Kenngo1969 Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 16 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said: ... In Indonesian, there is no grammatical gender of any kind, which solves this problem, there being only a single word for he/she/it. Unfortunately, the use of the first-person and second-person pronouns is reserved for intimate/familial relationships in Indonesian, and there are literally dozens of euphemisms for I and you that one has to pick from, informed by the relative social status of the speaker/hearer, the formality and nature of the occasion, and the ethnic group/local culture. Personally, I'd rather have to deal with gendered pronouns! There are sixteen different ways to say the word "the" in German, depending on to what (or to whom) one is referring. And multiply that by the number of cases there are ...
mfbukowski Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 (edited) 16 hours ago, Peacefully said: Both male and female enlisted members of the US Air Force are still called “Airmen.” The RAF is now using the term “Aviator.” Fwiw. One who aviates. Sounds like something you'd want to leave private to me. Reminds me of someone saying "I will notate that in the record..." How about "piloter"? This is really making a mess! Edited July 11, 2022 by mfbukowski 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 17 hours ago, Peacefully said: Both male and female enlisted members of the US Air Force are still called “Airmen.” The RAF is now using the term “Aviator.” Fwiw. 1
ttribe Posted July 11, 2022 Posted July 11, 2022 7 minutes ago, Obehave said: Do you think that is too few pages or too many? I think starting a thread at all to complain about a thread ban is silly.
webbles Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 49 minutes ago, Obehave said: The word woman has a man in it too. Face it, no woman will ever be able to live without a man in one way or another. Man used to mean humankind. Males were previously called "wæpnedmann" (variant "wepman"). I believe it was when French was introduced into England that caused the "wifman" to move to "woman" and for "wepman" to move to man. So "woman" doesn't contain the modern "man" in it, it contains the modern "humankind". 2
The Nehor Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 1 hour ago, Obehave said: The word woman has a man in it too. Face it, no woman will ever be able to live without a man in one way or another. *groan* 28 minutes ago, webbles said: Man used to mean humankind. Males were previously called "wæpnedmann" (variant "wepman"). I believe it was when French was introduced into England that caused the "wifman" to move to "woman" and for "wepman" to move to man. So "woman" doesn't contain the modern "man" in it, it contains the modern "humankind". I vote we change it back to wepman. Sounds much better. 4
Kenngo1969 Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 2 hours ago, Obehave said: The word woman has a man in it too. Face it, no woman will ever be able to live without a man in one way or another. Your incredible sexism will go over really well with some of the ladies here. Just sayin'! 1
mfbukowski Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said: Dude, you're too young for that stuff! 1
mfbukowski Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 34 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said: Your incredible sexism will go over really well with some of the ladies here. Just sayin'! You're just as bad! It's "women" now! 1
Kenngo1969 Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Dude, you're too young for that stuff! Nah. Oldies are goodies, in my book! 2
Scott Lloyd Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 On 7/10/2022 at 11:21 PM, Emily said: Anyone know if this is also true in Mandarin Chinese (or I guess any form of Chinese since the same characters are probably used by all Chinese languages? I really know very little about the languages) I read machine translated articles/stories occasionally and I've found that Chinese ends up being very confusing using "he" or 'she" rather randomly in the translations and halfway into an article, you realize 'she' was actually a male or vice versa. I haven't seen that with the Latin languages, or Korean, but it's common with Chinese machine translations. As long as we’re comparing languages here, I’ll mention that in Swedish (my second language), the word man could have either of two meanings. It could mean an adult male (just as it does in English; it’s a pure cognate), or it could be a non-gender-specific pronoun, which we might translate as one in English. 1
Tacenda Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 11 hours ago, Obehave said: What translation of Genesis was that? Anyways, you're talking about a long long time ago. These days a man is a male and a woman is a female. At least the last time I checked. The LGBTQ people are trying really hard to spark another revolution to try to change that but for now the words are man and woman a the word woman does have a man in it. Don't try to confuse me again. I still know how things are supposed to work now. Nope, your clueless really, sorry to be so blunt.
longview Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 13 minutes ago, Obehave said: You are neither funny nor persuasive. 2
latterdaytemplar Posted July 12, 2022 Posted July 12, 2022 There are already a lot of pages under that topic, so I apologize if I have repeated any concerns that you may want to address. Also, I'm not sure whether you were preparing for this past Sunday or one of the coming Sundays; again, my apologies if I am too late. Although I am curious about these, most of them are not my concerns but rather concerns that I myself have encountered from someone else. Potential Concerns Why was Joseph Smith Jr sealed to Louisa Beaman for time and all eternity before he was sealed to his first wife Emma? How much of the decision to engage in polygamy was inspired by God vs. by man? How is polygamy practiced in the eternities? Does it have the potential to cause similar strife in the eternities as it has for some in mortality? If a man's wife dies, and the man remarries/reseals, will the first wife be forced to participate in that polygamous situation in the eternities? Also, on a separate note (given that you have marked yourself as a Male on your profile here) this is a really sucky position that your Relief Society president has put you in, unless you are the bishop (which I doubt, since you've only been there since April) or an expert in the topic. Barring these two exceptions, I would personally go back and say that I will not be giving that lesson; not because this affects the truthfulness of what you have to say, but rather because men are viewed as typically having been favored in the Church's polygamous practices, particularly by those who have such concerns in the first place. If you did already go through with the class and you do not fall into those two exceptions, then I'm sorry that you were put into that position. But, if you are going to go through with it, then I hope that the above-listed concerns are of benefit to you in preparation for your class.
JLHPROF Posted July 13, 2022 Posted July 13, 2022 4 hours ago, latterdaytemplar said: Why was Joseph Smith Jr sealed to Louisa Beaman for time and all eternity before he was sealed to his first wife Emma? Joseph was sealed to many of his wives before being sealed to Emma. From an gospel perspective she wasn't his first eternal companion. One theory speculated that Joseph wouldn't be sealed to her until she accepted plural marriage. So the Partridges and Lawrences etc thing happened.
Emily Posted July 13, 2022 Posted July 13, 2022 On 7/10/2022 at 11:55 PM, Hamba Tuhan said: Just spoke to her online. She said the pronouns are marked for gender and number in writing but are all pronounced the same in speech. Now I'm wondering if it's just bad translations then, the engine not properly translating the characters or something, since it's written Chinese (translated) that I'm reading.
carbon dioxide Posted July 13, 2022 Posted July 13, 2022 I don't think God forces us to do anything at any time. That was true in the premortal world. True in the mortal one and in the resurrection. I think if someone does not want to be sealed in a polygamist relationship in heaven, God will honor that. God controls the sealing power and he can undo it as well. If we believe that God is just and loves his children and wants us to be happy, we will be placed in a situation that we are happy with.
Calm Posted July 13, 2022 Posted July 13, 2022 10 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: I think if someone does not want to be sealed in a polygamist relationship in heaven, God will honor that. How does one reconcile that a man’s ultimate happiness would be to have both wives he lived with while mortal as eternal companions while each of his wives ultimate happiness would be for him to be her husband and no one else’s? 3
Popular Post The Nehor Posted July 13, 2022 Popular Post Posted July 13, 2022 1 hour ago, Calm said: How does one reconcile that a man’s ultimate happiness would be to have both wives he lived with while mortal as eternal companions while each of his wives ultimate happiness would be for him to be her husband and no one else’s? The eradication of jealousy that springs from fear of being replaced with the growth of omniscience as both wives know of his love completely. Also the development of omnipotence removes the economic and social restrictions that require time and effort be split. This works just as well for two men both being sealed to the same woman. 5
Calm Posted July 13, 2022 Posted July 13, 2022 2 hours ago, The Nehor said: The eradication of jealousy that springs from fear of being replaced with the growth of omniscience as both wives know of his love completely. Also the development of omnipotence removes the economic and social restrictions that require time and effort be split. This works just as well for two men both being sealed to the same woman. This assumes that there is not any other reason besides self centeredness and a misunderstanding of eternity that is at the root of the desire to be the only one. But if there is more than those to being one flesh….and many women I know believe there is something more than just having all the time and effort available, then the above still does not reconcile the differences. One could reason that two perfect men who are both omnipotent and omniscient and completely balanced personalities should have all that is needed for a perfect eternal companionship and yet we due to faith in teachings assume there is something more that requires a male female bond. I believe women who view a one to one relationship as necessary for ultimate joy and exaltation are relying on faith in certain teachings as well. These teachings cannot imo be reconciled by saying eternal qualities can make polygamy as capable as monogamy to produce eternal happiness. 2
InCognitus Posted July 13, 2022 Posted July 13, 2022 9 hours ago, The Nehor said: The eradication of jealousy that springs from fear of being replaced with the growth of omniscience as both wives know of his love completely. Also the development of omnipotence removes the economic and social restrictions that require time and effort be split. This works just as well for two men both being sealed to the same woman. You left out "omnipresence", which, in the traditional Christian view of God, would solve the entire problem (but based on D&C 38:1-2, and D&C 88:6-13, 41, I know that's not how omnipresence works in the "real world").
The Nehor Posted July 13, 2022 Posted July 13, 2022 4 minutes ago, InCognitus said: You left out "omnipresence", which, in the traditional Christian view of God, would solve the entire problem (but based on D&C 38:1-2, and D&C 88:6-13, 41, I know that's not how omnipresence works in the "real world"). I thought about including it but didn’t want to refute charges of heresy. 7 hours ago, Calm said: This assumes that there is not any other reason besides self centeredness and a misunderstanding of eternity that is at the root of the desire to be the only one. But if there is more than those to being one flesh….and many women I know believe there is something more than just having all the time and effort available, then the above still does not reconcile the differences. One could reason that two perfect men who are both omnipotent and omniscient and completely balanced personalities should have all that is needed for a perfect eternal companionship and yet we due to faith in teachings assume there is something more that requires a male female bond. I believe women who view a one to one relationship as necessary for ultimate joy and exaltation are relying on faith in certain teachings as well. These teachings cannot imo be reconciled by saying eternal qualities can make polygamy as capable as monogamy to produce eternal happiness. You can find plural marriage in scripture so that weakens my willingness to accept that it is somehow an impediment to being one. As to two men we have only scriptural silence.
Tacenda Posted July 13, 2022 Posted July 13, 2022 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I thought about including it but didn’t want to refute charges of heresy. You can find plural marriage in scripture so that weakens my willingness to accept that it is somehow an impediment to being one. As to two men we have only scriptural silence. Plural marriage in scripture, or concubines?
Recommended Posts