Wow. You know my intent? You, Sir, have an amazing ability to miss the point sometimes. Let me explain what my intent was vice you assuming to know what it was:

1) I wasn't "circumventing" the word censor. I was typing the word in the same exact manner it was produced in the first place. The "intent" behind that was to show that the word was being used and wasn't being censored, nor moved... Hostility aside.

2) There was no hostility in my post. My point wasn't to derail, but to illustrate a clear moderating bias. I knew that those two posters could use the words "pricks" and "c***s", but if I posted just one, non-vulgar word, that it would be moderated. I'm pretty sure my single-word post would not have derailed the thread, and in fact... It would have been ignored.


(*) (*) (*) (*)

Cool! Can you show me where this happened? And where the Church has officially accepted the two Cumorah theory?



Are the two mutually exclusive? Can we also note that we have numerous educators among the top ranks?




Hahahahaaaaaaahhhhhaa.

Always good for a laugh!

When did the "Brethren" ever begin publicly and officially supporting a >1 Cumorah theory?

You're wrong. The "c" word was being censored. The word "vagina," which you typed, wasn't. They're two different words.


The "c" word has been in the censor for many months.


Next time, explain your intent.

Hi there, cinepro. Well, we are now "officially" entering the very murky waters of "official," "public" LDS doctrine. To cut to the chase: I'm speaking specifically of the so-called "2nd Watson Letter," in which 1st Presidency Secretary Michael Watson (supposedly) "officially" recanted his earlier, "official" statement that the Hill Cumorah is, and always has been, located in New York. We know that Bill Hamblin somehow persuaded Watson to write the second letter, though we don't know how Hamblin accomplished this, since neither DCP nor Bill Hamblin will tell us.

So, is this legitimately "official"? I would say yes, insofar as any Church teaching is "official."

Good grief.

I promise to never use prick again. Now I'll call him a self-righteous arrogant stick with a metal point on it.

How's that? Is that too sexual for anyone?

I'd be glad to, Jason, as soon as you can provide me with a really solid, workable definition of just what, exactly, constitutes "official" doctrine within the LDS Church.



No, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. But I do think that the current Brethren were "called" primarily for their business acumen and administrative skills. And "educators"? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you referring to BKP, for instance? If so, he's hardly a "teacher" in the humble, salt-of-the-earth sense.

I wouldn't worry about it, Harmony. For the most part, I think that those who were "offended" are merely putting on a display of incredibly immature Victorianism. I mean, at least one of the "offended" once said that he preferred to imagine that Heavenly Father impregnated Mary via artificial insemination rather than good, old fashioned coitus. It's therefore no surprise that a word like "prick" would send them scurrying for the smelling salts.

Scratch, how was church in your ward this last Sunday? I am curious to know the topic of your priesthood lesson and any thoughts you had about it.

I grew up on a farm as well, and like my namesake doubleagent I have to agree that calling a cattle prod a prick would get me laughed out of town. A prick is a painful little shot in the tush or a big shot in the tush. But never of a cow.

A "prick" for me is a way to describe anyone from the moderating team on this website. IOW, my "intent" is to tell the mods that they're hypocritical assholes in every sense of the word "prick".

Also, "prick" means "dick". A big, pulsating, hairy, veiny, dick. The Nehor should appreciate that imagery.

I am not sure I can. But still can you show me anywhere from any top LDS leader that demonstrates that the two Cumorah theory is more in vogue than the one Cumorah theory that seemingly was, and still may be, in vogue?





well you may be right and you may be wrong. I know quite a few leaders who are at the top of their field and are still quite spiritual persons.



Well BKP was a simple seminary teacher to begin with and later in CES admin. So yea, he counts even if he was a crusty teacher (which is debatable). But you have Elder Bednar, a professor then college President as well as Eyring and Holland all of whom got there start as teachers.

Oh and there are lots of attorneys in the top leadership and most attorneys are lousy at business.

Tee heeeeeheheheeee

Wrong Shades, I did circumvent the word c***, with the explanation that it's not okay for men to call women that on here so it shouldn't be okay for women to call men something very similar. And if you do some non biased thinking you will appreciate that is in fact how Harmony used the work "prick", in an offensive obscene context, not in the context it was used in the bible or the D&C. The phrase which both the bible and D & C use is metaphorically referring to authority in the positive sense. Just as an ox is guided by the goad/prick of the goad, so too can an individual be guided for their own good by an authority figure. That's not how it was used by Harmony no matter how much she denies. In fact she has made it clear because she's angry she will continue to use the word despite the fact that DCP has said what his interpretation is and others have told her as well. So she clearly is aware and yet thinks nothing of it that she is being vulgar with her language, under the guise that scripture uses the word. This may seem like nit picking to some, but if the rules are one isn't supposed to use vulgar language given the context of a word's use then those are the rules and should be followed. Of course DCP, myself, Nightingale can handle vulgar language but I don't like it in real life and I will say something under the right circumstances, just as I don't like reading it on a board. Context is extremely important in appreciating how words are meant to be interpreted. Antishock said nothing vulgar because he didn't put the word "vagina" in any context.

Keep in mind Harmony is the one who wanted to moderate to get rid of offensive language, and yet even though people are telling her it's offensive she's still saying she will continue to use it.

It's unfortunate that many people, quite a few Mormons among 'em, don't "worry about it" when they "offend" people. It's always the offendee's problem isn't it? I don't see a lot of statements on this thread about people being "offended". I thought the question was more one of whether the term "prick" when directed at a specific person, in anger (or what seems like an angry tone) is vulgar or not. I'm not quite sure at the moment if curse words are allowed in this forum at all (I know there are a few words that are blanked out) but looking at it purely from a language point of view, it seems there is no connotation other than vulgarity when used in the way harmony used it, whether she intended that or not. There is nothing scriptural, it would seem, in calling someone a "self-righteous prick".

As for being offended, who said they were? Other than perhaps DCP, although I can't see where he specifically stated that. But who wouldn't take it as the vulgarity it seems when stated to them directly?

A while back, a poster here called me a "bitch", out of the blue, for reasons I could not fathom. It didn't get moderated out but nor did I complain to the mods about it (and this was before the Great Moderational Experiment and I think that rules have changed since then). While many people might consider that a very mild comment and so common as not to even be vulgar any more, I'm not accustomed to being called a B. As well, in my work experience, any male who refers to a female with that term is being purposely offensive and it is often part of a larger habit and practice of abuse. I know it is not possible to weight our words and formulate our posts so as to tiptoe around each and every reader's unique sensibilities, whatever they may be, but it's fairly obvious that using derogatory or profane speech directed towards another (yes, even in cyberspace, as message boards particularly are a "community") has a high probability of wounding the other person or their supporters or many readers or all the above.

To say that one doesn't care whether someone else takes their profanity personally does not make the "offended" one ridiculous but rather reflects poorly on the offender, no matter how much they deny that. To me, it's a bull-in-a-china-shop approach to human interaction to insist on one's right to be vulgar and then ridicule the party who takes issue with you for that. Bull or bully - close to the same thing in that sense.

Paying attention to the language we use to communicate, particularly crucial in the medium we are using here, is not "incredibly immature Victorianism" but rather displays a wish to maximize communication (very much needed given the subject matter here) and possibly a wish to conduct oneself civilly with other posters, which has to be the foundation of any board or else who would want to even participate?

Mr. Scratch, I'd be interested to see how you would react if DCP called you a "self-righteous prick". That would most instantly become the sig line of quite a few posters, including yours, I'm sure. Can you deny that you would take it as at least a very derogatory and offensive comment, if not acknowledge that it is listed in the dictionary to be "vulgar slang"?

That is all the point has been for me on this. Hardly immature. Hardly Victorian. Just stating a fact. It is vulgar slang. I believe there is a good chance that harmony did not realize that but still it's hard for me to imagine using a scriptural term and meaning in a derogatory way against a fellow church member (or anyone actually). So either way, it is surprising - that is all. I have no quarrel with harmony. I was just interested in the language part of this discussion and trying to be objective about that at least.

It's not "the word" as Scratch tries to portray it above. It is how it is used. That was the point. I can say "prick" 100 times a day at work and think nothing of it (with the connotation referred to in my above post re injections in a medical setting) but there can be no denying that using it as a derogatory noun, especially enhanced with a negative adjective, is bound to be seen as intending offence. Even in the 21st Century.

Let it be said, Harmony, we have example number 2 for this thread alone where professor Peterson has taken issue with someone for using a narrow and technical definition of a word that typically has broader cannotations and feels any attempts to stick to the narrow definition are exercises in evasion.

But when it comes to the word "anti-Mormon" oh no...

Frankly, I'd love it. I hope he calls me this sometime very soon.



Yes, I can deny that.



I do acknowledge that.



Hey, no problem, Nightingale. And I appreciate your objectivity here. I was merely trying to point out a bit of hypocrisy on the part of a certain poster who, on the one hand, praises his relative for being an "artist with profanity," and yet, on the other hand, feigns great offense over the word "prick." This is the same person who rather freely characterizes others as "jack asses," and who claims that people should "feel embarrassed" when they use such language.

Jason---

I don't believe I ever said that the 2 Cumorah theory was "more in vogue."





I disagree. I don't think that BKP "counts" since, as you point out, he was in CES admin. If he'd been plucked straight from the seminary classroom, then I think you'd have a point.



Yes, they got their *start*, but they obviously had to prove their mettle as administrators and future CEO-Apostles.



Not when the "business" involves legal finagling and keeping a lot of things very, very quiet. Attorneys can be quite good at that.

You'd love it? In a positive way? I'd like to see that too!

You don't see it as derogatory? If DCP called you a name like that? That does surprise me.

No problem here either, Scratch. I have no quarrel with you. I do consider myself quite objective in that I don't have a horse in any race. I was a convert for a few years and reverted back to my pre-mo faith as I was more comfortable there (that's the short version). I don't agree with some Mormon teachings but more especially with some of the practices and the way the doctrine works out in real life but I don't hate Mormons or any particular Mormon. I must admit to having a spot of angst still towards one particular bishop but again that is another story. Those are just some of the reasons I can be objective about a lot of the topics but I certainly understand how people who are more involved, on both sides, can get heated about it all. I do myself on issues of abuse, falsehoods, mischaracterization and lack of empathy, among others.

I don't follow everything as I have such limited time so I readily acknowledge I don't know the full back story of any posters or any ongoing topics or events here. I don't know about the language issues that you describe above. All I can say is that perhaps "ass" is not considered so vulgar any more due to such widespread usage and particularly by putting a "jack" in front of the term it renders it quite tame. That's just a guess. As to the profanity comment and others I just don't know so I'll have to leave it at that.

I recall that you explained how you like the church but not the apologetics. To me, that vaguely explains your apparent hostility towards DCP. What I'm wondering is if there's anything that could make you examine the church like you do FARMS, etc. :)

I'm sure we can all agree that calling someone a "self-righteous prick" is far, far more offensive than the biblical metaphor "kick against the pricks."

Does the word "prick" when used as an insult (as opposed to when it's used to describe a low-tech cattle prod) rise to the level of the "c" word in the offensiveness scale? I don't know; I'm asking y'all's opinion.

Either way, will it solve this whole controversy if harmony agreed to never call anyone a "self-righteous prick" ever again?

No it doesn't. The "c-word" is particularly offensive in society itself.



What controversy? I doubt that it mortally wounded Dan. When posters go to that level (ahem, something I should know about), it only weakens their arguments, which is why I'm not in favour of censorship. You live and learn.