Hestia Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 48 minutes ago, smac97 said: Scott, from here on out, I would like you to refer to me using the following pronouns: "You" is now replaced with "Toodle Pip McFizzlewhizzle." "Your" is now replaced with "Carrot Top Is Really a Great Actor." "He" is now replaced with "Burpmeister Schnicklegruber." "His" (object) is now replaced with "Ima Justa So Crazay, Ima Ghostin' Like Swayze." "His" (possessive) is now replaced with "Wow, That Tasted Better Going Down Than Going Up." I look forward to your compliance with this directive. And if you don't, I'm going to kidnap you, drag you up north to Canada, and get our neighbors up north to fine you into oblivion. 😀 Thanks, -Smac Reducing the issue down to the absurd is disrespectful. Please quit.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 23, 2018 Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 12 hours ago, Hestia said: Reducing the issue down to the absurd is disrespectful. Please quit. I’m not sure that’s what this is so much as lampooning or satire. But be that as it may, reduction to the absurd, or reductio ad absurdum, is a debate technique. From Wikipedia: Quote In logic, reductio ad absurdum(Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; also argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[2] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate. I’m not sure either satire or reductio ad absurdum is inherently disrespectful. In regards to this topic (which is sensitive and deals with a group of our brothers and sisters that have often been bullied and belittled in society), the mods have decided it is. ~Mods Edited August 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
USU78 Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m not sure that’s what this is so much as lampooning or satire. But be that as it may, reduction to the absurd, or reductio ad absurdum, is a debate technique. From Wikipedia: “In logic, reductio ad absurdum(Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; also argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[2] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.” I’m not sure either satire or reductio ad absurdum is inherently disrespectful. In regards to this topic (which is sensitive and deals with a group of our brothers and sisters that have often been bullied and belittled in society), the mods have decided it is. ~Mods 🙄
6EQUJ5 Posted August 24, 2018 Author Posted August 24, 2018 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t think so. But if you can provide a link to the post where you answered it, I’ll reconsider. (Hint: Just pointing to Google hits where the term is used won’t do it. You have to show that the Church or a member or members thereof originated it. Failing that, withdraw the claim. Reported for board nannying. Kiss my grits, Lloyd.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I’m not sure that’s what this is so much as lampooning or satire. But be that as it may, reduction to the absurd, or reductio ad absurdum, is a debate technique. From Wikipedia: “In logic, reductio ad absurdum(Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; also argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible.[1][2] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[2] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις 'demonstration to the impossible', 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.” I’m not sure either satire or reductio ad absurdum is inherently disrespectful. In regards to this topic (which is sensitive and deals with a group of our brothers and sisters that have often been bullied and belittled in society), the mods have decided it is. ~Mods Noted. Thanks.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 15 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Reported for board nannying. Kiss my grits, Lloyd. Just asking if you have properly responded to the CFR. Apparently, the answer is no. 4
kllindley Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Reported for board nannying. Kiss my grits, Lloyd. So, you are refusing to answer a CFR? 1
6EQUJ5 Posted August 24, 2018 Author Posted August 24, 2018 2 hours ago, kllindley said: So, you are refusing to answer a CFR? Asked and answered. Multiple times.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Asked and answered. Multiple times. Please cite a post or comment where you have answered it. This is a repeated request that you have ignored. Why? Edited August 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd
6EQUJ5 Posted August 24, 2018 Author Posted August 24, 2018 4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Please cite a post or comment where you have answered it. This is a repeated request that you have ignored. Why? Asked and answered. Look, if you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the arguments presented, it seems strange you feel qualified to comment on this at all.
Popular Post SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 24, 2018 Popular Post Posted August 24, 2018 (edited) 11 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Asked and answered. Look, if you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the arguments presented, it seems strange you feel qualified to comment on this at all. In other words, you’ve got nothing. I’ve read the whole thread and there has not been a single post to substantiate the claim that the church or church members started the phrase. I say this as someone who thinks the church’s avoidance of the word gay is offensive. I believe board rules require you to retract the claim or back it up. Edited August 24, 2018 by SeekingUnderstanding 5
kllindley Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 7 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Asked and answered. Multiple times. I'm not one to report for violation of board rules, except personal attacks. But I am considering this an admission that you have nothing to substantiate this claim. I say this as one of the LGBT members you claim to be apologizing to. Don't act like somehow you've done more research to understand the issue than me. 3
Kenngo1969 Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 Henceforth, you shall address me as Lord Vader. It's best to not try my patience.
USU78 Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I say this as someone who thinks the church’s avoidance of the word gay is offensive. Quote Gay: adj [ME, fr. MF gai] 1: happily excited; merry; 2a: bright, lively; 2b: brilliant in color; 3: given to social pleasures; also: licentious; 4: homosexual; syn see lively --Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1970). One could make a decent argument that the utter loss of the primary and secondary meanings of the word is offensive [as I do], and that its use in present popular culture, given the primary and secondary meanings, is a sad and cynical crime against the English language. That's why I refuse to use it in connection with homosexuality: I keep seeing sad statistics, utterly at odds with those primary and secondary meanings. The French "gai" translated into English: Quote gai [ɡe ] Word forms: gai, gaie adjective 1. (= joyeux) cheerful Elle est très gaie. She’s very cheerful. 2. [livre, pièce de théâtre] light-hearted 3. (un peu ivre) merry
Scott Lloyd Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 6 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Asked and answered. Look, if you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the arguments presented, it seems strange you feel qualified to comment on this at all. If you've already answered the CFR, why won't you cite the post where you have done so? Again, the CFR is for you to document that the Church of Jesus Christ or its members originated the term "same-sex attraction." You flatly asserted that it did, adding that others "picked it up from us." I'm calling this claim bogus. It's time for you to prove it with reliable documentation or withdraw it. 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 2 hours ago, USU78 said: --Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (1970). One could make a decent argument that the utter loss of the primary and secondary meanings of the word is offensive [as I do], and that its use in present popular culture, given the primary and secondary meanings, is a sad and cynical crime against the English language. That's why I refuse to use it in connection with homosexuality: I keep seeing sad statistics, utterly at odds with those primary and secondary meanings. The French "gai" translated into English: Yes and I think we are all morning over the tragedy of silly losing its original meaning "happy, fortuitous, prosperous." https://www.etymonline.com/word/silly Language evolves. Adapting your words from a different thread: "When I say I'm [gay], I'm doing it as a pugnacious declaration: "I accept your denigracious appellation and make it my own, because despite your taking your best shot, I and mine are still standing and prospering." (I'm not gay btw, but am passionate about the issue).
Calm Posted August 24, 2018 Posted August 24, 2018 9 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: Asked and answered. Look, if you are unwilling to familiarize yourself with the arguments presented, it seems strange you feel qualified to comment on this at all. How is that possible when the only post you made between the claim that triggered the CFRs and your "asked and answered" series was telling a poster they didn't write the OP so shouldn't issue a call to stay on topic. This is easily seen by checking your profile: http://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/28864-6equj5/ 4
Recommended Posts