Sign in to follow this  
unixknight

A Realization I had During Ramadan Last Night

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I hate it when people accuse me of saying things I didn't say too.

But I also admitted I was exaggerating to make a point.

M.

Share this post


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

But I also admitted I was exaggerating to make a point.

I'll offer you (and anyone else reading this) a piece of sincere friendly advice:  You may want to avoid doing that until you've built up enough of a rapport with someone that they'll know how to take it.  Human communication is 20% words and 80% body language.  Without the body language component we're going to communicate at 20% effectiveness at best, which means we will always tend to take each other's words at face value unless we have reason to do otherwise.  It's the best we can do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Can't wait.

M.

Here's the thread.

Somewhere on the second page you were saying that "I'm a Mormon" is a good way to explain why you do or don't do a thing.  That's sounds like "giving a speech" (exaggerated) to me.

Now you're saying that @unixknight should NOT have "given a speech" (exaggerated) about the WoW.

Share this post


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

Here's the thread.

Somewhere on the second page you were saying that "I'm a Mormon" is a good way to explain why you do or don't do a thing.  That's sounds like "giving a speech" (exaggerated) to me.

Now you're saying that @unixknight should NOT have "given a speech" (exaggerated) about the WoW.

@Mores, your reading comprehension is lacking. This old thread actually adds to my current thought with this new thread.

In the old thread "Guest" was saying that no matter how he explained (in several words) why he had never been or will never go to a men's club, his audience was not understanding. So by him just saying those few words of "I'm a Mormon", everything became clear to his audience and they understood. The many worded explanations didn't cut it, but the concise explanation did.

Moral of the story is: Be brief and concise if you're trying to get a message across. Like "No thanks" or "I'm a Mormon".

M.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1998 Canada - end of the 6 week corporate training event.  Everyone is having champagne, I'm having coke.  Some brief confusion, because it was a big toast.  "You can't even have alcohol in wine?"  "Not even during a special event?"  It made no sense to many of them.  Then it just wasn't an issue any more.  I think there might have been some worry that I had a problem with the event itself, or toasts in general, or them personally, or something.  But I was fully engaged in all the events of the evening, with the single exception of the alcohol in my glass. 

They all knew I was LDS, because at the beginning of the thing they did a "everyone state something personal about yourselves, and we'll try to guess who said it" deal, and my entry was "I am a Mormon".  

(The room guessed three different people that weren't me, before I came clean.)

Edited by NeuroTypical

Share this post


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

I'll offer you (and anyone else reading this) a piece of sincere friendly advice:  You may want to avoid doing that until you've built up enough of a rapport with someone that they'll know how to take it.  Human communication is 20% words and 80% body language.  Without the body language component we're going to communicate at 20% effectiveness at best, which means we will always tend to take each other's words at face value unless we have reason to do otherwise.  It's the best we can do.

Death to the false emperor.

 

abaddon.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I entirely endorse whatever dietary rules one chooses to accept because, to that individual, they seem to be good. But I cannot get my head around the idea that one should keep a rule for the sake of the rule. Pig meat, for example, may have been dangerous in bronze age times, due to parasites and disease, and that for me, would be an entirely adequate reason to forego. But it isn't now, and the rule is the ghost of what was then an entirely good idea. But I do not see why Jews and Muslims should keep the ghosts of such good ideas in today's climate of animal and human welfare.

My own particular weakness is for wine. And I note that Jesus was not averse to a cup or two, even to the extent of conjuring it up at the wedding in Canaa, and stipulating that we should remember him with a quaff in communion. I do not recommend alcoholism, but abstinence for no reason other than some rule seems to me to be no better than over indulgence. They are both a tad extreme for my taste. Life, it seems, keeps its rewards for those who are moderate in all things, including moderation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

I entirely endorse whatever dietary rules one chooses to accept because, to that individual, they seem to be good. But I cannot get my head around the idea that one should keep a rule for the sake of the rule. Pig meat, for example, may have been dangerous in bronze age times, and that for me, would be an entirely adequate reason to forego. But it isn't now, and the rule is the ghost of what was then an entirely good idea. But I do not see why Jews and Muslims should keep the ghosts of such good ideas in today's climate of animal and human welfare.

My own particular weakness is for wine. And I note that Jesus was not averse to a cup or two, even to the extent of conjuring it up at the wedding in Canaa, and stipulating that we should remember him with a quaff in communion. I do not recommend alcoholism, but abstinence for no reason other than some rule seems to me to be no better than over indulgence. They are both a tad extreme for my taste. Life, it seems, keeps its rewards those who are moderate in all things, including moderation.

Best wishes, 2RM.

And that's great, I'm glad that works for you. But if you ever want to truly understand the way Latter-day Saints think, you need to understand that this is not just "some rule" we follow out of a desire to emulate the past. This is a direct command from the mouth of God to his people. By following it, we obey the will of God, and not the ideas of the world. I imagine if you asked a believing Jew or Muslim, they would say the same of their dietary restrictions. To truly get where religious people are coming from, you have to understand that basic truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

...This is a direct command from the mouth of God to his people. By following it, we obey the will of God, and not the ideas of the world....

...To truly get where religious people are coming from, you have to understand that basic truth.

And that is the root of the dilemma. Jesus, Christ, Messiah and 2nd part of the Godhead Trinity, accepts, even desires and requires, the drinking of wine. The prophet Joseph Smith tells us it is wrong. Where, and why, should I place my allegiance?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

And that is the root of the dilemma. Jesus, Christ, Messiah and 2nd part of the Godhead Trinity, accepts, even desires and requires, the drinking of wine. The prophet Joseph Smith tells us it is wrong. Where, and why, should I place my allegiance?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Not really a dillema. Jesus Christ commanded us not to drink wine, not Joseph Smith. We believe in continuing revelation, and we strongly believe the Lord when he said "whether by my voice or the voice of my servants it is the same". Just because it was through the mouth of his prophet Joseph Smith, does not mean it was not the voice of Christ.

FYI I know you aren't a member, and I appreciate the question. But that's what we believe and why a dilemma for you doesn't bother us in the least.

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


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

Jesus Christ commanded us not to drink wine,

That is contrary to my reading of the Gospels. But maybe the Book of Mormon says different.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

That is contrary to my reading of the Gospels. But maybe the Book of Mormon says different.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Like I said we believe the teachings of our prophets are the direct teachings of Christ. Just how Moses spoke face to face with God and received his commandments, so too do our modern day prophets and apostles receive God's word and give them to us.

By the way I appreciate the fact that you are a man of faith yourself, and I don't expect to convince you in a single conversation online, but that's the Latter-day Saint position and understanding that will help you understand us better even if you disagree.

Share this post


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

Just because it was through the mouth of his prophet Joseph Smith, does not mean it was not the voice of Christ.

Interesting. How do you tell the difference between what Joseph Smith thought on this topic, and what Jesus thinks? In other words, is everything Smith says the voice of Christ? Does Smith have no opinion at all, other than Christ's opinion? Is Smith as perfect as Christ?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Interesting. How do you tell the difference between what Joseph Smith thought on this topic, and what Jesus thinks? In other words, is everything Smith says the voice of Christ? Does Smith have no opinion at all, other than Christ's opinion? Is Smith as perfect as Christ?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Nope he was a man like you or me. He spoke for Christ, just as modern prophets do, only when he was acting in his office as prophet, seer, and revalator. In the case of Joseph Smith, many of his revelations can be found in one of our books of Scripture, the Doctrine and Covenants.

God has always worked through mortal and imperfect servants. Moses was scared of public speaking, Elijiah had a tendancey to be sarcastic, Peter denied Christ, Paul was a persecutor of Christians before his conversion. The Lord always has and always will work through weak and foolish mortals, and Joseph Smith had his fair share of weaknesses and foibles. But what a mighty work Christ has made through his very human servant!

Edited by Midwest LDS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so to hammer the point home (I do not think you need the clarification @Midwest LDS but others might find it of interest): should I choose the admittedly imperfect Joseph Smith and forego wine, or the supposedly perfect Gospel Jesus, and indulge in moderate moderation?

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited by 2ndRateMind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Vort said:

Btw, I'm with Mores in wondering about the white wine. If anything, alcohol is more strictly prohibited in Islam than in our own religion. Maybe there was a miscommunication going on there; I would think any Muslim who was faithful enough to observe Ramadan would be much too faithful ever to drink wine. Or is Ramadan a cultural thing for your friends, rather than religious?

Given that my own father is Muslim along with his entire side of the family I can speak up here.  My father is the only adult male Muslim on his side of the family that I have never seen drink alcohol (including my older brother).  I have participated in many a Ramadan feast (including this past Saturday evening) with my father and his family, and have also been to many family gatherings.  In fact, the one and only time I ever consumed alcohol was when I was around 7-8 years old at a family gathering and took a sip of my uncle's bud light thinking it was a can of coke.  Worst thing I have ever tasted, which actually benefited me as I have never even been curious about alcohol as I can vividly recall the disgust of that experience.

Interestingly, my own father is not an orthodox Muslim by any stretch of the imagination, but he does celebrate Ramadan every year, as well as my aunts and uncles on his side of the family.  I would never have considered it something that was observed strictly by the faithful based on my many experiences having participated in it for all of my youth and now some of my adulthood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
 
1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

OK, so to hammer the point home (I do not think you need the clarification @Midwest LDS but others might find it of interest): should I choose the admittedly imperfect Joseph Smith and forego wine, or the supposedly perfect Gospel Jesus, and indulge in moderate moderation?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Those aren't the options. The options are between Christ's rules for people living in the 1st century and his rules for people living now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

supposedly perfect Gospel

I'm pretty sure you agreed/admitted that God works through imperfect servants.  I'm fairly certain that would include the authors of the content included in the new testament, as well as the scribes, compilers, religious leaders, religious revolutionaries, translators, and so forth.  That is quite a lot of imperfect people in the line of the gospel message from its origin to us today.

Share this post


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

I entirely endorse whatever dietary rules one chooses to accept because, to that individual, they seem to be good.

My dietary rules prioritize eating endangered animals over domesticated livestock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Maureen said:

@Mores, your reading comprehension is lacking. This old thread actually adds to my current thought with this new thread.

Is that right?  Clearly I should just bow down to your flawless hypocrisy and accept whatever you say with the biggest grain of salt that you can carry on your back.

Quote

In the old thread "Guest" was saying that no matter how he explained (in several words) why he had never been or will never go to a men's club, his audience was not understanding. So by him just saying those few words of "I'm a Mormon", everything became clear to his audience and they understood. The many worded explanations didn't cut it, but the concise explanation did.

Moral of the story is: Be brief and concise if you're trying to get a message across. Like "No thanks" or "I'm a Mormon".

So, the brief explanations of "No" and "Never" were not brief enough?  They never even asked "why?"  I wonder how "I'm a Mormon" was somehow considered more brief than a single word response.

Or are you saying that when they ask "why?" that we should NOT be saying "I'm a Mormon" but when they don't ask "why?" then we SHOULD be saying "I'm a Mormon"?  Yeah that makes a lot of sense.

"Guest" was never asked why, and you said he SHOULD have said it.  @unixknight doesn't answer it until asked and you say he SHOULDN'T have "given a big speech".

Yup, really consistent there in your thinnest of excuses for double talk.

Edited by Mores

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
Sign in to follow this