log2 Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 It is easy to explain...but you clearly have reading comprehension problems, especially when you read things you don't like.I have a "problem" with your position because it is NOT the truth. It is a lie. See? So simple!Your judgment of others is laughable, especially considering the fact that you make a statement you claim is fact - masturbation is not against the LoC - based on something you claim to have read somewhere....but then cannot remember where you read it and therefore you cannot provide the back-up you claim to have.Yeah...and I "read somewhere" that I was going to be tall and blonde.No, dear sister. I claim that masturbation is not covered by the Law of Chastity because the Law of Chastity only covers interpersonal sexual relations.How, pray tell, is that a lie? Please, be as detailed as you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Gee. If I need lessons in triumphalism and sneering, what are your rates? And will you telecommute?Nah, I'm a stay-at-home-mom and wife extraordinaire, at the moment. That was admittedly for my husband's benefit, so I guess it falls under my job description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 It is unsubstantiated that any particular member of the First Presidency felt anything at all about it, or even thought about it, or even vetted it.The First Presidency heads the Correlation Department. Everything that is published by the church must be approved by the Correlation Department. Ergo, the First Presidency de facto approved (implies vetted) the statement, heading, wording, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Whichever. As it turns out, that claim is unsubstantiated.(If that were true)Why would that bother you? You make a claim based on something you "read somewhere", but can't/won't produce the 'something' or the 'somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamjet Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Gee. If I need lessons in triumphalism and sneering, what are your rates? And will you telecommute?I believe this thread may get locked in 5... 4... 3... 2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 I also rock at page turns, if you hadn't noticed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 I believe this thread may get locked in 5... 4... 3... 2...I can't believe it wasn't locked about 12 pages ago. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
log2 Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 The First Presidency heads the Correlation Department. Everything that is published by the church must be approved by the Correlation Department. Ergo, the First Presidency de facto approved (implies vetted) the statement, heading, wording, etc.Are you sincere in not understanding the significant difference between what you are saying, and what MOE claimed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Are you sincere in not understanding the significant difference between what you are saying, and what MOE claimed?I'm pretty sure I'm saying the same thing MOE said. You just don't like hearing it from either of us. That isn't my problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 I don't think Wingnut is the one having comprehension problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamjet Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 I hope this thread gets locked in 5... 4... 3... 2... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
log2 Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 (If that were true)Why would that bother you? You make a claim based on something you "read somewhere", but can't/won't produce the 'something' or the 'somewhere.I know what I read. And MOE is not claiming to have firsthand knowledge of his claim. And as it stands, there never was good reason for MOE to believe his claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Too bad we're talking about Relief Society, I guess; your cite isn't relevant in any case. What? The corrolation department provides all organizations in the church their curriculum. Did you not read past the first paragraph? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
log2 Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 I'm pretty sure I'm saying the same thing MOE said. You just don't like hearing it from either of us. That isn't my problem.I'm pretty sure you aren't saying the same thing MOE said.As it was a rhetorical ploy on his part anyways, and not really relevant to the topic, I have no interest in pursuing it further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 What? The corrolation department is over all organizations in the church. Did you not read past the first paragraph?Doesn't matter. It doesn't fit into log2's accepted paradigm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
log2 Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 What? The corrolation department is over all organizations in the church. Did you not read past the first paragraph?Pam,Did you not observe the exact claim MOE made which he cited that article to support?And did you not already see where I said "I stand corrected on the dominion of the Priesthood Correlation Committee."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 No, dear sister. I claim that masturbation is not covered by the Law of Chastity because the Law of Chastity only covers interpersonal sexual relations.How, pray tell, is that a lie? Please, be as detailed as you wish.I am not your "dear sister". I am sorry that the clear teachings of the Church are beyond your comprehension. Several people have already been very "detailed", yet in your inability to grasp simple concepts, you feel compelled to turn to me to ask me to explain to you that which you have been unable to understand by reading on your own. I am sorry that you have such a desperate need to justify masturbation being "okay" that you are going to such lengths to invent your own interpretations and definitions in order to maintain your lie. I am sorry that concepts such as obedience are beyond your grasp. But it certainly would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when you try to explain to Heavenly Father why the Church leaders were most certainly wrong when YOU had the "truth" all along! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Are you sincere in not understanding the significant difference between what you are saying, and what MOE claimed? I think if anyone understands things MOE says better than anyone it would be Wingnut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
log2 Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 In this world, murder is a sin and is punished by death. Manslaughter may or may not be a sin - but was not punishable by death according to God's law anciently. Why is it you are insisting on placing masturbation in the murder category, speaking of degrees of severity, when it obviously belongs in the manslaughter category? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Wait, are MOE and Wingnut connected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
log2 Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 I am not your "dear sister".That is unfortunate. Even when I disagree with someone, I don't assume them to be apostate.Have you no charity, even for those who you deem to be enemies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Why is it you are insisting on placing masturbation in the murder category, speaking of degrees of severity, when it obviously belongs in the manslaughter category?I don't believe that anyone is placing masturbation on that level. You are the one who claimed that BY said that violations of the law of chastity create sons of perdition, yet you are unable to back up that claim. Memory doesn't count in a debate -- citations and documentation count. Until you can provide documentation of that claim, your argument doesn't hold water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
log2 Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) I don't believe that anyone is placing masturbation on that level.[ You are the one who claimed that BY said that violations of the law of chastity create sons of perdition, yet you are unable to back up that claim.Sorry - if you want, you can do what I've done, and hunt down all of his "blood atonement" sermons. You'll see the pattern clearly. He doesn't use the phrase "Sons of Perdition" often - he most commonly refers to them as "angels to the Devil." And you'll also see that the Law of Chastity, even to him, was solely concerned with interpersonal sexual relations.Memory doesn't count in a debate -- citations and documentation count. Until you can provide documentation of that claim, your argument doesn't hold water.The argument I have made stands on its own. Brigham's teachings were only appealed to as a reductio ad absurdum for the position that masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity, and is not necessary to make my case. Edited May 7, 2012 by log2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 (edited) On this board, the person making a claim as fact has the burden of proof. Unless you can provide that proof any claim to fact is null and void. Edited May 7, 2012 by pam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wingnut Posted May 7, 2012 Report Share Posted May 7, 2012 Sorry - if you want, you can do what I've done, and hunt down all of his "blood atonement" sermons. You'll see the pattern clearly. He doesn't use the phrase "Sons of Perdition" often - he most commonly refers to them as "angels to the Devil."Nope. When you make a claim, you back it up. It's not my responsibility to make your argument for you.The argument I have made stands on its own. Brigham's teachings were only appealed to as a reductio ad absurdum for the position that masturbation is a violation of the Law of Chastity, and is not necessary to make my case.No, it doesn't stand on its own, because it's got nothing to stand on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts