A question for the Orthodox:

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How sloppy of you.

I believe he's using Mormonspeak, which is not empirical speech.

When he says the Lord has chosen, it includes within that subset, I took a name to the Lord after acquainting myself with persons and considering the possibilities, and he confirming by a burning that such selection was acceptable.

I'm merely translating. It's those who accept Mormonspeak at face value who are convenient and in denial. There is nothing empirical in the manner in which Mormons speak, and nothing we say is meant to be taken literally, when we are speaking in that manner.

Originally Posted by Archaea

If President Monson had wanted to step into empirical speech, he would have pronounced, "I have seen a vision, the Lord appeared to me, and told me, this man is my new apostle."

He did not do that, so it is logical to make the assumption he took the traditional route of pondering it, evaluating it and praying about it to receive a confirmation. Any other permutation is aberational or the least common. Nothing in President Monson's declaration indicates otherwise.

Nonsense. That's just a long-winded way of saying you really don't believe Monson.

It doesn't really matter if God told him in a vision, or if Monson made a selection and God confirmed it. Monson said this is the man God wants.

Your use of the term "Mormonspeak" is just a fancy way of calling him a deceiver.

[MikeWaters]

Does it matter who the apostle is?

Do worker bees vie among each other to determine whose job is more important or who should be doing what job?

We are all worker bees.

Deseret. Word.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Nonsense. That's just a long-winded way of saying you really don't believe Monson.

It doesn't really matter if God told him in a vision, or if Monson made a selection and God confirmed it. Monson said this is the man God wants.

Your use of the term "Mormonspeak" is just a fancy way of calling him a deceiver.

Now, now Tex.

It means I don't take his words to mean what you tell me they should mean, because that's what they mean to you. You are unwilling to translate from Mormonspeak into colloquial speech.

Speaking Mormonspeak is not deception, it's a cultural way of speaking. Other faith communities use similar abbreviations. It's you who's calling it deception, when I believe I know what he's saying in more contemporary, empirical terms.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Everything uttered comes in the form of language, which is an artifice used by fallible humans. Such speech reflects the fallibility and perceptions fo the speaker and of the recipient.

It is nice that you have resorted to ad hominem attack when the force of your logic is underwhelming.

Nothing is devoid of interpretation.

Stop the freaking charade. It's not a question of interpretation, it's simply your lazy-ass way of intellectualizing away explicit comments that don't neatly fit into your own spiritual world-view.

If you don't agree with it, then it's time to render prophetic statements or scriptural stories as mere symbols or ideas and stories borrowed from Mesopotamian myths borne of Jungian psychological archetypes or simply choose to ignore the absolute language used and claim that the explicit is really the implicit of something which is somehow contridictory of the explicit.

Take a stance and stick with it and stop being so wishy-washy. Can you even pick out your own clothes in the morning?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Stop the freaking charade. It's not a question of interpretation, it's simply your lazy-ass way of intellectualizing away explicit comments that don't neatly fit into your own spiritual world-view.

If you don't agree with it, then it's time to render prophetic statements or scriptural stories as mere symbols or ideas and stories borrowed from Mesopotamian myths borne of Jungian psychological archetypes or simply choose to ignore the absolute language used and claim that the explicit is really the implicit of something which is somehow contridictory of the explicit.

Take a stance and stick with it and stop being so wishy-washy. Can you even pick out your own clothes in the morning?

My stance is clear and I have not resorted to name calling. Clearly, you are projecting something more into this situation.

It is not uncommon for people to speak in abbreviations. I believe President Monson surveyed the known quantities, pondered about them, may have even interviewed them and then selected one and asked for confirmation. This is consistent with D&C 8 and 9.

There's nothing wishy washy about it.

I don't believe your interpretation, because it's not founded in current explanatory treatises. No language is absolute. Stop being so silly.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

No language is absolute. Stop being so silly.

That is the silliest statement in this entire thread.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

That is the silliest statement in this entire thread.

I know a sillier comment in the thread.

But apparently the thought that it might be true threatens your very psychological welfare. Go ahead and believe in binary absolutes.

[Indy Coug]

I didn't mean anything I said the way you interpreted it. I can't help it if you took what I said as explictly as you did. What I really was saying was that German chocolate cake is especially good if you eat it with vanilla ice cream. I have no clue where you got the idea I was using ad hominem in that message of peace and glad tidings.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I didn't mean anything I said the way you interpreted it. I can't help it if you took what I said as explictly as you did. What I really was saying was that German chocolate cake is especially good if you eat it with vanilla ice cream. I have no clue where you got the idea I was using ad hominem in that message of peace and glad tidings.

Exhibit A.

Which is exactly why you are the faithless shell of a man that you are. When you take parsing to the insane levels that you have, you render virtually everything ever uttered as completely open to interpretation and thereby robbing it of all value and validity.

Exhibit B.

Can you even pick out your own clothes in the morning?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Exhibit A.


Exhibit B.

You're simply taking things too literally. If you strain as hard as you do when you read President Monson's words, you will realize I'm not really trying to insult you at all. Step out of your binary world.