The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22018
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by moksha »

From a thread on some nameless board titled “The Sacred Embrace and the Sacred Handclasp in Ancient Mediterranean Religions”:
Moksha • 7 hours ago • edited
“The Sacred Embrace and the Sacred Handclasp in Ancient Mediterranean Religions”
Does anyone know whether the [offensive sacrilege removed] Anubis involves bumping fists at the end?

Louis Midgley Moksha • 6 hours ago
Moksha is showing his truly disgusting persona again.

DanielPeterson Mod Louis Midgley • 6 hours ago
If he pulls such a stunt a second time, he will have only himself to blame and only the Shades Defamation and Mockery Board on which to practice his craft.

Kiwi57 DanielPeterson • 2 hours ago
So, approximately strike 299?
The full offending sentence read, "Does anyone know whether the sure sign of Anubis involves bumping fists at the end?" Am I being punked by that trio, or are the words "sure sign" really sacred? I mean, I have heard those two words together in combination outside of Mormonism. Is the expression of a sure sign really a sacred Mormon concept in an of itself? Like, am I committing a petite blasphemy if I mention a sure sign of powdered donut crumbs?

Sometimes I cannot tell if someone is putting me on, especially if their humor is more esoteric than my own.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Gadianton
Hermit
Posts: 9679
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 11:12 pm

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by Gadianton »

I wouldn't call it sacred, but secret? For the hypersensitive crowd over there seeking offense, then I suppose it is close enough to secret temple content. What they probably don't get is that while they go to the temple a couple times a year, a guy like you may never have gone, or it was so long ago that you might not remember the context, as some stuff there is clearly also in quad somewhere. They can call Fred Kratz a cockroach and laugh about it, but don't you dare voice the name of their sacred parchment!

I think their general lack of empathy for other human beings is such that they can't imagine that somebody who has been out for decades doesn't fully remember every single thing that is strictly temple content.

The way they talk to other people though, they don't deserve to have their silly rituals respected. I say send Shulem over there and teach them a thing or two.
FARMS refuted:

"...supporters of Billy Meier still point to the very clear photos of Pleiadian beam ships flying over his farm. They argue that for the photos to be fakes, we have to believe that a one-armed man who had no knowledge of Photoshop or other digital photography programs could have made such realistic photos and films..." -- D. R. Prothero

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22018
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by moksha »

So the term "sure sign" is believed to be sacred and secret Temple content and not just a modifier for a particular hand sign or handshake described in the Temple ceremony? Wonder if this covers other parts of the English language that I do not know about?

Are there any handouts on sacred word combinations that could help others avoid any message board gaffes? No one wants to be chastised by Midgley, Kiwi, and Peterson.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 21158
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 5:02 am

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

It’s not. Dan has kept you around as a foil. Lyin’ Lou Midgley and N-word Usin’ Russell McGregor want you gone because your Family Guy sense of humor grates on them.

- Doc

User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1191
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by Physics Guy »

I could maybe understand them being upset by the whole sentence about Anubis and fist bumping, but being so outraged by "sure sign of" specifically? This is an occasion for the inebriated dance.

User avatar
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 3345
Joined: Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:48 pm

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by Dr Exiled »

The first rule of using victimhood as a weapon is to always, always be looking to be offended.
"Religion is about providing human community in the guise of solving problems that don’t exist or failing to solve problems that do and seeking to reconcile these contradictions and conceal the failures in bogus explanations otherwise known as theology." - Kishkumen 

User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 2635
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 5:03 pm

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by malkie »

In the future, I recommend that you refer to the "unsure sign" instead.

That should be totally inoffensive, I believe.
NOMinal member

Maksutov: "... if you give someone else the means to always push your buttons, you're lost."

User avatar
moksha
God
Posts: 22018
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 2:42 pm

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by moksha »

DanielPeterson Mod dCyl •
Elsewhere, Moksha is professing to be genuinely puzzled as to why some of us here found what he had posted offensive.

Here's a suggestion for him: The denizens of the Shades Legacy Mockery and Derision Board may not be the most reliable counselors as to what might offend believing Latter-day Saints.
I was genuinely surprised at the Sic et Non reaction. I had to read it twice just to make certain that I had not revealed actual Temple content with the sure sign of Anubis. Barring that I wondered if perhaps I was an offender for two words or if this was a joke. I asked here to determine which. I could not ask at Sic et Non when everyone was in a frenzy. While you may doubt the people here, I knew they would not be shouting, "Get a rope". I did not want to add fuel to that fire.
Last edited by moksha on Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10739
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by honorentheos »

It's clear why they found it offensive. They know that it's full name is, "The fist bump, the sure sign of Anubis, or the Anubis in the sure place."

"Will you give it to me?"

"I will through the veil."
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

User avatar
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 6342
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:04 am

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by Philo Sofee »

Peterson to Moksha
The denizens of the Shades Legacy Mockery and Derision Board may not be the most reliable counselors as to what might offend believing Latter-day Saints.
I KNOW what is offensive to Mormons. And you KNOW I KNOW.........the only pertinent question is, in scripture do YOU know what is offensive to the Lord? I'll give your dense head and your 2 twitty cohorts a hint. The singular FIRST and GREAT commandment.....Love God, and LOVE your neighbors as yourselves. You have given hundreds of thousands if not millions of words to demonstrate you have no clue what that love is or how to use it show it or possess it. The 3 Stooges are the 3 HYPOCRITES all on the Peterson Pecker Products board. That's why I no longer respect you. Your brainwashed, lucratively paid apologetic hypocrites of and for the faith. Blech! I know exactly what offends you, the truth you are paid to defend Mormonism and your so biased you can't hide it, yet neither can you see it, so you lamely get offended by the truth. You 3 mock and deride everyone who doesn't see things your way far worse than the most offensive anti-Mormons ever did about your silly "sacred" underwear, or ridiculous signs of death and oaths you take in the temple. You are full of pride and too proud to change that. That's why you fell from FARMS as Satan fell from heaven. And you're too proud to repent of it, your fatal weakness. You and Midgley and Kiwi exude phony humility, and the world sees right through it. You are offended because the only ones you fake out genuflect before you, and you believe the rest of the world should too. When we don't, you're offended. You have no clue what empathy and genuine love is, so you fake it, and we call you on it, and it offends you, all 3 of you. You are fakes.


You entirely fail to understand Jesus's meaning of washing the feet of the apostles and saying the master SERVES the servants. Not serves them by bragging how righteous and popular they are with how many upvotes they get on stupid blogs, or calling others names and demeaning them publically as you 3 idiots daily do, but in genuinely having empathy for them, helping them, understanding them, and loving them even if they are different and think different and come to different conclusions than you do. One thing is for certain, YOU THREE won't be washing anyone's feet in Jesus's Kingdom, you won't be there. The people you mock and deride because they are a different race, or color, or religion will be. "The Little Donkey" will be begging the Lord to forgive the idiot Midgley for his insane insults and name calling and putting him down non stop, as will the "evil atheist" Gemli.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."

User avatar
honorentheos
God
Posts: 10739
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 11:17 pm

Re: The Extent of LDS Sacredness?

Post by honorentheos »

moksha wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:34 pm
DanielPeterson Mod dCyl •
Elsewhere, Moksha is professing to be genuinely puzzled as to why some of us here found what he had posted offensive.

Here's a suggestion for him: The denizens of the Shades Legacy Mockery and Derision Board may not be the most reliable counselors as to what might offend believing Latter-day Saints.
I was genuinely surprised at the Sic et Non reaction. I had to read it twice just to make certain that I had not revealed actual Temple content with the sure sign of Anubis. Barring that I wondered if perhaps I was an offender for two words or if this was a joke. I asked here to determine which. I could not ask at Sic et Non when everyone was in a frenzy. While you may doubt the people here, I knew they would not be shouting, "Get a rope". I did not want to add fuel to that fire.
Honestly, moksha, while the intensity and tone of the reaction is uniquely Sic et Non, I would expect many faithful members would feel uncomfortable with a phrase from the temple being modified and used that way. I've seen members express concern over direct, innocuous quotes that aren't explicitly recognizable being used in a casually way. That example being someone using, "Let us go down" and someone following with, "We will go down" when getting ready to leave someplace comes to mind where the two using the phrases were asked not to again and given a mini-lecture about making light of sacred things. For someone to use a recognizable temple phrase and add a joke hand gesture? Of course it's going to put out lightning rods for some people.

While I don't think it's wrong to say what you said, I do wonder about you claiming to be genuinely surprised by the reaction.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa

Post Reply