The Limits Under Which Church Leadership Can Unilaterally Act.

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Derl Sanderson said:

Your reaction to the misuse of "irregardless" makes me wonder what neurosis you may have developed given the ubiquitous misuse of fewer/less in virtually every freaking element of society! 😉

I have become immune to that one. I have a friend that is an even bigger grammar nerd than I am and I will occasionally intentionally get stuff wrong just to make him twitch.

[pondering]

9 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Interracial marriages were actually judicially ‘forced’ to be legal way before public approval caught up to it.

Someone on this board suggested there were less than a dozen people in the US that wanted interracial marriage made illegal. Only 30 years ago people who approved of interracial marriage were a minority.

 

I would expect a prophet to lead efforts against racism, not follow the crowd.  Not be last... but instead be first, to have ked efforts.

Isn't that what Jesus did?  went against the crowd?  Embraced Samaritans, ate with publicans etc?  

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

[pondering]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

What member was married and told that in this way, and by whom, and so became contentious and left the Church? I think there is quite a bit of context and order of events missing here.

And still, a mistake is just a mistake, one's negative reaction to it regardless.

All lgbtq members are currently told this.  Many have left the church.  It is similar to racist policies of the past.  

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, pondering said:

 

I would expect a prophet to lead efforts against racism, not follow the crowd.  Not be last... but instead be first, to have ked efforts.

Isn't that what Jesus did?  went against the crowd?  Embraced Samaritans, ate with publicans etc?  

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Jesus called the Canaanite woman a dog. 

Edited to add:

And some Samaritans, I assume, are good people.

Edited December 4, 2022 by The Nehor

[CV75]

13 hours ago, pondering said:

All lgbtq members are currently told this.  Many have left the church.  It is similar to racist policies of the past.  

That doesn't answer my question for particular facts.

[HappyJackWagon]

On 12/2/2022 at 4:51 PM, PacMan said:

You keep saying the word "astray," but fail to give any meaning to it.  If the net result is nothing....then there is no "astray."

Perhaps you should go back and read the post where I share the definition of astray  

 

On 12/2/2022 at 4:54 PM, PacMan said:

Really?  You already acknowledged that Elijah Able and others received the priesthood.  Elijah Able was a 70.  And there were others.  Their priesthood was never rescinded from them.  Its probably more correct to call it a temple ban, if anything.

I find this very disingenuous. Either you are clueless about the history or you are being purposefully deceptive. I would prefer to think you are clueless. In which case I would recommend you go back and read the church essay 

Quote

Despite this modern reality, for much of its history—from the mid-1800s until 1978—the Church did not ordain men of black African descent to its priesthood or allow black men or women to participate in temple endowment or sealing ordinances.

Race and the Priesthood (churchofjesuschrist.org)

 

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/2/2022 at 8:03 AM, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

Whatever that means. You are always funny, but can you explain what you mean. I am truly at a crossroads, and need honest responses to my poorly written questions, or not. I seldom post anymore, so when I do I truly wish for honest dialog. 

He’s referring to the word he bolded in his quotation of your post, “irregardless.”  
 

“Irregardless” is not a word. You can use regardless or irrespective of, but not conflate the two. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

On 12/3/2022 at 5:16 PM, provoman said:

I would stop listening to mormonstories. The is a "cunning craftiness" in such things. 

I have not, nor ever sought it out. As of late things have begun to appear on my Facebook page. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

“Irregardless” is not a word.

It has entered into our language enough it qualifies as a word now according to most dictionaries…nonstandard word, but still a word.

For example, from google:

Quote

ir·re·gard·less

/ˌirəˈɡärdləs/

 

adverb

NON-STANDARD

adverb: irregardless

1. regardless.

   "the photographer always says, irregardless of how his subjects are feeling, “Smile!”"

    

Origin

mid 19th century: probably a blend of irrespective and regardless.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
 

Quote

Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Calm

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

He’s referring to the word he bolded in his quotation of your post, “irregardless.”  
 

“Irregardless” is not a word. You can use regardless or irrespective of, but not conflate the two. 

My apologies, my errors are copious. Or should I say, “many”? 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

55 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has entered into our language enough it qualifies as a word now according to most dictionaries…nonstandard word, but still a word.

For example, from google:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
 

 

Thank you for helping me fell less foolish. 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

It has entered into our language enough it qualifies as a word now according to most dictionaries…nonstandard word, but still a word.

For example, from google:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless
 

 

It’s hardly surprising that your source for that is Merriam-Webster. That’s my least favorite dictionary, precisely because it tends to codify too much in the way of substandard usage. 
 

Take “irregardless,” for example. Regardless expresses the meaning just fine without the redundant prefix ir- being tacked onto the front of it. In fact, it could be argued that the prefix makes the word a double negative, and, as in mathematics, double negatives, logically speaking, neutralize each other to form a positive. Hence, “irregardless” could even be taken to mean the opposite of regardless, as in regarding or in regard to. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

My apologies, my errors are copious. Or should I say, “many”? 

I didn’t mean to  criticize. It’s just that you apparently weren’t grasping what Nehor was getting at, and I felt I should explain. 

[The Nehor]

On 12/3/2022 at 4:26 PM, provoman said:

Do you really expect anyone to trust a graph in comic-sans font?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s hardly surprising that your source for that is Merriam-Webster. That’s my least favorite dictionary, precisely because it tends to codify too much in the way of substandard usage. 
 

Take “irregardless,” for example. Regardless expresses the meaning just fine without the redundant prefix ir- being tacked onto the front of it. In fact, it could be argued that the prefix makes the word a double negative, and, as in mathematics, double negatives, logically speaking, neutralize each other to form a positive. Hence, “irregardless” could even be taken to mean the opposite of regardless, as in regarding or in regard to. 

It will probably be a word eventually. I just wince at it. Some of the words pedants defend now were born just as stupidly as the ones that offend now. Time normalizes them.

 

[pondering]

On 12/3/2022 at 10:39 PM, The Nehor said:

Jesus called the Canaanite woman a dog. 

Edited to add:

And some Samaritans, I assume, are good people.

 Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God → including all prophets, apostles, and church leaders.

Yin/Yang in all of us, no leaning on any arms of flesh - including no leaning on arms of prophets.

[Calm]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s hardly surprising that your source for that is Merriam-Webster. That’s my least favorite dictionary, precisely because it tends to codify too much in the way of substandard usage. 
 

The other one was the Oxford languages that google uses.  Not exactly a fringe dictionary.

Dictionaries are not meant to be guardians of language, but function as maps of the roads languages go down…all the destinations, including the roads less traveled.

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s hardly surprising that your source for that is Merriam-Webster. That’s my least favorite dictionary, precisely because it tends to codify too much in the way of substandard usage. 
 

Take “irregardless,” for example. Regardless expresses the meaning just fine without the redundant prefix ir- being tacked onto the front of it. In fact, it could be argued that the prefix makes the word a double negative, and, as in mathematics, double negatives, logically speaking, neutralize each other to form a positive. Hence, “irregardless” could even be taken to mean the opposite of regardless, as in regarding or in regard to. 

Scott, I bet you'd just love being with my husband, he's got the worst grammar. My sister-in-law will always correct him. Which all came to a head on a vacation recently, haha. I finally figured out where he got some of it when listening to his mom talking. She used the same words in the sentence. I occasionally will correct my husband but finally accepted that's just the way he was. For awhile I thought he picked up some of it on his mission in Mississippi, but now realize his mom passed it on. Both are intelligent too.  For example he'll say "don't" instead of "doesn't" in places but there's more. I can't imagine what you might think if you were around him, hopefully you'd give him a break.  He's a Scott too and grew up in Draper, so maybe you'd be kind.  

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

The other one was the Oxford languages that google uses.  Not exactly a fringe dictionary.

Dictionaries are not meant to be guardians of language, but function as maps of the roads languages go down…all the destinations, including the roads less traveled.

I believe dictionaries serve both functions, perhaps striking a balance between the two. Merriam-Webster is way too far imbalanced to the one side, in my view, so much so that I don’t trust it and will avoid using it when I can. That’s rather difficult to do these days, as it most frequently pops up first in search engines when one looks for online definitions. 
 

Incidentally, if M-W doesn’t  purport to assume a “guardian of the language” role in some respect or measure, why should I feel in any way obliged to accept it when someone cites it as an authority to prove a point? 

Edited December 6, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[SeekingUnderstanding]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s hardly surprising that your source for that is Merriam-Webster. That’s my least favorite dictionary, precisely because it tends to codify too much in the way of substandard usage.

You are so silly!!! And of course I am using silly in it’s one true original meaning “blessed” here. Hopefully you don’t use that word in a substandard way.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe dictionaries serve both functions, perhaps striking a balance between the two. Merriam-Webster is way too far imbalanced to the one side, in my view, so much so that I don’t trust it and will avoid using it when I can. That’s rather difficult to do these days, as it most frequently pops up first in search engines when one looks for online definitions. 
 

Incidentally, if M-W doesn’t  purport to assume a “guardian of the language” role in some respect or measure, why should I feel in any way obliged to accept it when someone cites it as an authority to prove a point? 

Rant if you want about the M-W, but there are plenty of other dictionaries that have it listed as a nonstandard word, including the ultimate OED.  Are you as dismissive of its entries?

Since you have to pay for Oxford and I am too lazy to transcribe my copy especially while holding the required for reading magnifying glass, here’s another one:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/irregardless

And another:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/irregardless?q=Irregardless

and…

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/irregardless
 

Quote

a non-standard version of ‘regardless’, viewed with rage by pedants and peevers

More:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/irregardless

 

I think calling it a North American colloquialism as the OED does rather than an nonword  makes more sense for how it is used and believed to have originated.  From what I have been reading, speculation is that it is a portmanteau word combining irrespective and regardless rather than a misunderstanding of the purpose of prefix “ir-“, meaning “not”.

My favorite commentary so far is https://www.thefreedictionary.com/irregardless

Quote

Perhaps its reputation as a blend of ill-fitting parts has caused some to insist that it is a "nonword," a charge they would not think of leveling at a nonstandard word with a longer history, such as ain't. Since people use irregardless, it is undoubtedly a word in the broader sense of the language, but it has never been accepted in Standard English and is virtually always changed by copyeditors to regardless.

Ill-fitting parts, indeed.

Edited December 6, 2022 by Calm

[pogi]

On 12/2/2022 at 11:40 AM, teddyaware said:

I believe Paul’s teaching on this point is misunderstood because he’s actually referring to Melchizedek Priesthood leadership roles and it’s positions of conferred and ordained authority, not to the teaching of the gospel in settings where priesthood authority is not required. For example, from the beginning of the restoration till now there has never been a woman who has held an ordained priesthood role in any of the priesthood quorums of the Church. Paul’s paucity of language in this verse is likely due to the fact that he had every reason to believe his listeners would know, without elaboration, that he was talking about teaching others in the role of priesthood leadership

Those who uphold biblical infallibility, or think the prophets NEVER go contrary to scripture have to get pretty creative.  

First, the passages clearly distinguish between "teaching" and "usurping authority" over a man.   It is clear that they can do neither.  The authority part is in relation to the priesthood, but the "teaching' part is clearly distinct from authority of the priesthood.  "do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Tim 2:9-15)."     Note the "or" instead of "and". 

The verses which speak about women in the church have nothing to do with Priesthood leadership.  For example, it says that if a women even wants to ask a question in church, she has to wait until she gets home to ask her husband, because she can't speak in church (1 Corinth, 13:34).  I don't recall priesthood being a requirement of even asking a question to learn.   

The bible also says that a man should not pray with his head covered  - which may be where the tradition of removing hats during prayer comes from.  But only the men.  The women, are not supposed to pray without a covering on her head.  No, this is not in reference to any temple rituals.   If she doesn't want to cover her head while she prays (or prophecies -interesting!), then she has the option of shaving her head (1 Corinth 11: 2-16).  

It also says ion 1 Timothy 2 that women should not have braided hair - gasp.  

It also teaches that women can only be saved through childbearing.  Too bad for those who are infertile, I guess! 

 

Edited December 7, 2022 by pogi

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Those who uphold biblical infallibility, or think the prophets NEVER go contrary to scripture have to get pretty creative.  

First, the passages clearly distinguish between "teaching" and "usurping authority" over a man.   It is clear that they can do neither.  The authority part is in relation to the priesthood, but the "teaching' part is clearly distinct from authority of the priesthood.  "do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man (1 Tim 2:9-15)."     Note the "or" instead of "and". 

The verses which speak about women in the church have nothing to do with Priesthood leadership.  For example, it says that if a women even wants to ask a question in church, she has to wait until she gets home to ask her husband, because she can't speak in church (1 Corinth, 13:34).  I don't recall priesthood being a requirement of even asking a question to learn.   

The bible also says that a man should not pray with his head covered  - which may be where the tradition of removing hats during prayer comes from.  But only the men.  The women, are not supposed to pray without a covering on her head.  No, this is not in reference to any temple rituals.   If she doesn't want to cover her head while she prays (or prophecies -interesting!), then she has the option of shaving her head (1 Corinth 11: 2-16).  

It also says ion 1 Timothy 2 that women should not have braided hair - gasp.  

It also teaches that women can only be saved through childbearing.  Too bad for those who are infertile, I guess! 

 

It's a bunch of baloney, contributed to a lot of abuse and inequality to women. 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I didn’t mean to  criticize. It’s just that you apparently weren’t grasping what Nehor was getting at, and I felt I should explain. 

Forgive me, but I think that it was your intent, by using a poster who uses humor (very effectively) to belittle threads, or postings. He is a master of being dismissive, with a very effective use of “wit”. He s very good at what he does. I used a word, which is now the, or “a” norm. If not, I would have not used the word. However, if I have offended, I apologize. 

[The Nehor]

On 12/6/2022 at 1:10 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Incidentally, if M-W doesn’t  purport to assume a “guardian of the language” role in some respect or measure, why should I feel in any way obliged to accept it when someone cites it as an authority to prove a point? 

Because the other option would be to look for some kind of more authoritative “guardian of the language” source and realize that the rules are all arbitrary and change based on the whim of enough users changing them and that this usually happens unintentionally. It will continue forever irregardless of any attempts to correct or gatekeep people from breaking the current provisional definitions and rules.