Fether

Church policy change on same sex marriage

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Here's the definition I'm using:

sat·ire 
/ˈsaˌtī(ə)r/
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues

I see little humor or irony, and no exaggeration or ridicule, in Il Principe. On the contrary, it's straightforward and factual. Whatever it is, it does not look at all satirical to me.

True but I do see some exaggeration in his advice. There is some debate on the subject, as there always is about any aspect of history because historians rarely agree on anything, but if taken in the context of his other work, and taking into account his personal mistreatment by "Machiavellian" leaders, there is also plenty of evidence that his work was not meant to be taken seriously. It could also have been made merely for debate purposes, as during his lifetime he only circulated it amongst his friends and did not widely publish it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, unixknight said:

Maybe it's a bit of both.  Isn't that what satire is all about?

I think the close correlation between what Machiavelli wrote and the way the Medici's governed lends support to the idea that it was not intended to be satire. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

True but I do see some exaggeration in his advice.

I'm sincerely curious to know what exaggerations you see. I haven't perceived them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vort said:

I'm sincerely curious to know what exaggerations you see. I haven't perceived them.

For me personally it's when you compare the Prince to his other works that you start to see it. Let me give you an example from one of his more widely published, at the time, books Discoursi

""We know by experience that states have never signally increased either in territory or in riches except under a free government. The cause is not far to seek, since it is the well-being not of the individuals but of the community which makes the state great, and without question this universal well-being is nowhere secured save in a republic.... Popular rule is always better than the rule of princes."

Compare that quote to this one from the Prince

"Whatever you do, whatever measures you take, if the population hasn't been routed and dispersed so that its freedoms and traditions are quite forgotten, they will rise up to fight for those principles at the first opportunity; just as the Pisans did after a hundred years of Florentine dominion."

It seems really odd to me that in most of his political works, like Discoursi, he argues about the benefits of liberty and how a free republic is the best way to preserve those liberties, but in the Prince he is arguing that you need to make sure to completely destroy your opponents so they forget their liberty and traditions. I don't claim to be a Machieavelli expert by any means, military history is more my specialty, but this and other examples seem to me to demonstrate exaguration. Especially when you remember that the Prince was not widely published while he was alive, while most of his other works were. Now I could easily be wrong, you can certainly find arguments to the contrary, but that's my view of things. If you're interested Garrett Mattingly explains the pro satire side of things pretty well in this article

 http://www2.idehist.uu.se/distans/ilmh/Ren/flor-mach-mattingly.htm

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/13/2019 at 9:25 AM, MormonGator said:

In reality 99.99999% of alligators are more afraid of you then you are of them.

Wow MG, you're 1 in 10 Million. Someone thinks highly of himself.

Quote

The odds of getting attacked by an alligator are 1 in 2.4 million. 

Either MG isn't good at math, or he's really good at chomping 5 people with each encounter......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

Someone thinks highly of himself.

You have no idea. No wait, you probably do.

1 minute ago, mordorbund said:

Either MG isn't good at math

Horrible at it. The only reason I passed math classes in college was because I wrote term papers in exchange for math homework. I never got caught, but I walked right up to the line of getting caught. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

The only reason I passed math classes in college was because I wrote term papers in exchange for math homework. I never got caught, but I walked right up to the line of getting caught. 

The only way I passed mathematics classes in college is I passed on college.  I went the Information Technology certificate route and took a class, got certificates, and work experience.  No college debt for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MormonGator said:

You have no idea. No wait, you probably do.

Horrible at it. The only reason I passed math classes in college was because I wrote term papers in exchange for math homework. I never got caught, but I walked right up to the line of getting caught. 

You just keep knocking yourself off of that pedestal I keep setting you upon. Oh!  How the mighty have fallen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mores said:

You just keep knocking yourself off of that pedestal I keep setting you upon. Oh!  How the mighty have fallen. 

"I've done some things I'm not proud of. And the stuff I am proud of is disgusting."-Moe from The Simpsons. 

2 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

The only way I passed mathematics classes in college is I passed on college.  I went the Information Technology certificate route and took a class, got certificates, and work experience.  No college debt for me.

 Smart choice. The world needs more people like you. College isn't for everyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MormonGator said:

"I've done some things I'm not proud of. And the stuff I am proud of is disgusting."-Moe from The Simpsons. 

 Smart choice. The world needs more people like you. College isn't for everyone. 

I thought you did something in finance?  Is that not right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MormonGator said:

Correct. 

And you and I have something in common. We both think I'm heroic and worthy of worship. 

How do you get on in finance with poor math skills?  Or were you just being modest?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MG is a beancounter?   You must be one of the extroverted ones.  I bet when you and all your beancounter buddies are out partying, you're the one who looks at someone else's shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mores said:

How do you get on in finance with poor math skills?  Or were you just being modest?

If you can add, subtract, multiply, divide and count you are all good. You don't need to be a quant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MormonGator said:

If you can add, subtract, multiply, divide and count you are all good. You don't need to be a quant. 

I'm a numbers guy too, btw.  Truth be told, I'm not very good at math.  I am very good at spreadsheets. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm a numbers guy too, btw.  Truth be told, I'm not very good at math.  I am very good at spreadsheets. 

Angels and ministers of grace defend us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a lawyer.  I'm not a Mormon either.  In the end, it sounds like the LDS Church is now calling homosexual sin just a "serious transgression".  To me, this smacks the face of Romans 1...where it is clearly spelled out.  Serious transgression is more like a policy change issue now.  It beats me what the official LDS leaders are trying to say about the topic.  I must be in good company based off the comments I read on here.   Have LDS leaders done more clarifying? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi benzene,

So, other things that are serious transgressions are murder, abuse, drug abuse, and embezzlement.   I don't think the phrase "just a serious transgression" makes much sense.  You're not LDS, so no harm, no foul.

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:

Hi benzene,

So, other things that are serious transgressions are murder, abuse, drug abuse, and embezzlement.   I don't think the phrase "just a serious transgression" makes much sense.  You're not LDS, so no harm, no foul.

LDS think murder and embezzlement are just serious transgressions?  Help me understand what LDS think sin is.  

Edited by benzene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, benzene said:

LDS think murder and embezzlement are just serious transgressions?  Help me understand what LDS think sin is.  

The LDS Church doesn’t operate according to any form of canon law; and its leadership often isn’t quite that precise in its terminology.  In most contexts* “transgression” and “sin” are used interchangeably, and we don’t expend a lot of energy trying to rank sins according to their severity.

 

*There are one or two exceptions, which I can get into if you want.  But the above is true as a general principle.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, benzene said:

I'm not a lawyer.  I'm not a Mormon either.  In the end, it sounds like the LDS Church is now calling homosexual sin just a "serious transgression".  

Not exactly. The phrase "serious transgression"  was in reference to "same-gender marriage," itself, rather than "homosexual sin" (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 10:46 PM, wenglund said:

Not exactly. The phrase "serious transgression"  was in reference to "same-gender marriage," itself, rather than "homosexual sin" (see HERE)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Married homosexuals are not living homosexual sin?  There is a difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, benzene said:

Married homosexuals are not living homosexual sin?  There is a difference?

Not necessarily, and yes, there is a difference. Homosexual sin is sexual immorality and an abuse of procreative powers, whereas same-gender marriage is a sacrilege of the sacred ordinance of marriage. This means that even if a homosexual couple refrains from sexual behavior, they are commit a serious transgression were they to be married.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now