Tattoos and Other Things We Could Use More of at Church


Sunday21
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I realize that any analogy can be stretched only so far, but this one doesn't work for me at all for two reasons.  First, of all, though Vort explained this was not his intention, many people DO think that homosexuals are pedophiles and vice versa.  Merely making the comparison then begs the question.   Second of all when a homosexual sins it is with another consenting adult.  When a pedophile sins he takes away the free agency of another for a time, and causes lasting damage.  The two are not comparable in my mind.  Not at all.  Further, when two homosexuals sin, because they were both consenting, both need to repent.  Not so in the pedophile situation. The pedophile needs legal action, repentance and therapy.  The victim will likely need a lot of therapy.   

So for me this analogy does not hold up at all.  Thus my question.  

Your second objection seems to largely bear out my earlier observation that “I think, at this stage of the discussion, it is primarily our desire to continue to stigmatize pedophilia whilst de-stigmatizing homosexuality that makes comparisons to pedophilia so objectionable.”  I think that’s unfortunate, from a ministerial standpoint.  Because the simple fact is that gays aren’t the only people in our Church for whom chastity entails very painful, lonely, and difficult sacrifices; and they are being needlessly isolated from another community that could prove a source of insight and support.  

We’re trying to talk about how we can integrate a group of people deeply predisposed towards a particular sexual behavior, into a community of individuals under covenant to abstain therefrom; and when we compare the experience of Group A to the experience of Group B, Group A’s retort seems to be “well, yeah, but they sin differently than me!!!”

As for your first point:  to the extent that there seemed to be a suggestion that pedophiles and gays pose an equivalent threat to the safety of LDS congregants, I see your point; though as you say, it now appears that that’s not what @Vort was getting at.  But while we’re on the topic, gay rights activists are never going to get away from the pedophilia charges while they continue to lionize known pedophiles (well, pederasts, technically) like Harvey Milk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I'm not sure that tattooed people/homosexuals and the other people that the article is talking about are banging on church doors asking to be let in, so this thread is sort of a moot point.  

And yet I’m supposed to believe that in spite of all that natural antipathy, as of two years ago they were sure they wanted their children raised in and baptized into that very same church!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

And yet I’m supposed to believe that in spite of all that natural antipathy, as of two years ago they were sure they wanted their children raised in and baptized into that very same church!

They didn't. It's the same line of thinking that makes an otherwise apathetic homosexual couple want to sue a baker for not making the cake at their wedding. They saw a chance to punch the church in the mouth through PR and took it. They see a chance to punch the baker in the mouth and they take it. It's sad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know.  i think it's very unhealthy when a group of people isolate themselves from other groups of people because they believe there is something so toxic in that person's perspective that they are justified doing so.  In my view, that isolation creates fertile ground for the hatred between groups that is doing more to destroy our society than the agendas we justify said isolation on.

i'm not advocating inviting satanists to lecture in a mormon sunday school (please don't accuse me of that) - but i think perhaps some of the dislike or suspicion of the church as a whole stems from being too isolationist.  In fairness, this is changing.  

And i really think that when a member says they need more people who are not like the average member, what we are really saying is that we need more people who:

1.  Are not like me in acceptable ways (drink green tea and are currently fasting to gain the faith to stop, etc.,)

2.  Are willing to become like me in the things i feel strong about (have same sex attraction but accept that it is evil and am willing to submit to your efforts to purge it)

3.  Are willing to hide something you believe and feel strongly about and never, ever, ever mention it - especially as i lecture you about how it is evil.

This is not something i am criticizing.  It is the prerogative of the church to do so.  But it is hardly something the average member would submit to, if, for example, their Muslim friend were to invite them to a worship service - and hardly something that a member should be surprised that others refuse to do.

Edited by lostinwater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

What I am saying is that a large percentage of those kinds of people have absolutely no interest in joining a church. So saying they can't join or have to change to join will have zero impact in their lives. It would be like telling @prisonchaplain that no, he can't join the American Association of Atheists.

If a Pentecostal jailhouse preacher can moderate an LDS social media site, why can't sinners enter our gates, feed on godly counsel, and ultimately allow the Holy Spirit's convicting power to bring them to repentance and conversion? Oh yes, it sounds impossible--and yet the gospel has been accomplishing that for 2,000 years. :cool:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

If a Pentecostal jailhouse preacher can moderate an LDS social media site, why can't sinners enter our gates, feed on godly counsel, and ultimately allow the Holy Spirit's convicting power to bring them to repentance and conversion? Oh yes, it sounds impossible--and yet the gospel has been accomplishing that for 2,000 years. :cool:

Let there be no confusion: I'm rooting for it, and I hope it happens. But it's not me you need to convince. And that is the point. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone is saying they don't want sinners (whatever the sin) at church.  I think they're saying they want them at church to pursue following scripture.  To that end, I don't think we need to tiptoe around the fact that the person sitting next to you is a sinner, regardless what their sin is, just so they don't feel bad.  While I don't see the need to call out individuals, I certainly think it appropriate to call out sin.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes. People have all sorts of private opinion, most of them stupid and practically all of them wrong. That's the common condition of mortality. The problems really begin when people start preaching their beliefs as reasonable, even necessary, interpretations of the gospel.

But isn't the entire concern you have with the article in question an "implication" problem rather than an outright affirmation of false principles? I mean I suppose that depends on what one considers "affirmatively". But the point I'm after is that if someone stands up in church and says, "Homosexuality isn't a sin" then it's an easy call. You respond, "Yes, it is." If, however, someone stands up and says, "We need to be more accepting of homosexuals at church", it's technically right in line with gospel principles. But there's all sorts of hidden agenda driven implications in most of these statements that are very, very difficult to confront because they are not affirmatively proscribing false ideals. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Perhaps, the author has friends who are homosexual, but does not have friends that are pedophiles.  That is certainly the case for me.  I have homosexual friends.  I don't know anyone who openly admits to being a pedophile.  So if I wrote this article, I would likely write it in the same way, with the same reasons.  

That’s a fair point; but if that’s the author’s motivation, then it’s worth noting that the root of the article isn’t a universal regard for compassion or fellowship or respect for the oppressed.  It’s not ideological or doctrinal—it’s tribal.  The author is merely looking out for their own particular “in group”, just like the insular Mormons the author by implication condemns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But isn't the entire concern you have with the article in question an "implication" problem rather than an outright affirmation of false principles? I mean I suppose that depends on what one considers "affirmatively". But the point I'm after is that if someone stands up in church and says, "Homosexuality isn't a sin" then it's an easy call. You respond, "Yes, it is." If, however, someone stands up and says, "We need to be more accepting of homosexuals at church", it's technically right in line with gospel principles. But there's all sorts of hidden agenda driven implications in most of these statements that are very, very difficult to confront because they are not affirmatively proscribing false ideals. 

You're correct, but it's completely dependent upon what you consider "accepting".  Allowing them to participate in service?  Absolutely.  Not talking about homosexuality as a sin in service so they don't feel uncomfortable?  Allowing them to be affectionate with their SS spouse in service?    What's the proper level of acceptance?  Everyone's line in the sand is different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I wanted to follow up on what I consider to be a most important matter.  But I am not sure how I can follow up about a problem without, at least to some degree, being part of the problem.  There is a very discernable difference between right and wrong.  At least we all would like to think there is.  One on the very interesting paradoxes of scripture takes place in the Book of Mormon during the visit of the Messiah to the people of Lehi.  There problem was over what should be the name of the True Church of Christ.  What is interesting is that some arguing what the name should be were right.

However, Jesus was not just addressing those that were wrong when he said there should be no disputations.  He was also addressing those that were right.  I have often pondered this paradox.  How to disagree with someone and tell them they are wrong without creating a disputation and thus being wrong while all along knowing that I am right?

I remember once at church when a good member that themselves served in what some would think is a more responsible calling than mine asked me how I could pretend to be a good member and disciple of Christ and still believe in evolution.  I was being called to repentance for believing in evolution!  What kind of a misguided leader does that?  I would like to tell everyone that I handled this accusation as a true saint ought – but I didn’t.   I am not sure that even having learned my lesson that I could discuss this matter better with anyone that believes that believing in evolution is a sin.

This also reminds me of many years when I was taking drivers education and my instructor was trying to teach us defensive driving – I remembered the term he used was being “dead right” – the operative word being “dead”.  The instructor said that we can do everything “right” when driving and still end up dead.  Likewise, we can be discussing a gospel topic – and be spot on and absolutely correct in our understanding but spiritually assonating ourselves and all around us.  This is sometimes referred to as the letter of the law and not the spirit.

Then there is the problem that without a clean spirit of light and truth in one’s heart any exposer to truth will only make that person more angry.   I once suggested on this forum that if anything being said was making them angry – that they were being tempted by an unclean spirit of anger.  They responded that there is a righteous anger and that G-d himself was the example of righteous anger. 

Often my wife often tells me that – even though I am right about something – I am going about it all wrong! - ????

I have discovered that people do not like being told they are overweight any more than someone else likes to be told that homosexuality is wrong.  I know of someone that will not go to church because they were once told not to drink cola soft drinks.   I do not understand that kind of mentality – if you are going to quit going to church and throw away your salvation – at least pick something exotic, exciting and fun – like adultery?  Why argue over something silly and insignificant like a Coke? – or who should repent and come to church?  Even evolution is not that important.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I wanted to follow up on what I consider to be a most important matter.  But I am not sure how I can follow up about a problem without, at least to some degree, being part of the problem.  There is a very discernable difference between right and wrong.  At least we all would like to think there is.  One on the very interesting paradoxes of scripture takes place in the Book of Mormon during the visit of the Messiah to the people of Lehi.  There problem was over what should be the name of the True Church of Christ.  What is interesting is that some arguing what the name should be were right.

However, Jesus was not just addressing those that were wrong when he said there should be no disputations.  He was also addressing those that were right.  I have often pondered this paradox.  How to disagree with someone and tell them they are wrong without creating a disputation and thus being wrong while all along knowing that I am right?

I remember once at church when a good member that themselves served in what some would think is a more responsible calling than mine asked me how I could pretend to be a good member and disciple of Christ and still believe in evolution.  I was being called to repentance for believing in evolution!  What kind of a misguided leader does that?  I would like to tell everyone that I handled this accusation as a true saint ought – but I didn’t.   I am not sure that even having learned my lesson that I could discuss this matter better with anyone that believes that believing in evolution is a sin.

This also reminds me of many years when I was taking drivers education and my instructor was trying to teach us defensive driving – I remembered the term he used was being “dead right” – the operative word being “dead”.  The instructor said that we can do everything “right” when driving and still end up dead.  Likewise, we can be discussing a gospel topic – and be spot on and absolutely correct in our understanding but spiritually assonating ourselves and all around us.  This is sometimes referred to as the letter of the law and not the spirit.

Then there is the problem that without a clean spirit of light and truth in one’s heart any exposer to truth will only make that person more angry.   I once suggested on this forum that if anything being said was making them angry – that they were being tempted by an unclean spirit of anger.  They responded that there is a righteous anger and that G-d himself was the example of righteous anger. 

Often my wife often tells me that – even though I am right about something – I am going about it all wrong! - ????

I have discovered that people do not like being told they are overweight any more than someone else likes to be told that homosexuality is wrong.  I know of someone that will not go to church because they were once told not to drink cola soft drinks.   I do not understand that kind of mentality – if you are going to quit going to church and throw away your salvation – at least pick something exotic, exciting and fun – like adultery?  Why argue over something silly and insignificant like a Coke? – or who should repent and come to church?  Even evolution is not that important.

 

The Traveler

I think the point you make is good. However, I do question the means whereby some would judge whether their actions are "going about it all wrong" or not. That is to say, there seems to be a strong narrative that other's responses are the standard whereby we may be guided in this regard -- or even that our ideas of success or failure to reach what we have in mind as the end goal counts as key. I consider that idea flawed, as strongly and obviously suggested in repeated scriptural accounts. Whereas the response of others is certainly a valuable tool to use in the consideration, it is not, as perhaps sometimes suggested, the core determinant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But isn't the entire concern you have with the article in question an "implication" problem rather than an outright affirmation of false principles?

No. That is an element, but my main problem with the article is the hypocrisy that seems to reek from every paragraph.

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But the point I'm after is that if someone stands up in church and says, "Homosexuality isn't a sin" then it's an easy call. You respond, "Yes, it is." If, however, someone stands up and says, "We need to be more accepting of homosexuals at church", it's technically right in line with gospel principles. But there's all sorts of hidden agenda driven implications in most of these statements that are very, very difficult to confront because they are not affirmatively proscribing false ideals.

When I trust the speaker/author, I'm not worried about hidden agendas. The main reason I'm concerned about one here is that I distrust the author because of what I perceive as undisguised hypocrisy (which seems a contradiction in terms, but there you go).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JoCa said:

Unfortunately, Elder Holland's quote:

"If there is one lament I cannot abide, it is the poor, pitiful, withered cry, “Well, that’s just the way I am.” If you want to talk about discouraging attitudes, that is one that discourages me."

does not work with today's modern Church teaching.  

It doesn't?  I see it published in the 2017 Liahona, making it modern church teaching.

https://www.lds.org/liahona/2017/02/youth/how-to-change?lang=eng

Taken in context, Elder Holland is talking about people who excuse sin and justify not turning from it.   

Let's take a look at the whole quote:

Quote

If there is one lament I cannot abide, it is the poor, pitiful, withered cry, “Well, that’s just the way I am.” If you want to talk about discouraging attitudes, that is one that discourages me. Please spare me your speeches about “That’s just the way I am.” I’ve heard that from too many people who wanted to sin and call it psychology. And I use the word sin to cover a vast range of habits which bring discouragement and doubt and despair.

It seems pretty simple.  Having an inclination, a desire, a predisposed genetic leaning - none of that is sin.  Can't sin if you have no choice.  What we chose to do with our various error-prone, agenda-driven, fallen-man selves - that's what makes sin.  I think Elder Holland gets this, and I think JoCa maybe doesn't.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I think the point you make is good. However, I do question the means whereby some would judge whether their actions are "going about it all wrong" or not. That is to say, there seems to be a strong narrative that other's responses are the standard whereby we may be guided in this regard -- or even that our ideas of success or failure to reach what we have in mind as the end goal counts as key. I consider that idea flawed, as strongly and obviously suggested in repeated scriptural accounts. Whereas the response of others is certainly a valuable tool to use in the consideration, it is not, as perhaps sometimes suggested, the core determinant.

 

I will attempt to engage – hopefully not to any discouragement but what seems to be a paradox – at least to me.  In the old westerns, I use to watch as a child; there was a good guy that wore a white hat – that is how we knew he was the good guy.  There was a bad guy that wore a black hat.  The guy in the black hat would inevitably say to the good guy that he could not win because he was weak and could not shoot anybody until they reached for their gun – but the bad guy could sneak up and shoot anyone that opposed them in the back.   So, in essence, all that bad had to do to win was to ambush the good guy and even if the good guy knew that an ambush was coming – he could not fire his gun first.  The good guy was doomed.

Of course, in the old western movies – the good guy would always win because the bad guy was such a bad shot.  But in real life there is a most interesting conflict between good guys and bad guys.  Having dealt directly (at church functions) with the likes of Ed Decker and Sonya Johnston – I discovered a strange tactic.  That is that they would argue a ridiculous point with no intent what-so-ever to logically win the argument.  Their whole goal and purpose was to upset and anger their opposition.

Lucky for me – I was on the debate team in high school.  We won many debates using this tactic.  It is a means to get your opponent off in the weeds all upset and angry (especially with my debate partner and myself) over something that does not matter as much as something else that is of much greater importance.  For Satan to win – he does not have to convince anyone that something is true or not true or a sin or not a sin.  I do not believe he even cares about that.  What he is trying to do is get people angry or upset with each other.  On the other hand, Jesus is trying to get people to love and have compassion for others.

Loving G-d and our fellow man is the first and great commandment and in truth it is impossible to love G-d and sin.  Thus, the great effort of Jesus and his followers is not so much to get everybody to believe truth and not to sin as it is to fill their heart with the pure love a Christ – once someone engages in the pure love of Christ they will be drawn to and rejoice in repentance as a child of light rejoices with the rising of the sun.

When it comes to homosexuality – I have some personal and violent experience while serving in the military.  I was bitter towards all homosexuals – especially one showing interest in me.  I refused to teach a homosexual on my mission – something I have come to feel very badly about because this individual was able to repent and serve in many callings (something I believe G-d went a little out of his way to make sure I would find out – later in my life).  And even though (since then) I have been an instrument to helping a few homosexuals accept baptism; I have never been able to put my arms around them and give them a hug – regardless of their progress in repentance.  I would that someone else deal with such problems.  It is too easy for me to get upset if I think I am being played and end up in the weeds making a mountain out of a mole hill.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
10 hours ago, Vort said:

Hear, hear. But the point is: We don't need more pedophiles at Church molesting our children. We don't need more homosexuals at Church preaching the beauties of homosexuality. And we don't need more hypocrites loudly proclaiming their hypocrisies. All sinners are welcome, which is good news for every one of us. But the sinner should understand that he or she will be giving up the sin, so don't get comfortable with it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, not even remotely.   Did you interpret the article or my comments to mean that? 

By the way, I realize you were correct that I used "beg the question" incorrectly.  Thanks for the tip. 

Edited by LiterateParakeet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
9 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Your second objection seems to largely bear out my earlier observation that “I think, at this stage of the discussion, it is primarily our desire to continue to stigmatize pedophilia whilst de-stigmatizing homosexuality that makes comparisons to pedophilia so objectionable.”  

It is a fair point in some aspects.  However as I have explained, one concerns two consenting adults, the other involves violating the will and free agency of a child.  They are not the same.  And as I have already stated, because some people seem to believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles, which is not true, it is wrong to compare them.  After all, homosexuals do not want to be labeled as pedophiles.  And perhaps pedophiles would also prefer not to be labeled as homosexual.  

I'm curious, how many LDS pedophiles do you know anyway?  I don't know any that I am aware of, understandably it's not something people talk about.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

It is a fair point in some aspects.  However as I have explained, one concerns two consenting adults, the other involves violating the will and free agency of a child.  They are not the same.  And as I have already stated, because some people seem to believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles, which is not true, it is wrong to compare them.  After all, homosexuals do not want to be labeled as pedophiles.  And perhaps pedophiles would also prefer not to be labeled as homosexual.  

I'm curious, how many LDS pedophiles do you know anyway?  I don't know any that I am aware of, understandably it's not something people talk about.  

To answer your question—offhand I can think of two or three who I’ve worked with in my law practice, and at least two more I’ve met via the LDS addiction recovery program.  Could probably remember a few more, if I thought about it a little longer.  I’ve also done a couple of continuing ed conferences where multiple sessions were geared towards sex offenders—how (we think, maybe) they are created, how they think, how they find victims, how they rationalize their acts, how they struggled against their darker impulses before finally giving in—that featured numerous interviews with convicts.  To the extent that such sessions are organized by law enforcement agencies, they are often designed to evoke suspicion and outrage and loathing.  But what I tend to take away from such presentations is pity, sadness, and a sense of the sheer tragedy of one of our Father’s children doing this to another of His children.  It would be easier to write these guys off as unmitigated monsters—but I just can’t, no matter how much grief and horror I feel for their victims.  No wonder Enoch refused to be comforted.

By the way, some studies done in the late 1990s suggest as many as 5% of men may be inclined towards pedophilia—for men (but not for women), pedophilia may be nearly as common as homosexuality.  In some circles it has become fashionable to suggest that statistically speaking every LDS ward has two or three gays.  Okay; but every LDS ward probably has at least one pedophile as well.  Like gays, they don’t stop existing just because we choose not to think about them.  Like gays—they suffer.

With regard to “it’s not the same”—to be sure, they are not the same in every respect; but in certain respects—a verboten need for a certain sort of physical relationship, the spectre of ongoing social marginalization and opprobrium, the substantial failure of modern psychotherapy to permanently “cure” them, and long-term loneliness and despair and depression and, too often, suicide—there are key similarities.  They are even more important in the current milieu, because (as I said earlier) activist gays have made a lot of hay out of the notion that no one else in Mormondom (or in life, for that matter) has had to suffer as they have suffered—a notion that the plight of pedophiles in our society illustrates as being demonstrably false.

The proposition that the risk of confusion/conflation between disparate groups means that comparisons should never be made, strikes me as intellectually counterproductive.  Surely no serious academic would (or should!) decline to compare Mormonism to henotheism, or Arianism, just because we Mormons find it offensive to be lumped together with heretics?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't think anyone is suggesting that, not even remotely.   Did you interpret the article or my comments to mean that? 

The article -- yes, that absolutely seemed to be an implied subtext, another reason why the author was willing to champion homosexuals (with whom he sympathizes) but not pedophiles (for whom I expect he has no pity or good word to say). Your comments -- maybe, insofar as you agreed with the article. But as you have disclaimed any understanding of the author saying what I hear him saying, then no, not in your comments.

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

By the way, I realize you were correct that I used "beg the question" incorrectly.  Thanks for the tip. 

It's you and 80% of the rest of the English-speaking world. At some point soon, people like me are simply going to have to suck it up and admit that "beg the question" means what people think it means, and not what the prescriptivists insist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LP, please take the following as a programmer analyzing linguistics, and not as criticism -- I love you, FP sister! :)  (My hope is that the linguistic analysis will improve, by way of example, communication between us analytic types and folks like you who come from another angle.)

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 However as I have explained, one concerns two consenting adults, the other involves violating the will and free agency of a child.  They are not the same.

No one said the sins were the same, they said we want both types of sinners (and, by inference, all the other types of sinners) to come to Christ.

7 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

And as I have already stated, because some people seem to believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles, which is not true, it is wrong to compare them.

(a) there was no comparison made;  (b) it is not wrong to compare them "because some people seem to believe that all homosexuals are pedophiles".  Literally, what you're saying there is that if a group hold an erroneous belief about A and B, their erroneous belief makes it wrong for another person to make any comparison involving A and B - full stop.  That makes no logical sense, and is a dangerous road to go down - rejecting an option because someone holds an erroneous belief!

It would be perfectly fine to compare homosexuals and pedophiles if the comparison itself is a logically valid one (regardless of anyone's belief).  It would be entirely wrong to compare them if the comparison itself is logically invalid (again, regardless of anyone's belief).

I think what you mean to say is that it's wrong to equate them (equating things is very different from comparing them).  This is true not because some people erroneously believe they equate, but because they factually do not equate - it's not the belief which makes it wrong, it's the factual error which makes it wrong.

Further, you're showing a tendency to think that because some people erroneously equate these two types, that anyone who mentions them in the same sentence might also equate these two types, regardless of whether there's linguistic evidence of equating.  I think you should watch out for that - suggested with the most friendly of feelings - if you disagree that this is a thought-pattern to avoid, I respect your choice.

(For the record, I didn't understand @Vort's comment because I agree with him; I understand Vort's comment because I'm a programmer1 and he and I speak the same language void of assumptions not evident in the words themselves - and as the above linguistic analysis should show, I assume the literal meaning of the words people use is what they intend, but sometimes find that the literal meaning is probably not be what they meant (but with Vort, the literal meaning is (almost?) always what he means).)

1As evidenced by my ability to nest parentheses without forgetting to close any... ;)

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

It's you and 80% of the rest of the English-speaking world. At some point soon, people like me are simply going to have to suck it up and admit that "beg the question" means what people think it means, and not what the prescriptivists insist.

Technically, if you take the words and their meanings individually instead of the "phrase" and it's meaning in formal logic terms, "begs" means an earnest request or asking, and so it, literally, would mean "earnestly requests the question" or "asks for the question" -- which is exactly how LP used it. ;)

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This whole topic is interesting and all but if a ward is just made up of all these random sinners and misfits it just isnt going to work. I agree we should welcome all but let us not forget the absolute importance of the strength of a ward is, and always will be, in those strong traditional families who hold fast to the iron rod. I have been part of several wards that lack enough strong traditional families and even though we had a mixture of all types those wards were almost always in fail or emergency mode. Getting all to come is great but if change towards principles of the traditional family values do not happen then its only a matter of time until failure happens. Lost in the discussion is how very important more strong traditional families are needed in the church today. We just had a major ward boundary change where we kind of were in emergency mode- failing in almost every facet of operation. We just didnt have enough traditional strong families to glue it all together. Then our ward boundary changed and pretty much overnight our outlook is now the opposite. We are stronger, no longer in emergency mode. Why? Because we gained quite a few strong traditional families. A ward that lacks having enough strong traditional families will fail in todays world. Whereas we do need more sinners in our attendance it means nothing if we are not adding a greater number of strong traditional families in our wards to support and help the lost sheep who need help when they come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I believe this is both an interesting and important post.  I have a friend that works for the Church in downtown SLC.  Actually, I have more than one but this particular guy works in a department that does research and gathers statistics.    In conversations, he has told me that the Church has done a great deal of research on the family – or as @Rob Osborn has implied – the strong traditional family.   All the research and statistics point to exactly what is implied – the church organizations, wards, branches, stakes, districts and missions cannot remain stable and grow without strong families.

The minimum number of strong families for a ward to remain stable is 5.  I remember asking what was so magical about 5.  He said that was yet to be determined.   But what surprised me the most is what was the necessary demographic or feature that families must have to possess in order to be a “strong family”.  The single most important element for a family to qualify as a strong core family was a strong bond of love.  A family that just flat out enjoys being around each other and doing things together.   This one element is more important than family prayer, family home evening, family scripture study or individual activity (prayer, scripture study or church attendance).  In short – a strong family does not do things because a prophet has commanded them or because they think it will get them into heaven – they do things together because it is fun for them and they enjoy it.

I have discovered – for myself – that if I cannot figure out how to have fun and enjoy something – it does not matter how right or good it is – I will fail at it and quit doing it.  The opposite works with sin for me.  Regardless of how tempting it may be or appear to be exciting – once I am convinced it is not now or will somehow turn out to not be fun – I am done with it – plus I cannot understand why anyone would waste their time with it.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share