The Folk Prophet
-
Posts
12211 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
191
Posts posted by The Folk Prophet
-
-
The Stake President will almost certainly support the Bishop.
As others have said, a request for a commitment like this is within the bishop's purview. He could not suggest that one was not a full tithe payer based on this. But he can expect a certain behavior as an indication of commitment as his role as judge in Israel. Take it as a learning experience and an indication of how very, very serious temple covenants are.
-
The exact same benefits of heterosexual marriage.
The question implies a benefit given to society at large, not to the couple. I think this answer is insufficient to that end.
Only one I can think of : No unwanted pregnancies.
Abstinence provides the same solution. Also, as part of a "hetero" couple who has been unable to have children and may well need to adopt, I have difficulty seeing unwanted pregnancies as an inherently bad thing to society (sociologically speaking, and not necessarily morally speaking) particularly with the growing levels of infertility. Finding a baby to adopt is hard. It puts people like myself into a strange conundrum. Morally I am absolutely against pregnancy out of wedlock. But I'm also hoping for more babies available for adoption. It's a difficult thing to reconcile.
-
I still tend to personally see "becoming like God" in an Eastern Orthodox/Roman Catholic perspective of absolute unity and communion with God. As I say, I don't know the specifics of what that means, but it sounds wonderful.
I do not think this is wrong. I just think it's incomplete. And yes, it does sound pretty wonderful. :)
-
Maybe it\\\'s shared Pacific Rim & diplomatic corps upbringing, but I don\\\'t catch defensive or aggressive tone in any of what Annatess has written! In fact, I catch a lot of humor, introspection, \\\"lightening\\\" (adding turns of phrase / colloquialisms to keep a topic light instead of bogging down in bum bum bum seeeeeeerious.), and bon homie.
I do believe she\\\'s dead on, in that we read tone through cultural spectacles.
I moderate on a forum that has not only has no italics, bold, or other font modifiers (so I\\\'m constantly capitalizing all of my accent words even off forum;, I promise, I don\\\'t have a weird shouting disorder!), but that also went from regional locations to national. We had a HUGE problem (and lost about 5,000 members) during the first 6 months. The single reason, given 50 different ways, was cultural variation. Northeast tended to be blunt, northwest tended to be wordy and beat around the bush, Midwest kind and to the point, etc. but out of 9 different regions, EVERY region hated the way other regions gave advice, even when it was the same advice they themselves were giving. Don\\\'t even get me started on regional variations between spanking & timeouts, breast feeding v formula, etc. Oy. Vey. People were seriously ticked that last month (preconversion, years ago) \\\"everyone\\\" responded with \\\"Yep! I\\\'d pop \\\'em on the bum!\\\" and now this month people were saying \\\"How DARE you strike your child?!?\\\" It\\\'s been years, but about twice a month we have a \\\"Why are people so mean?\\\" Q pop up from a new member. It\\\'s actually the KINDEST forum I\\\'ve ever been on (all of us are vipers over here in LDSnet by comparison
). It\\\'s just huge, and nationwide with a few UK & Russian peeps for even more cultural misunderstanding.Q
This is very helpful, and very fascinating. I think it's complicated when it comes to culture, because just because something is cultural, it is not necessarily justified. If the cultural misunderstandings are based on a misunderstanding (one culture states things more bluntly than another, but intent was still positive) then there is no blame to be had. If, on the other hand, the cultural misunderstanding is from cultural approach based in unchristian behavior (the culture tends towards actual unkindness), then the culture p.o.v. is no excuse.
In other words, just because one was raised to be rude does not make it okay to be rude. And you do see this. Cultures that are filled with yelling, cussing, fighting, anger, etc... These things are not justified by cultural identity. But if the perception of what is rude differs, then there is justification, though still a responsibility on both sides to try and understand other cultures and effectively communicate accordingly.
it's very interesting.
-
As painful and frustrating as your experience must have been.....
In saying the following I do not mean to discount pain and frustration related to these issues, however I think there is a contemporary cultural issue at play that causes a lot of the pain and frustration needlessly. In other words, for thousands and thousands of years people lived happy, productive lives without ever having access to doctor (or church) approved sexual education materials. They pretty much just figured it out as they went. I do not buy into the fact that we cannot have a healthy physical relationship with our spouses without being sexually educated...in principle. But when we are raised on movies and television, we develop some pretty messed up ideologies that can cause serious problems in the future. Those problems, while real to us, are in many ways not real, but only perception. My personal take is that we could address these issues from two perspectives. 1. Sexually educate to accommodate the cultural perception of a healthy sexual life. 2. Address the messed up psyche imposed upon us by Hollywood, calling it out to be the lie that it is. I tend toward #2 as the healthier of the options.
-
I don't think keys are exclusive to administration in the church. A key is a priesthood right...and that includes administration. The key is the point where that right is given though, not the general use of the right. So, take for example healing of the sick. The key to this part of the priesthood was given to Joseph Smith. The key is then passed to future leaders throughout the years as necessary. That key is the opening of the door to that right. The authority then is passed to every worthy male who receives the Melchizedek priesthood. But that does not mean each man receives the key to unlock that right. The right has already been unlocked and is held by those with keys. The authority is given by those who hold those keys to others.
This is something along the lines of my current understanding of it...though I'm still studying it.
-
Yes, boycotts/patronizing businesses is a form of speech. I just see their tactics (boycott all the suppliers, too and keep a running list, etc) as bullying which I have a problem with. They expect tolerance but don't show it in return which is quite hypocritical in my book! So ya, I find it 'unbelievable' that anyone would find this level of behavior acceptable.
I agree with you. The fact that boycotting is a form of speech does not have any relation to whether it's bullying. Most forms of bullying are forms of speech. Name calling, threats, gossip.... All forms of speech. Free speech and acceptable speech are not one and the same.
-
I also loved to use the $65.00 words. Talking above their heads produces the same results - misunderstandings and hurt feelings.
I tend to use fairly verbose phrases and somewhat larger words when I write. I don't, actually, talk that way (usually) but it's just the way it comes out when I write. I find it helps me to say what I'm actually trying to say. I can't imagine it hurting feelings to do so, though I can imagine people seeing me as a know-it-all twit because of it. :) Of course I am a know-it-all twit, so...,
-
One trick I use is to discern the overall meaning of a post. If I get caught up in particular phrases, or single sentences, I may find a weakness I can exploit. However, will I persuade or influence? Doubtful. Instead, at minimum I will appear a winner, but offend the very one I'm trying to win over. Sure, I beat them at the battle of words. But I lost any hope at influence. Worse, I failed to do any learning or teaching. Far better to ask myself: What did s/he mean? What was the main idea? How are they understanding me? Have I communicated clearly and respectfully?
This is why you "win" the most civil award. :)
I find myself ashamed. I am so often caught up in winning with words. Thank you for the advice.
-
Anatess: I have always been able to understand you - your 'tone' and probably the feeling within your words/phrases. I am American. Born to a norweigian man who was the first generation of his family born in the USA, and a woman whose Grandfather & GGrandpa immigrated here from England & Ireland. I only know one language and that one I boggle up enough as it is. Yet, pretty much every post you have written, I have understood and agreed with upon the first reading.
As to the OP - I rely heavily on the gift of discernment that our Father has blessed me with. When I read a thread and am instantly *Enraged* by it - I do NOT respond right away. I will read the responses or more accurately skim through them.
If I feel the prompting to reply, then I copy and paste the entire thread to my Word program, and pick apart what I am responding to. Often this process will take me days or even weeks, and seldom do I ever post when it is finished. It is out of my system. My responses would not have accomplished anything constructive. Doing the Cut-Paste-take-my-time-responding exercise has helped me tremendously.
When I do respond to a thread - I edit heavily before I post - sometimes to the point of not posting.
My husband has always counciled to *Give it (your response) ten coats of time.* - I find this to be good advice. When he was in the hospital, waiting for all the specialists to find out why his blood was not clotting, the woman who was the Hospital Chaplain added: *Put it on the altar, and give it ten coats of time*. So, before I post to a thread that inflames or enrages me - I put it On the altar - giving it ten coats of time.
Great reply! I think the only part of it that I would not necessarily follow is the never posting a reply at all. Well...no...that's not true. If my motivation to reply was based on offense then that is entirely valid. Many times my motivation to reply is, however, discourse. But.... The idea of letting it cool off and really thinking about it before replying is solid. Thanks.
-
Catholicism is much more ubiquitous than Mormonism is. And Catholicism isn't known for proselyting and attempts at conversion.
Which means, you believe that people respond differently to Mormons by reading proselytizing into every "mormonism" used. But that's their problem, not the Mormon's who uses the word "ward" instead of "congregation".
I think also, to the greater point, (and to be clear this is my opinion) that fear of offending others is not a valid reason to alter proselytizing methods. Conversely, to be fair, is said altering of that method provided a greater chance to convert, then it is valid. So I suppose it really comes down to intent. My sense is that you feel it is more effective to speak in the terms that you do. And that is valid.
BTW, a Catholic likely wouldn't use the term "sacrament" in this sense, because the word has a different meaning for Catholics. :)
Um...that was exactly my point. Hmm. Mayhaps I wasn't as clear as I meant to be.
-
like?
I am of no mind to debate with you further on it. You will not take anything I could offer as "proof". So why should I give them as proof. It would not be meaningful to you or to me.
-
Hmm. I don't know about that Wingnut. I mean...not that I'm saying your wrong necesarilly...just that in my view... Well, if I were having a conversation with a Catholic (whether I knew they were Catholic or not) and they were speaking of the bread and wine ceremony, I would expect them to say "communion" or "Eucharist", rather than "sacrament". If a person in a Christian denomination calls their leader reverend or pastor or what-have-you I would expect them to call them what they call them. And if I'm speaking about my bishop, I think I ought to call him my bishop. A ward is a ward. Calling it a ward should never be a problem for anyone, imo.
Anyone who got offended because of the huge turn-off of a Catholic talking about "communion" and their "priest" would be a pretty big jerk. I see it the same way. If I'm talking about my ward and they get offended because it's not a comfortable term for them, basically is means they're a jerk.
Edit: after reading a bit on it I don't really know how a Catholic would refer to The Lord's Supper...but however they do, I would expect them to use the term they use.
-
Interesting post. For myself, being a scientist and engineer I try to understand rhetorical logic and how parameters actually affect complex systems. I have become an advocate fractal modeling especially as applied in modeling algorisms defined in Chaos Theory. I do not so much mind that segments of our society support homosexual marriage. But I am concerned with statements like “I always have and always will”. To be honest I am concerned that supporters of homosexual marriage resort to such tactics in dealing with sensitive social issues rather than intelligently (intelligently meaning a learning and changing process) consider an issue. I believe that the refusal to consider alternatives and variant viewpoints is the essence of everything that is evil and bad in prejudice and bigotry.
I am personally open to discussions where people have carefully considered their viewpoints and have logic and reason to their conclusions. It is not so much that I am against homosexual marriage – as I cannot logically realize any possible social benefit – especially in using the force of law to define something for which there is no actual benefit. It is logical to me that if law is used to force something upon a society that there ought to be some actual benefit to that society as a result of such force of law. I believe there are reasons to support traditional marriages and that traditional families can be shown to be economically beneficial as well as the best means to provide a next generation for a sustainable society. In fact I believe that traditional marriage is so important to a stable society that I am concerned, especially concerned with selfish or self-serving efforts to change the parameters of marriage that do not result in any actual benefit for society.
I am interested, Lakumi, if as an advocate of homosexual marriage if you can provide even one unique benefit for society that homosexual marriage provides.
I think, and I could be wrong as I am only playing devil's advocate here, that one might answer that the general removal of bigotry is beneficial for society. Of course, depending on where one falls in perception, that's either valid or a load of baloney.
-
no they're dolls, Lakumi there is a doll-action figures are trash compared to her! lol
I know humor ceases to be funny when one explains it...but the point here was that I was claiming to own action figures, and pretending to be offended at having them called dolls. Of course, none of the above are true. I do own a few Star Wars replica props, but no action figures.
-
I'm not asking for some giant thing, just something, some little thing! Something, Anything that can give what you're saying some proof, beyond spiritual witness or some such thing.
There are plenty of "little things". You simply refuse to accept them.
-
Then you don't have proof, you're saying there's proof but people still choose not to believe, then you come out with this.
You understand why I don't believe you?!
I'm not asking you to believe me. You would be stupid to believe me. I'm telling you that only God can provide proof of God. You may stubbornly press on about other humans providing proof of the divine. That's your prerogative. But it is meaningless. Only the divine can prove the divine.
-
Yeah! We're getting somewhere!
Okay, everything I'm going to write below I'm going to try to be very literal. As in, straight from Bisaya in my brain to English in my fingers.... So try reading it very literally too. Let's see if this makes it better. The "tone" in this particular post is the same as two college students who barely know each other trying to help each other understand Nuclear Physics in the library.
Apology is confusing to me here because Apology, to me, indicates that you think you offended me... Which then follows that I must have told you that you offended me. Which then makes me think that I said something wrong in the post previous to this because there wasn't a time I was offended in this thread. But then I also start to wonder if you're apologizing for something else - something I didn't catch or didn't understand...
As you can see, it can be very difficult for me. So, what I usually do in this case is just accept the apology thinking that you intended it as a "civility" or to make sure we keep the peaceful "tone".
Make sense?
My first two posts on this thread was completely devoid of defensiveness. The third post was a defensive one.
That phrasing ties my post back to your post. The words were directly taken from your post and is used in the same manner you used it in your post in the way I understood what you meant when you used it. I learned this in English class (which by the way is what you need to do when you write a resume or respond to an essay question or counter a discussion or debate). As I understand your post, you didn't say you had a chip on your shoulder, just that there are those who have chips on their shoulder. Those are the same chips in my post.
Most of my English slang comes from movies. I never had an English slang class. "In blazes" I hear used all the time to give more impact to the mood of the phrase. So, the mood of the phrase "what is causing you agitation" is not on the forefront - that mood which is not just plain confusion about what is causing you agitation but more of I-don't-want-to-be-confused-but-I-am type of confusion. In blazes magnifies that mood so it goes on the forefront. I'm fairly certain that's how "blazes" is used in America.
That was written literally. I don't know how else I can say that. You MAY think you know the answer... That's exactly what it says... I don't know how that sentence gets assigned arrogance. And the word MAY definitely implies you may or you may not but in the case that you may, then the next sentence applies. There's nothing at all in there that says you know everything... because if that's what I meant, I would have said, "you think you know everything, but you don't"... Which is a completely different sentence altogether which means exactly what you think I said.
People who had to learn English from another language get tripped up with seemingly very simple words. A lot of times, it's just nuance... Like Eat and Consume are two words that have the same meaning with different nuances that are commonly lost in translation so until I married my husband, "Consume your food" was how I said it because Consume makes me feel like I have a broader vocabulary and I want you to know it.
The apology was in response to this:Imagine trying to talk to somebody in the best of your ability trying to figure out proper grammar and punctuation and trying to let your personality shine through with artistic wording and try your hardest to be as civil as you know how to be and then you get not just one person, but TWO people, assign a complete misunderstanding of what you're trying to express. It kills me! I literally feel my heart constrict! And yes, many many many many times I just want to give up American forums altogether because it really is very hard! You won't believe how hard it is to get yourself understood on here.
-
I have explained doll racism before lol
Your dolls are probably lesser
Action figures!! They're action figures!
-
No I'd never assume someone telling me "Oh I went to the temple" was trying to convert me (I went to a doll show, doesn't mean I want you to like dolls)
And yeah I understand what you mean about Jesus and his commands, but just saying, I'd get really mad if someone tried to convert me at work (or a doll show) -actually convert, like bring me to church and such.
Noted. Never bring dolls to show to Lakumi at work.
-
...and that those who disagree with them are genocidal.
I am skeptical that they really believe this. Seems more like a tactic to win debate and force agenda.
-
Not all that different.
???? Did you even read the article?
-
Okay, what proof? I am interested, what proof for the Book of Mormon do you have?
I have already told you, as have others. It is not a proof I can share with you. Nor would I if I could, for God has specified his method for proving himself and I would not go against it even if I had the power.
-
I'm not talking about the likelihood that someone wants to listen to you talk about football versus religion, I'm talking about the how in many business/professional environments and situations talking about your religion, which is not the same as being religious, is considered unprofessional whereas talking about football is not. My point is not, "Never bring up your religion, people may judge you." my point was, "One cannot simply do a "find replace" of talking about football with talking about Mormonism because the propriety of these things for all situations is not the same, for example professional interactions."
*nod* I understand.
Life in the Celestial Kingdom
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
This is a strange thing to have said. It implies that our desires for things beyond this life are or should be based in things we understand. That's clearly not the case. Our desires should be based in what God wants for us. He knows us better than we know ourselves. I mean, it's not even a close competition. We do not understand ourselves at all. We don't even understand our mortal existence. We certainly don't understand our eternal one. God does. God knows who we really are and what will truly make us happy. It comes down to simply trust.