"By Common Consent"

[_Philo Sofee]

Like everything else about hypocrisy; learning how to think, once hypocrite one learns how to think on their own, everything dysfunctions. works better for all people.

(There, I fixed it for ya NL)....

[_Symmachus]

This is just what change "from the inside" looks like.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Again, I must wonder why these folks didn't rise up in anger about this policy which seems to me has been around since at least the 1930s for children of plural marriages.

Yahoo Bot sitting around wondering why people didn't rise up and end slavery in anger around 500 BC:



- Doc

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Again, I must wonder why these folks didn't rise up in anger about this policy which seems to me has been around since at least the 1930s for children of plural marriages.

Maybe because they weren't aware of it. I had no clue about this policy until you just now mentioned it, and I have been a member of the Church for 53 years.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Just goes to show. Nobody cares about or listens to persons living in plural marriage, but gay? Politically incorrect to ignore them. Politically incorrect not to take up their cudgel against a despised religion that wants them but only if they toe the line.

[_moksha]

So I can't figure out what POX is. I know it is "policy of exclusion" but what does he mean by that, specifically?

Think he was talking about the policy to give the boot to children associated with a same-sex marriage following the Supreme Court decision to allow for same-sex marriages, and which according to the author, President Nelson abused his ecclesiastical privilege by turning the policy into a revelation while President Monson was incapacitated.

The anger associated with making the policy was borne out of seeing the best-laid schemes of Seers and Revelators gang aft agley. Claiming the policy to be a revelation was an unforgivable breach of trust according to that censored author.

It is part of the long-standing Unwritten Rules of Order that any and all Mormons can be censored when requested to do so at Common Consent. Going by those Unwritten Rules, there was no trespass. Nothing to see here so move along, unless ye be craven anonymous cowards!

[_Lemmie]

Just goes to show. Nobody cares about or listens to persons living in plural marriage, but gay? Politically incorrect to ignore them. Politically incorrect not to take up their cudgel against a despised religion that wants them but only if they toe the line.

The "not as bad as" fallacy, also known as the fallacy of relative privation,[2] asserts that:

1.If something is worse than the problem currently being discussed, then
2.The problem currently being discussed isn't that important at all.
3.In order for the statement "A is not as bad as B," to suggest a fallacy there must be a fallacious conclusion such as: ignore A.

In other words: nothing matters if it's not literally the worst thing happening.[note 1] It's popular with people who know perfectly well they're doing something wrong. Since they are fully aware that they're doing something wrong, they feel compelled to attempt to justify it and do so by pointing to other (usually worse) actions.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

step up your game, yahoo. You could apply this fallacy far better if you could find a worse action, not just an equivalent.

[_The Soap Maker]

Just goes to show. Nobody cares about or listens to persons living in plural marriage, but gay? Politically incorrect to ignore them. Politically incorrect not to take up their cudgel against a despised religion that wants them but only if they toe the line.

You are correct - The leaders of the one, true branch of the LDS church do not care about or listen to persons living in plural marriage. Ironic, seeing how these folks are just following the examples of the church's earliest "prophets". Oh well, screw those polygamous heathens!

I actually hope that the lds leaders receive revelation identifying even more groups to punish and exclude from the one, true church. Why stop with polygamists and gays we could easily justify being douche-bags to so many other human beings? There's no room for these sinners or their children in god's true, eternal, never-changing gospel. After all, there's only so much holy ghost to go around so we might as well not be wasting it on those that aren't toeing the line.

[_Tator]

So I can't figure out what POX is. I know it is "policy of exclusion" but what does he mean by that, specifically?

Think he was talking about the policy to give the boot to children associated with a same-sex marriage following the Supreme Court decision to allow for same-sex marriages, and which according to the author, President Nelson abused his ecclesiastical privilege by turning the policy into a revelation while President Monson was incapacitated.

The anger associated with making the policy was borne out of seeing the best-laid schemes of Seers and Revelators gang aft agley. Claiming the policy to be a revelation was an unforgivable breach of trust according to that censored author.

It is part of the long-standing Unwritten Rules of Order that any and all Mormons can be censored when requested to do so at Common Consent. Going by those Unwritten Rules, there was no trespass. Nothing to see here so move along, unless ye be craven anonymous cowards!

Bravo, penguin you are the master.

[_Yahoo Bot]

step up your game, yahoo. You could apply this fallacy far better if you could find a worse action, not just an equivalent.[/quote]

I don't let people dictate to me argument by logical fallacy. They usually get it wrong.

The point here is that, how bad exactly is a baptismal limitation when (1) you don't believe in the church's baptism and (2) it has been around for decades.