Daniel has always assumed that that was precisely the sense in which it was intended.

It's deeply offensive.


I know the scriptures reasonably well, and I've never heard anybody described as a "prick" in the scriptural sense.

I also think it's silly to claim that I'm "persecuting the saints."




.

Oi Vay, this is not a battle, you are using vulgar language, I dislike it. And I doubt very much that the D&C uses vulgar language.

The use of the term in D&C 121:38 echoes the narratives of the calling of the apostle Paul on the road to Damascus, as chronicled in the New Testament Acts of the Apostles.

You mean to say the term "prick" is used in scripture?

Yes. But not in the way harmony uses it.

It doesn't refer to people in the scriptures.

Nobody is addressed as a "prick" in the scriptures.

I don't know whether harmony's self-defense on this point is sincerely misguided or merely sophistic.

That hurt, huh. Well, I'm sorry for calling you a self-righteous arrogant prick, and I promise to not do it again... until you behave that way again.

But please keep in mind: I'm the one, kicking against the prick. The prick... that would be you (when you behave such that you deserve that label). This part would be you again: persecuting the Saints (the Saint... that would be me), fighting against God... (that would be you).

I suppose that means my remark is doctrinal. That's enough to stop me right there!



I see. You don't think calling a card carrying, calling holding, tithe paying, active Latter day Saint a "nominal member" is at all offensive? You don't think characterizing me as "an unbeliever" is at all characterizing me as something I am not? (it's on page 3 of this thread, in case you forgot)

And that's just on this thread! I don't keep a dossier of all your offensive comments and snide remarks to me, Daniel. You make them often enough, I can just use the fresh ones.

Or is it just offensive when someone for whom you have literally no respect calls you on your behaviors? What is it about that remark that causes you to bring it up, 10 years... yes... 10 years! after I first made it?



On what? the dichotomy itself? Or my application of it to you and Jason?



You said:

You're the gatekeeper; I'm the defiant member who refuses to bow down and worship the Brethren properly. And issuing me or members like me would taint the temple. Nevermind that I worship Christ... that's not good enough, because I don't worship the Brethren. So you, in your appointed role as gatekeeper, have to keep the members like me out.

Or did you forget you said that?



I don't know where you get this stuff from? Threatening you? Me? Not hardly.

You said I don't know you; I said you don't want me to. And even if I am right about everything I've ever said about you, showing I do indeed know you, you wouldn't acknowledge it... you can't. You can assert that you can know me from my words on this bulletin board, but you can't acknowledge that if you can know me, I can know you.

No threat at all. I don't know where that came from. Geez, Daniel!

Well, Daniel needs to stop assuming. Geez... get off your Ladder of Inference and start all over. Criminy! I don't make sexual remarks!



You need to get out more. It's a very handy little verse.



You hate being one-upped, don't you?

I'm a Saint... or at least a Latter day Saint. You've been persecuting me for years. It counts.

I thought you always knew what I was referencing. How odd to think you didn't. My admiration of your knowledge of our scriptures has just taken a hit.

I am not using vulgar language. I am quoting scripture. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Ok so I got the scripture 121: 38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to akick against the pricks, to bpersecute the saints, and to cfight against God.

I see now Harmony why you use the word "prick" quite freely. From my pespective as a highly principled atheist who knows no Mormon scripture it sounds horrible. Perhaps that is how the term "prick" first came about in an unsexual way, but in the context of modern day language it's taken on a sexual interpretation..and really Harmony it doesn't sound good to use it such that it can be interpreted like that.

Do you actually imagine that you score points somewhere with such transparent straw men?

I've never suggested anything that could be reasonably construed as "worship" of the Brethren.


I've never said anything, ever, about your "tainting the temple."

What purpose is served by inventing such stuff and trying to put it in my mouth?


Even after the lapse of fifteen seconds, I still haven't suggested worshiping the Brethren.

But I also wouldn't admit Catholics and Methodists and Baptists to the temple, despite their worship of Christ.

Another straw man.


In my appointed role as gatekeeper, I have to determine who can enter the temple and who can't. I do it multiple times each week. I take it very seriously.

I'm really not sure, harmony, that it's possible for you and me to have a serious conversation. I don't believe we've ever had one.

I don't really think that DCP is in any position to get all bent out of shape over the fact that he has been called a "prick," regardless of whether he insists that it is synonymous with "penis" or whether it means what Harmony clearly intends it to mean: a person, usually male, who acts in an unpleasant way. I say this because Professor Peterson has been pretty free and loose in terms of tossing around extremely coarse and offensive terms like "douche bag" and "jack ass."

Do I need to quote? Geez, Daniel.



D&C 121:34-41.

Daniel was/often still is a prick in the sense that I have to kick against him, because he persecutes me... and in so persecuting me, a Saint in God's own church, he fights against God.

I'm sure Daniel doesn't like to think of himself as a prick, in the Biblical sense, so he chooses to assume I'm simply being vulgar. Not so. Don't project onto me.

I'm talking from the perspective of a woman. I don't like it when men call women c,u,n.t. and so I don't like it when women stoop to a low level either. That's how it comes across. I'm sure DCP can handle the term. But I don't like it. Women get up in arms on here when men have used vulgar language against them and I would think many men would agree it shouldn't be used. I suspect Harmony is so used to using the term she doesn't even appreciate how it sounds. I did read her comment the first time and I didn't like and she brought it up again. So once again from my perspective I don't like to see a woman using that term against a man on the board. What she does privately is her business.

You're misusing the term, harmony.

Any way you try to spin it.

If "kicking against the pricks" really means "persecuting the saints" and/or "fighting against God," as you incorrectly claim, then prick = saint = God.

Address God in public prayer as "O Prick" sometime. See if it raises any eyebrows.

Harmony the scriptures says "kick against the prick" well that's does not sound in the vulgar sense though I'm sure that comes to mind when some hear it. But it's put into a context which is taken from the bible which was clearly not meant to be vulgar. When you use it though it sounds vulgar, because you appear angry, in the context you use it there is nothing about "kicking against" you are using the adjective "self-righteous meant to be a put down with the word "prick". It comes across as being vulgar.

Then what do you call never questioning them, never pointing out their flaws and foibles, never admitting they are often misguided, foolish, downright stupid, and occasionally dishonest?... oh yeah... that's what you call sustaining.

Well, I sustain the office, no matter who sits the chair, but I reserve the right to call it like I see it.



Oh, goodnightshirt! Of course I taint the temple! You've squirmed for years at the idea that someone like me could be sitting across the aisle from you in any session.

(and coming from the Master at putting things into my mouth that I never said, I think your comment is truly rich.)



Well, when they've been baptised into the LDS church, they still worship Christ... and after they've proven their worthiness over time, they deserve a temple recommend... even though they don't put the Brethren (or Joseph Smith) on the same level as Christ.



Burned him down.



A little less law and a little more spirit wouldn't be amiss.



Not as long as you keep calling me nominal and unbelieving, that's for sure.

How you interpret it is your problem. I explained how I used it. And what I do publically on this board is my business.

God doesn't prick me. You do. God doesn't persecute me--He loves me. You, on the other, persecute me. And you've done it for years.

*I* kick against the pricks... I'm the one persecuted by the guy who's doing the pricking... the prick is the one fighting against God.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse. (notice I didn't say "self-righteous" or "arrogant". I'm trying to live up to my promise.)

No Harmony what you do on this board is not entirely your business, just like what anyone does on this board is not entirely their own business, if that was the case there would be no moderation.

BTW, just to get some perspective here, I called someone a moron and it was stamped out, so obviously it's not entirely left up to posters to freely say whatever they wish but in addition "moron" is a legitimate term ..not vulgar, sure it's derogatory. What I am saying Harmony is that the way in which you used the term whether you appreciate it or not sounds vulgar. That reflects negatively on you more than on Daniel. I don't like it in real life when people use vulgar language and I don't like reading it either especially when the rules of this board are that people should not be using vulgar language.

Try to stay with the rest of us, marg.

I never said what I say publically on this board is only my business.



I've explained why my use of the word "prick" is not vulgar (unless, of course, Biblical and D&C references are now vulgar). Therefore, it is not vulgar. If you or anyone else thinks it's vulgar, then that is your problem, not mine.

This is the explanation given for the Mormon scripture:

Elder Howard W. Hunter explained: “This proverbial expression of kicking against the pricks usually refers to the ox goad which was a piece of pointed iron stuck in the end of a stick used to urge the ox while drawing the plow. Sometimes a stubborn ox will kick back against the goad only to receive its sharpness more severely. It has become a proverb to signify the absurdity of rebelling against lawful authority.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1964, p. 108.)

And this is the scripture:

38 Behold, ere he is aware, he is left unto himself, to kick against the pricks, to persecute the saints, and to fight against God.

The use of the word "pricks" in this case Harmony is the Church authority, the people in the church who speak for God.

That is NOT the context you used the word. You were NOT referring to DCP in the sense that he is representative of Church authority in a proper sense.

You most definitely whether you admit it or not, appreciate is or not...used "prick" in the vulgar sense. You didn't use it in the positive sense of authority that the scripture presents it as. The authority "pricks" I'm using the word as a verb, that is the authority may hurt, but it is representative of what a God allegedly wants/requires.