Ahab Posted March 27, 2020 Posted March 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: I agree, but I think it's a bit much to expect casual readers, who don't pay much attention at all, if any, to bylines and datelines to understand the distinction. Enough justification to call it fake news, though, I think. When people who don't understand the distinctions report or misreport the real news... regardless of whether or not it is noticed or properly understood... what you get as a result is fake news, and that's how we get it.
Thinking Posted March 27, 2020 Posted March 27, 2020 There are some members of the church who believe they are the exception to the rules of the land and the church. I remember when the sacrament meeting was given to the departing missionary (and family). Mom, Dad, siblings would give talks, perform musical numbers. Attendance at missionary farewells was usually much higher than normal. I don't remember the year, but the policy was changed to no longer call the sacrament meeting a missionary farewell and to allow only the departing missionary to speak as part of a normal sacrament meeting. It wasn't too long before they were being called missionary farewells again and even some parents were sending out printed invitations (I received more than several). I suppose it's possible that only my acquaintances sent out invitations, but I doubt it. That said, some LDS aren't the only people who think they are the exception. During this pandemic our school is shut down and we are providing instruction through an online format. All school sponsored activities are in suspension and coaches are not allowed to open the facilities for their athletes. I was talking to our custodian yesterday and he told me that he finds a door propped open almost every day. One day the weight room was full of athletes with no supervision. 1
Thinking Posted March 27, 2020 Posted March 27, 2020 KSL essentially published the same information on the same day, albeit with a different headline. Quote The guidelines are "common-sense measures," and it is "imperative that missionaries and their families adhere to these guidelines for their own safety, the safety of their families, and the safety of the community," said church spokesman Eric Hawkins.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 27, 2020 Posted March 27, 2020 (edited) 7 hours ago, Meadowchik said: How old is the story, Scott? Isn't it quite recent? Even in internet news, it can take a few days for a story to reach people including those who may need to see it. I didn’t check the date the wire story ran in the Times, but typically a wire story runs in a daily newspaper the same day it moves across the wire, which, in this case, was probably within a day or two of when the story broke locally. However, that’s quite beside the point, which is your ludicrous application of Doctrine Covenants 121 to the public shaming that is going on in the mass media, who obviously have no intention of “showing forth an increase of love” to these people they have excoriated, as Calm quite handily pointed out. Edited March 28, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 27, 2020 Posted March 27, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: I agree, but I think it's a bit much to expect casual readers, who don't pay much attention at all, if any, to bylines and datelines to understand the distinction. I have more confidence in the intelligence of the average reader than that. They may neglect to notice, but I question whether it’s “too much to expect them” to notice. As a test, I suppose one could ask sunstoned whether he is too ignorant to recognize or grasp the distinction between a New York Times story and an AP wire service story that the Times has run in its newspaper. Edited March 27, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 27, 2020 Posted March 27, 2020 2 hours ago, sunstoned said: I agree with you and was just speaking tongue in cheek. I do not believe in what Carl Sagan coined as a demon haunted world view. Elements and natural forces happen, just like most this in life. There is no rhyme or reason. It just is. Thank you for the agreement, but I thought it was carbon dioxide whom I was quoting and responding to.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 27, 2020 Posted March 27, 2020 6 hours ago, longview said: All newspapers have the option of selecting news wire entries. Those that interest the editor or those that they have room for. Therefore it is the "responsibility" of the editor to having placed them within their pages? But I agree it should have been made clear the source from where it came. Yes, you make a good point. But I still say there’s a significant difference between a newspaper running a wire story and running a story that was written and edited in-house.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 27, 2020 Posted March 27, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Thinking said: KSL essentially published the same information on the same day, albeit with a different headline. That’s not surprising to me, knowing what I know about wire services and how they get their news. The story was likely cobbled together by the AP bureau in Salt Lake from published or broadcasted reports by local news-gathering organizations such as KSL, the Salt Lake Tribune, the Deseret News, and voila! It ends up in the New York Times. Edited March 28, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Meadowchik Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I didn’t check the date the wire story ran in the Times, but typically a wire story runs in a daily newspaper the same day it moves across the wire, which, in this case, was probably within a day or two of when the story broke locally. However, that’s quite beside the point, which is your ludicrous application of Doctrine Covenants 121 to the public shaming that is going on in the mass media, who obviously have no intention of “showing forth an increase of love” to these people they have excoriated, as Calm quite handily pointed out. Um, we're talking about negligent and irresponsible, potentially deadly behavior. I think a social rejection of a social mistake is an appropriate way to change the social attitude.
2BizE Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 Clearly these folks should have been chided. They have placed themselves and the public at risk. Very irresponsible.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) 49 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: Um, we're talking about negligent and irresponsible, potentially deadly behavior. I think a social rejection of a social mistake is an appropriate way to change the social attitude. You’re the one who invoked the “reproving betimes” scripture without full or proper context. Look, I’m not defending the behavior of these people. I’m agreeing with Julianne and others that the matter has already gotten more than it’s justifiable share of public attention and disapprobation and has turned into an unseemly pile-on. At this point, one wonders what amount or degree of groveling by those who behaved irresponsibly and thoughtlessly would satisfy the public appetite for indignation and excoriation. It has gotten boring. When is enough enough? Edited March 28, 2020 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 6 minutes ago, 2BizE said: Clearly these folks should have been chided. They have placed themselves and the public at risk. Very irresponsible. Already happened. Do you follow the news?
Meadowchik Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You’re the one who invoked the “reproving betimes” scripture without full or proper context. Look, I’m not defending the behavior of these people. I’m agreeing with Julianne and others that the matter has already gotten more than it’s justifiable share of public attention disapprobation and has turned into an unseemly pile-on. At this point, one wonders what amount or degree of groveling by those who behaved irresponsibly would satisfy the public appetite for indignation. It has gotten boring. When is enough enough? I think "reproving betimes" can stand on its own and can be much more preferable than people being fined or, infinitely worse, people dying because of complacent celebrants.
Scott Lloyd Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: I think "reproving betimes" can stand on its own and can be much more preferable than people being fined or, infinitely worse, people dying because of complacent celebrants. Your incessant misapplication of that scripture shows you don’t understand it. What is your plan to “show forth an increase of love” to these people you are publicly excoriating? And where is the priesthood power by virtue of which you are inflicting it? If you must express continued public contempt, you have the freedom of speech to do so. But spare us the rhetorical virtue signaling by misapplying scripture the divinity of which you have rejected anyway. Edited March 28, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 1
2BizE Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 29 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Already happened. Do you follow the news? Yes. Did I apply the wrong use of past tense grammar? Do you follow language usage skills?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 1 minute ago, 2BizE said: Yes. Did I apply the wrong use of past tense grammar? Do you follow language usage skills? You said “should have been chided.” That is ambiguous. I took it it to mean the chiding hasn’t happened yet. If you now say you intended it to mean you agree with the chiding that has taken place, I accept that. But you’re not saying anything that anyone here has disagreed with.
Meadowchik Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your incessant misapplication of that scripture shows you don’t understand it. What is your plan to “show forth an increase of love” to these people you are publicly excoriating? And where is the priesthood power by virtue of which you are inflicting it? If you must express continued public contempt, you have the freedom of speech to do so. But spare us the rhetorical virtue signaling by misapplying scripture the divinity of which you have rejected anyway. Yikes. I can appreciate concepts within concepts on their merit alone. And I am allowed to like the concept of reproving betimes with sharpness. You're not a gatekeeper of who uses and doesn't use LDS-related language. If you must have it spelled out explicitly, the increase of love is exactly the act of warning and reproving during an urgent and dangerous ongoing situation.
Popular Post Calm Posted March 28, 2020 Popular Post Posted March 28, 2020 (edited) 42 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: If you must have it spelled out explicitly, the increase of love is exactly the act of warning and reproving during an urgent and dangerous ongoing situation. Not really with the "afterwards" there; given the last part that cautions against making an enemy through reproving sharply, leaving out the "afterwards" also doesn't make a lot of sense. There are probably a number of profound quotes that fit what you want to say, why use one that you have to ignore most of it to attempt to make it work for you? Edited March 28, 2020 by Calm 6
Meadowchik Posted March 28, 2020 Posted March 28, 2020 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Not really with the "afterwards" there; given the last part that cautions against making an enemy through reproving sharply, leaving out the "afterwards" also doesn't make a lot of sense. There are probably a number of profound quotes that fit what you want to say, why use one that you have to ignore most of it to attempt to make it work for you? It's part of my vocabulary and my culture. It's one of the first contexts in which I learned the concept. IMO, it still fits and is appropriate.
Stargazer Posted March 29, 2020 Posted March 29, 2020 On 3/27/2020 at 2:40 PM, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t want to waste my time reading the New York Times (a former newspaper), and I think they might have a paywall anyway. Sounds like you listen to Andrew Klavan!
Scott Lloyd Posted March 29, 2020 Posted March 29, 2020 31 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Sounds like you listen to Andrew Klavan! You caught me! 1
Analytics Posted March 30, 2020 Posted March 30, 2020 On 3/27/2020 at 9:40 AM, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t want to waste my time reading the New York Times (a former newspaper), and I think they might have a paywall anyway. But do they ever give the full name of the Church in the article? President Nelson’s words are often taken out of context in mockery. He didn’t say that using the name Mormon is a win for Satan, but rather, using it (or any other name, for that matter) in place of the name of Christ as an appellation for His Church. In what sense is the New York Times a former newspaper?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 30, 2020 Posted March 30, 2020 41 minutes ago, Analytics said: In what sense is the New York Times a former newspaper? “Explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You understand it better, but it dies in the process.” — E.B. White 2
Islander Posted April 17, 2020 Posted April 17, 2020 On 3/26/2020 at 3:57 PM, CV75 said: I think a win for Satan is reading the Times and not the Post Ha! Why read any of them? I have diversified and significantly reduced my "news" consumption in recent years. I have come to the conclusion that most of what is published out there that passes for "news" is just political opinion and propaganda. As far as I am concerned, "the news" have been dead for a couple of decades now. 1
Damien the Leper Posted April 17, 2020 Posted April 17, 2020 On 3/27/2020 at 8:21 AM, juliann said: A bit ironic considering the gender identity rules where you can lose your job for not doing just that, eh? And still transgender persons can still be fired for simply being trans. It's a totally level playing field.
Recommended Posts