Elizabeth Smart & Chewing Gum

[UVACoug]

Has somebody not allowed you to post your viewpoint? Have you been censored?

Or have we just ganged up with on you because your viewpoint is as predictable as the sun's rise and most of us know we'll disagree with it before it comes out, based on past interaction?

The debater in you should know that you have to defend your own ideas. The lawyer in you should know that you have to know your audience.

If you're not being actively censored, I don't understand what you just wrote. But if you wish, we can start (again) with something simple. How about whether or not the church has ever changed in response to internal or external pressure.

Oh, wait. We did that already, but it wasn't even here. The results were the same though.

Since when did predictability make an argument wrong? It seems to me that if you can predict an argument, it probably makes some logical sense. Now an argument has to be novel or unheard of in order to be acceptable here? Huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

[SoCalCoug]

It seems to me that if you can predict an argument, it probably makes some logical sense.

I can predict that my 5-year-old is going to advocate for leaving the closet light on so that the monsters don't get him. Yep. Logical sense.

[Jarid in Cedar]

Since when did predictability make an argument wrong? It seems to me that if you can predict an argument, it probably makes some logical sense. Now an argument has to be novel or unheard of in order to be acceptable here? Huh?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

LA is quite dogmatic. That its why his arguments are fairy predictable. Dogma does not necessarily equate with logic.

[YOhio]

LA is quite dogmatic. That its why his arguments are fairy predictable. Dogma does not necessarily equate with logic.

YES! I love Ute on Ute violence. Especially amongst UB5 mods.

[Jarid in Cedar]

YES! I love Ute on Ute violence. Especially amongst UB5 mods.

I am an equal opportunity jackass.

[LA Ute]

LA is quite dogmatic. That its why his arguments are fairy predictable. Dogma does not necessarily equate with logic.

I've always liked dogs. That's why I started a dog lover thread both on the old CUF board and the UB5 board. I wouldn't say that dogs use logic, but many breeds are pretty smart.

[YOhio]

I've always liked dogs. That's why I started a dog lover thread both on the old CUF board and the UB5 board. I wouldn't say that dogs use logic, but many breeds are pretty smart.

[LA Ute]

YES! I love Ute on Ute violence. Especially amongst UB5 mods.

What is this -- the Carbon County tag team? If I didn't know better, I'd think you guys are trying to antagonize me.

[LA Ute]

Wait -- you conclude all those violent images with a "yawn" smiley? What kind of a person are you? Scary.

[Solon]

1. I wondered if these two words had the same meaning over 180 years ago that they do now. PAC and Solon provided some valuable insight into that question. However, I don't believe we have satisfactorily arrived at any conclusions about whether 19th century and 21st century usages are sufficiently equivalent or not. Count me as undecided. Also count me as bemused why this bent people so badly out of shape when I explored this line of questioning. It would seem to me if somehow we could discover that 19th century connotations of these words were significantly different than now, it could perhaps help us remove the subsequent misconceptions that have arisen from this verse's existence.

2. I am also not convinced the choice of words in the translation necessarily captures the intent of the author. Noting that the 1828 definition of the word "virtue" has 10 entries, maybe choosing a word that was less ambiguous in its meaning would have been a better option. The Book of Mormon authors also on at least one occasion offered up a mea culpa for their weakness in writing, so maybe this is one of those instances where they just couldn't quite convey what they really were trying to say. Given how delicate and difficult a topic this is, is it really that hard to think that maybe it was just an honest mistake? Again, count me undecided.

3. Given the context of the scripture, I don't believe the broader extrapolations about virtue and chastity going on in this thread (including the several GA quotations) are necessarily correct conclusions to be drawn from what is in this particular verse.

I commented specifically on the meaning of the word "virtue", and - like you - I don't believe that the word carried a sense of sexual purity in the early 1800s. On the other hand, I think it's quite clear that Moroni 9.9 says that chastity and virtue (or "honor", if you will) are more important than life itself (for women).

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people are defending this. Can't believers just say that "Moroni lived over a thousand years ago. This is a common idea from ancient times that women's "honor" stemmed from their sexual purity. Thank goodness we know better now." - and leave it at that?

The rest is just jumbled BS.

[Moliere]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people are defending this.

http://www.cougarstadium.com/showthread.php?67264-Excuses-for-crazy-statements-by-church-leaders

[Indy Coug]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people are defending this.

Which people and what defense?

[LA Ute]

I'm having a really hard time understanding why people are defending this. Can't believers just say that "Moroni lived over a thousand years ago. This is a common idea from ancient times that women's "honor" stemmed from their sexual purity. Thank goodness we know better now." - and leave it at that?

I don't believe Moroni 9:9 needs any defense. To the point of this thread, I agree with those here who believe that scripture is the wrong one, contextually, to use for teaching the value of chastity. (We Mormons use lots of scriptures out of context, especially OT verses.) Like Swampfrog, I have always seen that epistle from Mormon to Moroni as a description of the horror that life among the Nephites and Lamanites had become, and that's good enough for me. Make sense?

[Harry Tic]

I don't believe Moroni 9:9 needs any defense. To the point of this thread, I agree with those here who believe that scripture is the wrong one, contextually, to use for teaching the value of chastity. (We Mormons use lots of scriptures out of context, especially OT verses.) Like Swampfrog, I have always seen that epistle from Mormon to Moroni as a description of the horror that life among the Nephites and Lamanites had become, and that's good enough for me. Make sense?

I've never understood why we can't simply say that the Book of Mormon is sometimes wrong. Moroni himself clearly recognized that that was a possibility, as per the title page. Why not just say that the claim made in Moroni 9:9 might just be wrong? Why are we so quick to acknowledge that our current leaders may occasionally be uninspired (or at least struggle to express their inspiration adequately) yet deny that same right to ancient prophets? Is it the whole "I-told-the-Brethren-that-the-Book-of-Mormon-was-the-most-perfect..." quip? Why do we assume that "inspired" or "canonized" means "infallible" or "perfect"?

[Indy Coug]

I've never understood why we can't simply say that the Book of Mormon is sometimes wrong. Moroni himself clearly recognized that that was a possibility, as per the title page. Why not just say that the claim made in Moroni 9:9 might just be wrong? Why are we so quick to acknowledge that our current leaders may occasionally be uninspired (or at least struggle to express their inspiration adequately) yet deny that same right to ancient prophets? Is it the whole "I-told-the-Brethren-that-the-Book-of-Mormon-was-the-most-perfect..." quip? Why do we assume that "inspired" or "canonized" means "infallible" or "perfect"?

I think it is infinitely more likely that the membership of the church (apostles, prophets included) are extrapolating far more out of that verse than can be rationally justified,