Fire and Brimstone Mormons are getting more and more out of touch

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BYU71

The perception out there is the Gold Gym gang fit perfectly with what the model BYU student should be.

BYU students should be self-righteous prudish nutjobs? Everyone I have talked with thinks they are an embarrassment.

Originally Posted by BYU71

If I am wrong, then I am wrong because the people I hang out with don't represent the whole but the few.

Perception of BYU students. They are all moral, chaste, studious and bright. In other words the best the church has to offer. If they fail in these areas they are shipped off somewhere else to get back up to the high level of achievement.

They are those that would be repulsed by my avatar for instance and see it as porn.

So you are faulting BYU as an institution because there are some in our LDS culture that have unreasonable stereotypes of the "ideal" BYU student? That hardly seems fair.

Originally Posted by BYU71

Somehow the honor code has risen to the level of commandments in some minds and not rules.

Yes, that is unfortunate.

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by FMCoug

with the modern church.

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=3487442

The problem is when these people associate their political opinions with their faith. When the two go different directions it really throws them for a loop.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Discussing the similarity of feeling related to disparate events is not the same as suggesting that the events themselves are "analogous."

Ah. In that case, I am fully justified in saying I know how blacks feel to be discrminated against. I've been discriminated against before (not on the basis of my skin, though).

I'm not analogizing. Just discussing the similarity of feelings related to disparate events.

My, what a mouthful.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Ah. In that case, I am fully justified in saying I know how blacks feel to be discrminated against. I've been discriminated against before (not on the basis of my skin, though).

I'm not analogizing. Just discussing the similarity of feelings related to disparate events.

My, what a mouthful.

This is simple, Tex. Everyone else seems to get it, but you continue to distort things in new ways every time you respond. You are foul, dishonest, and wretched. It's as though you are trying to make a career of making people offenders for a word. It's pathetic.

First, I didn't say that I "knew" anything.

Here's what I wrote:

"IMO, you now have a taste of how many faithful Church members felt over statements concerning the ERA, calling congressmen over a marriage ammendment, and so on. No doubt you won't be excoriating them in the future."

I'm suggesting that the original poster now has a "taste" of what it feels like to hold a view that is in contrast with what a Church leader has said in public. This does not mean I am suggesting the authoritativeness of the leaders' statements on different subjects and in different contexts are analogous, or indeed, that they are similar in any other aspect other than that they are political and are stated in public. I used the word "taste" for a reason, and stated that it was my opinon (and not my "knowledge").

A lends itself to feeling C
B lends itself to a comparable "taste" of feeling C

A and B have a few important commonalities for Mormons, but are not asserted as analogous, even though a Mormon subjected to A or B may feel similarly.

Your preoccupation with minimizing racial discrimination has been noted.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

You are foul, dishonest, and wretched.

You're over-the-top, SIEQ. Take a deep breath.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

This is simple, Tex. Everyone else seems to get it, but you continue to distort things in new ways every time you respond. You are foul, dishonest, and wretched. It's as though you are trying to make a career of making people offenders for a word. It's pathetic.

First, I didn't say that I "knew" anything.

Here's what I wrote:

"IMO, you now have a taste of how many faithful Church members felt over statements concerning the ERA, calling congressmen over a marriage ammendment, and so on. No doubt you won't be excoriating them in the future."

I'm suggesting that the original poster now has a "taste" of what it feels like to hold a view that is in contrast with what a Church leader has said in public. This does not mean I am suggesting the authoritativeness of the leaders' statements on different subjects and in different contexts are analogous, or indeed, that they are in any other aspect other than that they are political and are stated in public. I used the word "taste" for a reason, and stated that it was my opinon (and not my "knowledge").

A lends itself to feeling C
B lends itself to a "taste" of feeling C

A and B have a few important commonalities for Mormons, but are not asserted as analogous, even though a Mormon subjected to A or B may feel similarly.

Your preoccupation with minimizing racial discrimination has been noted.

So, with respect to my last post, cannot "A" be racial discrimination, and "B" be other discrimination? Thus one leads to a feeling of "C", and other to a "taste" of feeling "C"? Hey, it's just my opinion, not my "knowledge."

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Your preoccupation with minimizing racial discrimination has been noted.

Your hypersensitivity to the word "apostate" and "analogy" has as well.

Regards.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

You're over-the-top, SIEQ.


So, with respect to my last post, cannot "A" be racial discrimination, and "B" be other discrimination? Thus one leads to a feeling of "C", and other to a "taste" of feeling of "C"? I will be sure to refer folks to your post when I catch flak for saying that.



Your hypersensitivity to the word "apostate" and "analogy" has as well.

Regards.

I'm accurate. You just play with words, try to conjure things out of thin air, and spin when caught.

As to your red herring about racial discrimination--no. I haven't suggested comparing different kinds of experience, haven't said anything about race, and certainly haven't made any claims about a construct such as "discrimination." I grounded my surmising in the "feeling" of a particular circumstance. Discrimination is not just a feeling. It involves laws, behaviors, media representations, and a whole host of other phenomena. Your suggestion that a complex construct like discrimination is analogus to a feeling in a particular circumstance is both ridiculous and nauseating.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

I'm accurate. You just play with words, try to conjure things out of thin air, and spin when caught.

"’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ’which is to be master– that’s all.'"

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

"’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ’which is to be master– that’s all.'"

And you object when I catch you at your games.

Do you not realize your Machiavelli impersonation destroys your credibility when you try to make objective claims on serious matters like doctrine?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

And you object when I catch you at your games.

Do you not realize your Machiavelli impersonation destroys your credibility when you try to make objective claims on serious matters like doctrine?

I guess I'm screwed. Cheers, and have a good weekend!

[MikeWaters]

nobody takes Tex seriously. His credibility can't be destroyed because he has none. chill out.