It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 9:35 am

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:37 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
He, and a few million equally delusional people, think he's one of God's chosen mouthpieces. It's a power trip few men could resist, and Packer is not one to miss an opportunity to crack the whip he holds.


Your self righteous delusions of liberal moral granduer are becoming more fevered by the week Harmony. Soon you'll be so morally, psychologically, and intellectually superior to most faithful Mormons that we'll have to start worshipping you (and then you can start cracking the whip...).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:03 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 2261
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
He, and a few million equally delusional people, think he's one of God's chosen mouthpieces. It's a power trip few men could resist, and Packer is not one to miss an opportunity to crack the whip he holds.


Your self righteous delusions of liberal moral granduer are becoming more fevered by the week Harmony. Soon you'll be so morally, psychologically, and intellectually superior to most faithful Mormons that we'll have to start worshipping you (and then you can start cracking the whip...).


Shouldn't be that hard of a leap considering you already worship man as a fundie TBM.

_________________
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:52 pm 
Quote:
Ray said:
Quote:
Well I think he has insulted my daughters, who are the most moral human beings I know. If he thinks hairstyle determines morality, then he's living in some kind of extremist fantasy.


Quote:
Coggin's reply:
That's what YOU say about your daughters. Who knows what the REAL truth may be (on the next Oprah...)


Coggins, I'm curious. For someone who is suppose to be defending Christ's Church, why do you consistently have to take cheap pot shots at people? You know what? I probably wouldn't even say anything if you were taking a cheap shot at Ray, because he's an adult and can handle himself. But coming after someone's children? That's just evil, in my opinion as a parent. How dare you insinuate that Ray's daughters are immoral! Shame on you! I'm sorry, but when you bring someone's kids into this type of discussion in a negative manner, even in jest, or just to make a point, it's crossing the line.

You owe Ray an apology.

What's sad is....as to the point that you are insipidly trying to make, I actually agree with you! I just radically disagree with your approach. Go over to the MAD board where your tactics will be appreciated.

For those of you who missed Coggin's point through all of his idiotic sniping, it is this. Packer's message was simply that we should reflect our wholesome intentions in our dress and the way we present ourselves. It IS possible to dress modestly and still be stylish. As parents, we need to take an active role in helping our children do this. After all, we're the ones who buy the clothes they wear.

Now, Packer's comments about "teased hair", simply reflected his age and era. It was a poor analogy.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:07 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 8:35 pm
Posts: 2261
liz3564 wrote:
Quote:
Ray said:
Quote:
Well I think he has insulted my daughters, who are the most moral human beings I know. If he thinks hairstyle determines morality, then he's living in some kind of extremist fantasy.


Quote:
Coggin's reply:
That's what YOU say about your daughters. Who knows what the REAL truth may be (on the next Oprah...)


Coggins, I'm curious. For someone who is suppose to be defending Christ's Church, why do you consistently have to take cheap pot shots at people? You know what? I probably wouldn't even say anything if you were taking a cheap shot at Ray, because he's an adult and can handle himself. But coming after someone's children? That's just evil, in my opinion as a parent. How dare you insinuate that Ray's daughters are immoral! Shame on you! I'm sorry, but when you bring someone's kids into this type of discussion in a negative manner, even in jest, or just to make a point, it's crossing the line.

You owe Ray an apology.

What's sad is....as to the point that you are insipidly trying to make, I actually agree with you! I just radically disagree with your approach. Go over to the MAD board where your tactics will be appreciated.

For those of you who missed Coggin's point through all of his idiotic sniping, it is this. Packer's message was simply that we should reflect our wholesome intentions in our dress and the way we present ourselves. It IS possible to dress modestly and still be stylish. As parents, we need to take an active role in helping our children do this. After all, we're the ones who buy the clothes they wear.

Now, Packer's comments about "teased hair", simply reflected his age and era. It was a poor analogy.



Well said, Liz! Cog, you really are an ass. And that's just me talking.

It seems to me that those who claim to wear the mantle of "God's chosen people" are always the ones who wear it so shabbily. No wonder so many people in this world disparage Christianity, with people like cognitive dissonance as representatives, who would want to get to know Jesus?

As far as the point Cog was trying to make through all his childishness, I agree with it. Yes, you can be modest in your dress and be stylish. Which is something I plan to teach my daughters should I ever have any. Liz, you're right, the parents buy the clothes. And personally I don't like a lot of what I see in little girls wear in the stores these days. My four-year-old will look like a four-year-old, not some bite-sized woman. I cringe each time I see a young girl in tight clothes with sparkly lip gloss on her eyelids. There's time enough for that!

My mother didn't let me wear makeup regularly until I was 16. My first homecoming she bought me some makeup from the clinique counter, but I could only wear it in pictures and to dances.

We can control how fast our kids grow up if we try.

_________________
Each one has to find his peace from within. And peace to be real must be unaffected by outside circumstances. -Ghandi


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
Now, Packer's comments about "teased hair", simply reflected his age and era. It was a poor analogy.


I disagree profoundly. That counsel is through revelation, and its binding on the Saints. I listened to the entire talk, and parts of it more than once, and one can feel the spirit and the conviction of Packers words, as well as their sincerety, throughout. Further, the General Authorities of the church have been giving precisely this same counsel for decades. It isn't new and it isn't novel and it has nothing to do with thier age or generation. That liz, is nothing but an intellectual cop out, unless you could field for me a substantive argument that would provide a plausible reason to believe that that is all it is and nothing more (especially given the time frame in which such counsel has been given and the fact that much younger GAs give precisely the same counsel in precisely the same settings).

As to my attack, OK, I'm sorry about that. Keep in mind that I've had cheap shots taken at me for upwards of seven years now on the web just for being a Mormon (no need to say anything) and I'm human. I consider Ray's claims nothing but ancedotal, and ancedotes like this are used commonly in an attempt to shut down debate by painting one's personal family, relatives, or friends as outside church standards and saying "See! see! My daughters tease their hair and have nipple clamps and THEY go to the Temple and THEY take the sacrament and THEY'RE nice people and..." and so on. One cannot deny such a claim nor can one see all the dynamics involved. I tend to react to ancedotes intended to confuse the issue this way, as it is maddening.

You also now know why I'm limiting my posting here to every two weeks or so.


Loran


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:39 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
Now, Packer's comments about "teased hair", simply reflected his age and era. It was a poor analogy.


I disagree profoundly. That counsel is through revelation, and its binding on the Saints. I listened to the entire talk, and parts of it more than once, and one can feel the spirit and the conviction of Packers words, as well as their sincerety, throughout.


Strange that you condemn Ray below for using anecdotal evidence, and yet here you are using it yourself.

Quote:
Further, the General Authorities of the church have been giving precisely this same counsel for decades.


That's the point of Liz's remark: the counsel is several decades out-of-date.

Quote:
It isn't new and it isn't novel and it has nothing to do with thier age or generation. That liz, is nothing but an intellectual cop out, unless you could field for me a substantive argument that would provide a plausible reason to believe that that is all it is and nothing more (especially given the time frame in which such counsel has been given and the fact that much younger GAs give precisely the same counsel in precisely the same settings).


It is something more: it is an insistence that the Saints be perfectly obedient, and that they demonstrate this obedience by dressing and behaving in certain GA-sanctioned ways. It really has very little to do with the Gospel.

Quote:
As to my attack, OK, I'm sorry about that. Keep in mind that I've had cheap shots taken at me for upwards of seven years now on the web just for being a Mormon (no need to say anything) and I'm human. I consider Ray's claims nothing but ancedotal, and ancedotes like this are used commonly in an attempt to shut down debate by painting one's personal family, relatives, or friends as outside church standards and saying "See! see! My daughters tease their hair and have nipple clamps and THEY go to the Temple and THEY take the sacrament and THEY'RE nice people and..." and so on. One cannot deny such a claim nor can one see all the dynamics involved. I tend to react to ancedotes intended to confuse the issue this way, as it is maddening.

You also now know why I'm limiting my posting here to every two weeks or so.


Yes, I do. It's because, just like Wade, you turn apoplectic at having your butt kicked repeatedly. It must be really aggravating to get so thoroughly trounced time after time in these discussions here.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:49 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 12:48 pm
Posts: 18536
Quote:
That's the point of Liz's remark: the counsel is several decades out-of-date.


After reading Clement of Alexandria's The Instructor 3 (and Isaiah 3), wherein we see that we are slated to become Gods and what the behavior of a potential God should be, one sees that such counsel is never out of date.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:01 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Were done for this round again Scratch. You can'ts sustain an intellectuall substantive arguement past a few paragraphs, and you don't seem to really be interested in anything (such as the intellectual history of radical feminism) except delegitimizing the Church.


Another time...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: bcspace
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:26 pm 
Lightbearer
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 25, 2006 8:06 pm
Posts: 5659
Location: las vegas
Is there a website that has that Clement article? The Clementine recognitions are hard to get ahold of at a bookstore. I have to order them online, would be great to know if they are simply posted somewhere online.

_________________
We can easily forgive a child who is afraid of the dark; the real tragedy of life is when men are afraid of the light. - Plato


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:28 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Just google it. There should be several excelllent sites that have the complete texts (I'm sure the Church Fathers collection at Wheaton has it). I've had it on disk for several years now.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:31 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
After reading Clement of Alexandria's The Instructor 3 (and Isaiah 3), wherein we see that we are slated to become Gods and what the behavior of a potential God should be, one sees that such counsel is never out of date.


Indeed. The "old fashioned octogenarian fuddy duddy imposing his cultural beliefs on others" is just fluff. I haven't really seen a substantive agrument yet as to why the counsel is actually invalid. All I've really seen so far are continous questions asking me and others why it is valid, as if people who have already made up their minds a priori about it are asking for a serious explanatin of its value. Are they?


Loran


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:25 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Coggins7 wrote:
Were done for this round again Scratch. You can'ts sustain an intellectuall substantive arguement past a few paragraphs, and you don't seem to really be interested in anything (such as the intellectual history of radical feminism) except delegitimizing the Church.


Another time...


Bowing out again, eh? No big surprise there. And no: I'm not interested in "delegitimizing the Church." I am interested in seeing the Church achieve its full potential. If you think this includes silly advice banning "teased hair" and manipulating the political process via questionable methods, then so be it.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:47 pm 
bcspace wrote:
Quote:
That's the point of Liz's remark: the counsel is several decades out-of-date.


After reading Clement of Alexandria's The Instructor 3 (and Isaiah 3), wherein we see that we are slated to become Gods and what the behavior of a potential God should be, one sees that such counsel is never out of date.


Just to clarify....I never said that President Packer's counsel was out of date. I said that his analogy regarding teased hair was out of date.

I agree with the counsel. My point is, when you are listening with the spirit, you can look beyond the out of date analogies that many speakers utilize and focus on the message. It's as simple as that.

Instead of getting into the constant pissing contests you guys(and I'm referring here to Coggins, Gazelam, and Plutarch primarily) consistently get into, if you would just state your point plainly, you would receive a lot less redicule....even from people who differ in your views. The problem is, you guys seem to have such a damned chip on your shoulder that you come out swinging before you fully take the time to compose your thoughts, or truly read and try to understand what other posters are saying. It's embarassing, guys. It's like we don't even belong to the same Church.

How can you claim to be a proponent of Christ's Church when you refuse to display compassion toward your fellow man? And before you give me a load of crap about throwing pearls before swine, don't bother, because it's b***s***. If any of you self proclaimed apologists HONESTLY feel like this place is a "sty", as Pahoran has labeled it, then quit posting here. Don't be a hypocrite.

I don't have any problem with someone being passionate about his/her beliefs. What I DO have a problem with is someone sniping, and attacking a poster in lieu of addressing an issue.

And, if you think I'm picking on the believers here, I'm not. I've taken non-believers to task for the same crap.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:26 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
Coggins7 wrote:
This has got to be just about the dumbest question someone who claims to understand LDS doctrine could possible have concocted. Do you really wan't an answer, or is this just a pretext for more verbiage?

I really want an answer.

Quote:
Oh, and by the way Rollo, you've admitted to being a very staunch "liberal" in this forum, and so a question has to be asked: just when did liberals begin having problems with coerciing others (except in the sexual realm, where behavioral and moral anarchy reigns)?

"Liberals" (and other lovers of freedom) have always had a problem with coercion, sexual or otherwise.

Quote:
You're concept of "old fashioned" may be little more than a personal subjective idological predjudice or psychologically driven animus.

My view is not at all driven by "animus" -- rather, by the absurdity of telling women not to tease their hair.

Quote:
Still no philosophically serious argument as to what is really wrong with the standards, except you're utterly phony and contrived "coercion" claims.

Non-teased hair is now "the standard"? Egads, man, why?

Quote:
Your personal animus against the age and generation of the GA's isn't relevant.

Again, no animus. But the age and generation of GA's is relevant to understand why they pick battles that the rest of us think are silly and embarrassing.

Quote:
Its a very interesting subject actually; the intersection between how we adorn, ornament, and symbolize ourselves, and the core principles of the Gospel regarding the nature of "spirituality" and our attainment of it.

Please explain how non-teased hair bestows greater "spirituality" within the core principles of the Gospel.

Quote:
But, as an expert on LDS doctrine and philosophy yourself, why should I even need to elucidate this to you?

The issue is not "the need" -- rather, the fact is you can't, which illustrates perfectly why the non-teased hair 'unwritten rule' is absurd on its face.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:29 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:27 am
Posts: 4085
Location: Planet Earth
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
Now, Packer's comments about "teased hair", simply reflected his age and era. It was a poor analogy.

I disagree profoundly. That counsel is through revelation, and its binding on the Saints.

You honestly believe Boyd K. Packer's comment on teased hair came from God? You are even more delusional than I originally thought.

_________________
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: General reply to several posters...
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:47 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 12:09 pm
Posts: 2455
Location: House of Lords cellar
Coggins7 wrote:
I think you are attempting a fantastic stretch of the English language and the imagination in at attempt to artificially construct a criticism of the church that belies the lengths you feel you have to go to to pull a rabbit out of that hat.


Actually, what I'm saying fits perfectly with the english language. It's you that's trying to narrowly define the term to exclude it from applying here.

It is quite clear to me that the making known or communication of the possible adverse consequences of x behavior is about as far from coercion as one can go. We apparantly disagree on the connotations as well as lexical definitions of the language, and so cannot communicate very well. You have clearly, for psychological or purly polemical reasons, conflated the concepts of coercion and persuasion such that to attempt to persuade you through argument or authoritative explication (if you accept that I have some authority) that adverse consequences may follow from imitation of the styles and manners (and mannerisms) of those in the great and spacious building is tantamount to exercising some kind of coercive power over you.[/quote]

Sorry, I never used the term 'coercion', so this is N/A for me. Nice try though. How about you address what I ACTUALLY said.

Quote:
The best argument I could muster that your entire position here is bogus is the very fact that you and a number of others here, many of which were once members of the church, are here all taking contrary positions.


So, contrary positions makes the entire thing bogus? Are you really sure you want to go there?

Quote:
That very fact puts the whole 'coercion" claim about church counsel into the philosophical waste basket where conceptual or logically self negating arguments and claims belong.


blah blah blah...strawman...blah blah blah.

_________________
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 9:53 am 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2006 11:06 pm
Posts: 16719
Location: Northern Utah
Rollo Tomasi wrote:
You honestly believe Boyd K. Packer's comment on teased hair came from God? You are even more delusional than I originally thought.


One of the things I realized not long ago in rereading Boyd K. Packer's "Unwritten Order of Things" talk is that he tells us that these are the things that "bother" him. Now, one could argue that they bother him because the spirit tells him they're wrong, or more likely, they just are things that bother him. I'm guessing the latter. The problem for me is that if these are really counsel from revelation, then God is a rather petty being who is unconcerned about the major problems of the world and instead worries about the proper amount of hair teasing.

_________________
Runtu's Rincón

If you just talk, I find that your mouth comes out with stuff. -- Karl Pilkington


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 10:22 am 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 7:35 pm
Posts: 18195
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Runtu wrote:
One of the things I realized not long ago in rereading Boyd K. Packer's "Unwritten Order of Things" talk is that he tells us that these are the things that "bother" him. Now, one could argue that they bother him because the spirit tells him they're wrong, or more likely, they just are things that bother him. I'm guessing the latter. The problem for me is that if these are really counsel from revelation, then God is a rather petty being who is unconcerned about the major problems of the world and instead worries about the proper amount of hair teasing.


And that is why I have such a hard time believing anything Packer says is from God. I mean, good grief! The man is so petty about things that are natural, that don't matter one whit, that are totally innocuous or simply a matter of personal style, yet he completely disregards the real problems of the world, like poverty, starvation, escalating violence, rampant disease, etc. Which is why we get nonsense like this that is supposedly "binding" on the Saints, according to Loran, yet has absolutley nothing to do with anything remotely connected to the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 10:57 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 6:25 pm
Posts: 3679
Location: Kershaw, SC
Quote:
And that is why I have such a hard time believing anything Packer says is from God. I mean, good grief! The man is so petty about things that are natural, that don't matter one whit, that are totally innocuous or simply a matter of personal style, yet he completely disregards the real problems of the world, like poverty, starvation, escalating violence, rampant disease, etc. Which is why we get nonsense like this that is supposedly "binding" on the Saints, according to Loran, yet has absolutley nothing to do with anything remotely connected to the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Would you please explain what you mean when you say that things like hair styles, tatooing, body piercing, or clothing styles are "natural".

2. Neither Packer nor the church has ever disregarded poverty, starvation, or violence.

3. Could you explain what you believe the church can do about "rampant disease" and which diseases you have in mind.

4. Root-Te-Toot, Root-Te-Toot...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:12 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 2:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Coggins7 wrote:
Quote:
And that is why I have such a hard time believing anything Packer says is from God. I mean, good grief! The man is so petty about things that are natural, that don't matter one whit, that are totally innocuous or simply a matter of personal style, yet he completely disregards the real problems of the world, like poverty, starvation, escalating violence, rampant disease, etc. Which is why we get nonsense like this that is supposedly "binding" on the Saints, according to Loran, yet has absolutley nothing to do with anything remotely connected to the gospel of Jesus Christ.


Would you please explain what you mean when you say that things like hair styles, tatooing, body piercing, or clothing styles are "natural".

2. Neither Packer nor the church has ever disregarded poverty, starvation, or violence.



You're right. In fact, President Packer appeared to be advocating violence against homosexuals in his infamous "little factory" speech.

Yet another well-crafted rebuttal from you, Loran. Well done!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:50 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm
Posts: 19431
Location: Koloburbia
Mister Scratch wrote:
In fact, President Packer appeared to be advocating violence against homosexuals in his infamous "little factory" speech.

Are you saying that President Packer was able to lead a successful boycott against his own little factory? Do you suppose any of the factory was damaged or destroyed during the conflict? Was it shut down?

_________________
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 186 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Grudunza and 53 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group