Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 4 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: In your opinion is it perfectly fine to change or eliminate covenants, change how the ordinance is performed, and significantly change what is taught within the ordinance? In your opinion this doesn't constitute changing the ordinances? (which Joseph Smith said should not be done) Yes I'm fine with that. Sometimes I don't like it, but change we must. 5 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: God took away the United Order because the majority of the saints rejected it and where breaking their covenants. The D&C is clear that this was bad, not good. It is bad, but it had to be done. The same thing with a lot of changes in the temple, to make it a better experience for more people.
Smiley McGee Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 Love the irony of a thread ostensibly addressing the “problem with lds men” being dominated by a trio of sloping foreheads denouncing the evils of feminism and women’s participation in church leadership. Happy women’s history month! 3
Grug the Neanderthal Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: It is bad, but it had to be done. The same thing with a lot of changes in the temple, to make it a better experience for more people. I agree that changing the temple ordinances was bad. I’m not as sure that it had to be done. I think a better approach would have been to add more instruction that explained what thing’s meant, instead of just axing or changing a bunch of things people found troubling. Edited March 24, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal 1
Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 7 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: agree that changing the temple ordinances was bad. I’m not as sure that it had to be done. I think a better approach would have been to add more instruction that explained what thing’s meant, instead of just axing or changing a bunch of things people found troubling. That's difficult for temple ordinances, when we don't talk about them outside the temple. People go in virtually blind. Went OK for me, but not for others. Learn to be comfortable with change. 1
Grug the Neanderthal Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 5 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: That's difficult for temple ordinances, when we don't talk about them outside the temple. No, not really. Most of things, including most of the objectionable content that was axed or changed, is contained in the scriptures, which we do talk about outside the temple. There also used to be a lengthy lecture at the veil or after the endowment that explained what things meant. This would have been a perfect place to better explain things. 1
Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 20 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said: Love the irony of a thread ostensibly addressing the “problem with lds men” being dominated by a trio of sloping foreheads denouncing the evils of feminism and women’s participation in church leadership. Happy women’s history month! If you don't like it, you can leave. No one requested your type of person be on here -3
Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 6 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: No, not really. Most of things, including most of the objectionable content that was axed or changed, is contained in the scriptures, which we do talk about outside the temple. There also used to be a lengthy lecture at the veil or after the endowment that explained what things meant. This would have been a perfect place to better explain things. It's not just the content, it's the presentation. Also, people still find a lot of the Old Testament weird, so it may not help things. And it takes a lot more work than you realize. It's better to just change it and make it a better experience for more people. We've had to make many hard changes in the past.
Grug the Neanderthal Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 34 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: Also, people still find a lot of the Old Testament weird, so it may not help things. And it takes a lot more work than you realize. It's better to just change it Should we change or rip out parts of the scriptures then? I don’t think explaining and teaching things better would have been difficult at all. The problem is that many people who were troubled by the things wouldn’t have accepted the answers. 1
pogi Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 7 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Should we change or rip out parts of the scriptures then? Joseph Smith himself thought parts were not inspired. One need not pull a Thomas Jefferson, but if one finds parts troubling, no need to read it.
Smiley McGee Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said: If you don't like it, you can leave. No one requested your type of person be on here Such an on-brand response. I’ll stick around. Waiting for you three to start blaming the problems of the church on illegal immigrants taking all the good callings. 1
Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said: Such an on-brand response. I’ll stick around. Waiting for you three to start blaming the problems of the church on illegal immigrants taking all the good callings. In case you're wondering, there are people in the world who appreciate people like you. There's a much better fit elsewhere. Your talent has to b useful somewhere. I hire illegal immigrants so you're thinking of someone else. Edited March 24, 2023 by Hamilton Porter
Grug the Neanderthal Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 1 minute ago, Hamilton Porter said: I hire illegal immigrants so you're thinking of someone else. Same here. 1
Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 27 minutes ago, Grug the Neanderthal said: Should we change or rip out parts of the scriptures then? I don’t think explaining and teaching things better would have been difficult at all. The problem is that many people who were troubled by the things wouldn’t have accepted the answers. The church has to accommodate as many people as possible, not just you.
Grug the Neanderthal Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: The church has to accommodate as many people as possible, not just you. I don’t think that expressing concerns that the church is changing the ordinances and teachings in the temple (which we consider to be a sign of apostasy in the primitive Christian church and which Joseph Smith stated should not be done) is expecting special accommodation. Edited March 24, 2023 by Grug the Neanderthal
Dario_M Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said: Such an on-brand response. I’ll stick around. Waiting for you three to start blaming the problems of the church on illegal immigrants taking all the good callings. Yeah. Or blaming the Gay people (like ME) who don't follow the law of chastity. Who are not even (real man). I also don't qualify as a real man. And i'm not even take good calls as well. Well...i don't take any call actually. Edited March 24, 2023 by Dario_M
Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 1 minute ago, Dario_M said: Yeah. Or blaming the Gay people (like ME) who don't follow the law of chastity. Who are not also (real man). I dont klalify as a real man. You're a real man to me.
Smiley McGee Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said: If you don't like it, you can leave. No one requested your type of person be on here 24 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: there are people in the world who appreciate people like you. There's a much better fit elsewhere. 20 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: The church has to accommodate as many people as possible, not just you. 5-star thread; very entertaining. Fascinated by the contradictory gatekeeping. 3
Dario_M Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: You're a real man to me. No i'm not. And members like Durangout, Or that Neanderthal also think that. But you know what. I'm also still a member of this church. I also count. I'm allready talking with my missionaris about taking the priesterhood. And when that happends there is no way back. If i have the priesterhood i will have more power. I will be a member of the LDS church for-ever. I will spread my ideas. All my ideas. About me being gay. About ME who wanna marry in the temple with another man. I will push and push and push till i get it my way. Till the church gives me what i want. A nice marriage in the temple. That gay people are allowed to marry each other. A man with a man. And a woman with a woman. And ME with another mormon man. It bound to happen one day. It wouldn't make me a real man maybe. But it would def make ME a better person. I am who i am. #I'MME 💪 Edited March 24, 2023 by Dario_M -1
Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 33 minutes ago, Dario_M said: No i'm not. And members like Durangout, Or that Neanderthal also think that. But you know what. I'm also still a member of this church. I also count. I'm allready talking with my missionaris about taking the priesterhood. And when that happends there is no way back. If i have the priesterhood i will have more power. I will be a member of the LDS church for-ever. I will spread my ideas. All my ideas. About me being gay. About ME who wanna marry in the temple with another man. I will push and push and push till i get it my way. Till the church gives me what i want. A nice marriage in the temple. That gay people are allowed to marry each other. A man with a man. And a woman with a woman. And ME with another mormon man. It bound to happen one day. It wouldn't make me a real man maybe. But it would def make ME a better person. I am who i am. #I'MME 💪 Go for it! I'll support you. 1
The Nehor Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 4 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said: He's generally accurate on non-political topics. No, he isn’t. He uses feel-good or feels right aphorisms that fall apart under examination and presents them as facts. He also wholesale makes things up and presents them as facts. The stuff he says sometimes intuitively ‘feels’ right but he doesn’t fact-check. He is more a self-help guru than a scientist and appeals to feelings and not rationality.
Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 18 minutes ago, The Nehor said: No, he isn’t. He uses feel-good or feels right aphorisms that fall apart under examination and presents them as facts. He also wholesale makes things up and presents them as facts. The stuff he says sometimes intuitively ‘feels’ right but he doesn’t fact-check. He is more a self-help guru than a scientist and appeals to feelings and not rationality. Do you have a (non-political) example? You seem to assert everything and act cocksure without providing any evidence.
The Nehor Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 11 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said: Do you have a (non-political) example? You seem to assert everything and act cocksure without providing any evidence. His lobster explanation that led to t-shirts and lobster gear. Basically he takes a study on chemicals in lobsters, doesn’t understand it, takes this misunderstanding as a natural law of the world, and applies it to humans as if it is a law of biology. He ignores all the other animals that don’t follow this model. Lobsters and humans don’t have a recent common ancestor. I believe the closest one we know of is an asexual worm. So he argues that how lobsters learned to compete for scarce resources on the sea floor is a model for human behavior. The problem in dealing with Jordan Peterson and those who use this kind of misinformation is he can throw out badly reasoned arguments all day and it takes MUCH more time to deconstruct and rebut them. If you have a few hours here is a good breakdown of Jordan Peterson’s history, a breakdown of some of his positions and arguments and rhetorical techniques.
Hamilton Porter Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 Just now, The Nehor said: His lobster explanation that led to t-shirts and lobster gear. Basically he takes a study on chemicals in lobsters, doesn’t understand it, takes this misunderstanding as a natural law of the world, and applies it to humans as if it is a law of biology. He ignores all the other animals that don’t follow this model. Lobsters and humans don’t have a recent common ancestor. I believe the closest one we know of is an asexual worm. So he argues that how lobsters learned to compete for scarce resources on the sea floor is a model for human behavior. The problem in dealing with Jordan Peterson and those who use this kind of misinformation is he can throw out badly reasoned arguments all day and it takes MUCH more time to deconstruct and rebut them. If you have a few hours here is a good breakdown of Jordan Peterson’s history, a breakdown of some of his positions and arguments and rhetorical techniques. Ok I don't follow him closely, so I can't give you a systematic assessment of all his claims. But he's used chimpanzees to explain why humans fight wars, and we do share a recent common ancestor. Some of the anecdotes he's cited I've discovered later to have strong empirical support. For example, in that famous interview, he referenced one of the Scandinavian countries as an example of how women in countries with more gender equality tend to move away from studying STEM. I later found out that that was a cross national study.
Bernard Gui Posted March 24, 2023 Posted March 24, 2023 Many men extol the virtues of life on a farm where they learned the value of hard work, but then go off to become lawyers, doctors, and businessmen.
Bernard Gui Posted March 25, 2023 Posted March 25, 2023 7 hours ago, Dario_M said: Or blaming the Gay people (like ME) who don't follow the law of chastity Just to clarify, do you believe there is a law of chastity? If so, what is it? If not, why not?
Recommended Posts