Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
Posted
1 minute ago, Vort said:

People like Second-rate Mind use Ockham's Razor falsely

Correct. 

Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, Vort said:
Quote
Quote

I do not care to convert you. I do not care if you become a member of the kingdom of God. God cares; he loves you, infinitely so. But I do not. I hope very much that you leave this particular venue and never return, at least until you are willing to engage in honest conversation.

So, Vort, is the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints only for those who agree with you about everything?

You are a liar. I never said nor suggested any such thing.

Best wishes, Vort

Then why do you not care if I become a member of the Kingdom of God, or not?

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Posted
19 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Or, you could just answer the question in the OP, without the insults, if you have such an answer.

Let's give that a shot:

On 5/15/2018 at 8:19 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies?

It is a religion that offers salvation to all who care to accept it.

On 5/15/2018 at 8:19 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc?

The question is like asking, "If this is God's Church, then why doesn't everyone wear Keds sneakers?" It is non-sequitur and irrelevant. God chooses who he will as his apostles. So far, those apostles have been white and much more experienced than your typical 40-year-old. God shares his Priesthood with his children through the ordination of men, because that is how he sees fit. We do not pretend to know the mind of God in all things, only in those things in which he reveals himself.

On 5/15/2018 at 8:19 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously?

They should not.

On 5/15/2018 at 8:19 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind.

That is because you are a bigot.

On 5/15/2018 at 8:19 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Bigots such as yourself are not generally open to understanding why their bigotry is offensive. Four pages of discussion have not yet sufficed to teach you why your bigotry is "unfair". So your hope appears to be unfounded.

Posted
3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Then why do you not care if I become a member of the Kingdom of God, or not?

I don't care because you appear to be a very unpleasant person, so whether your embrace or reject important truths that would help you forever doesn't register with me as important. I freely admit that is a demonstration of my own spiritual immaturity; as I wrote, God certainly cares. God sees you as an infinitely precious child with potential beyond your capacity even to imagine. Ideally, I would see you as a beloved brother. I confess, I see you not as a brother, but as a troll and an irritant. Thus my lack of caring.

On further reflection, I would indeed rejoice if you were to drop your unpleasantness, humble yourself enough to open your ears, your mind, and your heart, and find the truths of the gospel. I would have a brother, and that is always a cause for rejoicing. So I suppose I'm not as uncaring as all that. But seeing as how I think you're nothing but a troll, I have very little expectation of that happening. And if no good is going to come to you from conversing here, I see no purpose in engaging you in serious conversation that you do not take seriously and will not approach honestly.

Hope that helps you understand better, brother.

Posted
2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Then why do you not care if I become a member of the Kingdom of God, or not?

@2ndRateMind

i think one has to be really careful in how you tell someone that their beliefs don't make sense to you.  Not many people are able to divorce themselves from their beliefs (me included) - and so when you call into question one, you almost may as well be intentionally insulting the other.  You're likely to have swords turned on you very quickly.

If one is looking for a war, the drawn swords means mission accomplished.  i don't sense that this is your goal though.  

Posted
42 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

social injustice

There is justice, and there is injustice.  Social injustice is a euphemistic catch phrase for something people seek for that is not actually justice.  If it were real justice, there would be no need to put the word social in front of it.

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

So. Carborendum. The epithet 'Pale, Male and Stale' was simply something I asked you all about. 

Yes, and I addressed it.  But you chose to ignore it.  Why?

Quote

Are you a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete organisation with a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete leadership, and a Racist, Sexist, Obsolete outlook?

What answer is there to that question?  We of course will say no.  But does that satisfy you?  Of course not.  Why?  Because you've already made up your mind based on a non-sequitur (I hope you understand what that means).

Quote

 I cannot apologise for finding this question relevant, given the portraits of your leadership as...

So, you're making judgments based on pictures of individuals.  Does that not sound like a racist, sexist, and obsolete attitude?

Quote

being 87% white Caucasian

So, does that make them racist?  How?

Quote

100% male,

Does that make them sexist?  How?

Quote

with an average age of, what shall we say? maybe 80% over 50 years of age.

Does that make them obsolete?  How?

Quote

None of this amounts to a personal attack on any individual contributing to this discussion, such as you have subjected me to. Maybe you are just all being defensive,

The answers to the above questions are imperative to continue with this thread.  Let me explain something to you about conservative thought.

1) Just because a bunch of white people happen to be the ones in charge of something, does NOT mean they are racist.  They would have to actually DO something that was ... actually... racist.

2) Just because a bunch of men happen to be running things, does NOT mean they are sexist.  They would have to actually DO something that was ... actually... sexist.

3) Old people tend to be a bastion of wisdom.  In spite of how much technology changes, human nature does not.  And when it comes to understanding human nature and the patterns of the world, you simply can't beat the wisdom of an old person who has been involved in the world and spending their life in service.

4) When you make a judgment about someone based on their race as you did, that is considered racist.  It doesn't matter if they are white.  White is a race too.  Minority/majority doesn't matter. Racism is racism.

5) When you apply an epithet (Your words) to anyone, then you need to apologize for doing so.  Unlike a liberal, a conservative would not call for social action or send police after them or take them to court over it.  Conservatives simply hope that you're a polite enough individual that you'll simply apologize and move forward.

Edited by Guest
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, person0 said:

There is justice, and there is injustice.  Social injustice is a euphemistic catch phrase for something people seek for that is not actually justice.  If it were real justice, there would be no need to put the word social in front of it.

Indeed... in action Social Justice is an attempt to use something good, to justify doing something bad.

For example Helping the Poor is good...   Using that to rob the rich is bad... So call it Social Justice and see who you can hoodwink into agreeing to it

Edited by estradling75
Posted
35 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

So it's a dog whistle then?

stirring_the_pot_postcard-rc40965b31d5a4

Technically, you're (well, the woman in the drawing is) stirring what's in the pot.  To stir the pot it would have to be sleeping, or floating about inside a larger pot.

Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, zil said:

Technically, you're (well, the woman in the drawing is) stirring what's in the pot.  To stir the pot it would have to be sleeping, or floating about inside a larger pot.

Well @zil, the image is stirring the pot because it is sexist. I do not see a male in the picture stirring the pot also, or helping her. I never knew @mordorbund was such a sexist. I can tell because of the picture. It is 100% female (in the kitchen). Shame on him.

 

:bananarockon:

Edited by Anddenex
Posted
3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Well @zil, the image is stirring the pot because it is sexist. I do not see a male in the picture stirring the pot also, or helping her. I never knew @mordorbund was such a sexist. I can tell because of the picture. It is 100% female (in the kitchen). Shame on him.

 

:bananarockon:

Hmm.  I'm still thinking the statement is flawed in ways other than being sexist.  How can an image stir a pot (which, again, would have to be in another pot, or asleep or similar, before the pot itself could be stirred)?  Hmm.  Maybe if we were in Colorado @mordorbund could stir some pot, but then he'd probably have to go visit his bishop.

Posted
On 5/16/2018 at 1:19 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

This sounds very similar to judging a book by its cover -  something i was taught as a child not to do.

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, zil said:

Hmm.  I'm still thinking the statement is flawed in ways other than being sexist.  How can an image stir a pot (which, again, would have to be in another pot, or asleep or similar, before the pot itself could be stirred)?  Hmm.  Maybe if we were in Colorado @mordorbund could stir some pot, but then he'd probably have to go visit his bishop.

How does someone "eat themselves to death"?  I mean self-cannibalization would be nigh impossible wouldn't you think?

Edited by Guest
Posted
2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

How does someone "eat themselves to death"?  I mean self-cannibalization would be nigh impossible wouldn't you think?

Well, if you had a doctor help you, amputating bits here, removing secondary organs there, but yeah, the lethal bite, so to speak, seems to present a logistical problem.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

How does someone "eat themselves to death"?  I mean self-cannibalization would be nigh impossible wouldn't you think?

PS: We need a "pukey" reaction icon.

PPS: I also think we need an "interesting idea" reaction icon, for when you don't necessarily like or agree with what someone wrote, but find their thoughts interesting.

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, zil said:

Hmm.  I'm still thinking the statement is flawed in ways other than being sexist.  How can an image stir a pot (which, again, would have to be in another pot, or asleep or similar, before the pot itself could be stirred)?  Hmm.  Maybe if we were in Colorado @mordorbund could stir some pot, but then he'd probably have to go visit his bishop.

Does he have to visit the bishop because he was in the kitchen to stir some pot?

Edited by Anddenex
Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, Anddenex said:

Does he have to visit the bishop because he was in the kitchen stirring a pot?

It depends if it was aluminum or cast iron.  I'm told aluminum is against the word of wisdom.

Edited by Guest
Posted
8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It depends if it was aluminum or cast iron.  I'm told aluminum is against the word of wisdom.

What if it was steel or copper?  Has anyone tried a titanium pot yet?

Posted
30 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

. . . it is sexist. I do not see a male in the picture stirring the pot also, or helping her. 

You are so not woke.  There is no sexism on display.  Anyone with an ounce of wokeness can clearly see that it is a transgendered person stirring the pot. 

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, person0 said:

I really mean this sincerely, but, why would you want anyone's attitude to sway you to or away from a particular subset of doctrines?  Shouldn't your evaluation be based on the doctrine itself, ...?

Not necessarily. If find I can infer much from secondary and tertiary sources.

For example, we have this from the primary source*: (emphasis mine)

Quote

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these

And this, from the primary source** (emphasis mine)

Quote

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Now it may be that my question in the OP was worded provocatively, but I think it was also a fair question to ask, and asked in a fair way:

Quote

The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

And when I was shown to be (slightly) wrong, I admitted that gracefully enough.

But, with very few exceptions, your responses to me have been a veritable torrent of vitriol, venom, bile, and personal abuse. Maybe that is the Mormon way; I don't know, and have only you guys to judge by. But I do not think that, in our conversations to date, you have properly demonstrated that you have completely understood and are sincerely committed to implementing the Christian way.

Once we have this matter of attitude, even just plain ordinary courtesy, sorted out, then perhaps, we will be able to move on to matters of more substance.

Best wishes., 2RM.

* Jesus himself, as reported by Mark 12: 30-31 KJV

** Jesus himself, as reported by Matthew 5: 43-47 KJV

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Posted
On 5/16/2018 at 1:19 AM, 2ndRateMind said:

So, I've just happened to come across some pictures of the LDS leadership. (The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve). Not just overwhelmingly white, middle class, middle aged and male, but completely so. Is this a religion/denomination that seeks to save all of humanity, or just a club of like-minded, socially coherent cronies? If the former, why no blacks, asians, hispanics, women, youth, working class, etc? If the latter, why should anyone take Mormons seriously? The epithet, maybe unfairly, 'Pale, Male, and Stale' springs to mind. But if it is unfair, I hope you will be able to explain to me just why it is unfair.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I haven't read the whole thread so I'm not sure if this has been said yet. This comes from the most recent church General Conference held last month.

With the sustaining that has just taken place, we now have 116 General Authorities. Nearly 40 percent of them were born outside the United States—in Germany, Brazil, Mexico, New Zealand, Scotland, Canada, South Korea, Guatemala, Argentina, Italy, Zimbabwe, Uruguay, Peru, South Africa, American Samoa, England, Puerto Rico, Australia, Venezuela, Kenya, the Philippines, Portugal, Fiji, China, Japan, Chile, Colombia, and France.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2018/04/the-sustaining-of-church-officers?lang=eng

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...