BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
mentalgymnast
1st Counselor
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by mentalgymnast »

Bret Ripley wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:04 pm
When facts are fungible commodities all bets are off. Or possibly on, if that's more convenient.
What facts in particular, and in this instance, are you referring to? You may be barking up the wrong tree?

Clarification needed.

Personally I see facts as being non-negotiable. As I’m sure you do also.

Apparently I’m missing something.

Thanks,
MG
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 9072
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

Lemme guess, the big, dumb, idiot stick has said something to the effect that he's mystified by everyone's confusion and he's now demanding we clarify what he meant so we can be told the same crap he told us when he told us we didn't understand his point?

Yeah.

No, thanks.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5071
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by Philo Sofee »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 8:15 pm
dastardly stem wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 3:27 pm

Lol
This is mg-tier mental gymnastics. The level of sheer stupidity to answer your own question, and then state your question hasn't been answered is head slapping spinning in place door knobbery.

- Doc
Poor MG...... he tries sooooooo hard to sustain the brethren and church even in the most stupid situations imaginable......one almost feels sorry for him.....almost.
Philo Sofee
God
Posts: 5071
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2020 1:18 am

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by Philo Sofee »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:12 pm
Lemme guess, the big, dumb, idiot stick has said something to the effect that he's mystified by everyone's confusion and he's now demanding we clarify what he meant so we can be told the same Crap he told us when he told us we didn't understand his point?

Yeah.

No, thanks.

- Doc
Prophecy given and just within a few minutes VERIFIED! Right here on MormonDiscussions! Im-PRESSIVE!!!!!
mentalgymnast
1st Counselor
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by mentalgymnast »

Doctor CamNC4Me wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:12 pm
Lemme guess, the big, dumb, idiot stick has said something to the effect that he's mystified by everyone's confusion and he's now demanding we clarify what he meant so we can be told the same Crap he told us when he told us we didn't understand his point?

Yeah.

No, thanks.

- Doc
I wouldn’t expect to actually engage with you. Rarely do you have anything to say that I can take to heart and learn from. Others, at times? Yes. You? Never have. Don’t expect I ever will.

This far into the thread and the important question or two that I’ve put out there have remained unanswered. Just a bunch of deflection.

Rather transparent.

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Bret Ripley
2nd Counselor
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:55 am

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by Bret Ripley »

mentalgymnast wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 11:05 pm
Bret Ripley wrote:
Sat Mar 06, 2021 7:04 pm
When facts are fungible commodities all bets are off. Or possibly on, if that's more convenient.
You may be barking up the wrong tree?
Always a possibility. And not one I dismiss out-of-hand, by the way; barking runs in the family.
Personally I see facts as being non-negotiable. As I’m sure you do also.
Well, thanks for that.
Apparently I’m missing something.
Possibly. But here's the thing: if you are not missing something, you are being intentionally disingenuous and I have little hope that anything I say will help with that. On the other hand, if you are missing something you are being unintentionally disingenuous and I have little hope that anything I say will help with that. That being case, I think the best I can do is wish you a good day, good health, and success in your future endeavors.

For my money, the best reply in this thread probably came from Dr Cam: "I think it looks pretty." Honestly, what more needs to be said?
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3993
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by Gadianton »

MG wrote:I mean, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that church doctrine and policy in regards to engaging in intimate homosexual practices or behaviors isn’t going to change.
Actually, I believe that church doctrine and policy regarding "homosexual practices" will change.

The Roman Emperor Diocletian persecuted Christianity until 316 CE, in 325 CE came council of Nicea, and by 400 CE, Christianity was the only game in town. I wonder if pagans in 315 CE thought that within just a few years, Christianity would go from persecuted to tolerated to promoted, and then shortly thereafter, to the most powerful religion in the world?

With Mormonism, there are these long arcs of doctrinal inertia corresponding to the long lifespans of the leaders at the top. Of course these depression-era conservitosauruses aren't ever going to change rock-bottom fundamentals in their policies on gays. I agree with you there.

But the rising generation doesn't share these prejudices. It's not intuitive to them that homosexuality is a great sin, it's quite the opposite. Mormon doctrine has changed significantly, even since I was a TBM. Yes, Mormons tend to believe Mormon doctrine is this immutable block of revelation that can never change, but the immutable block itself has changed dramatically. They just believe, within their time-slice, that what they have is the immutable one true doctrine and it was always that way. Even you argue for radical flexibility in Mormon teachings. Of course, you do this to accommodate your own unique agenda, but you're not the only Mormon flexibility specialist with an agenda to work in. The Brethren have lost touch with doctrine in general and are most concerned with the financial bottom line. And, Salt Lake City and the Church, has for whatever reason been a huge attraction for gays.

It's my belief that within 50 years, the Church will not only accept gay marriage, but Mormonism will be a distinctively gay religion. It will be the default religion for same-sex families. It will be a concentration of gay political and financial power.

Now, do I want this to happen? Not really. I'm an atheist and I think it would be better for the Mormon church to just fade away into cultural memory. But, what I want to happen and what I think will happen are rarely the same thing, unfortunately.
mentalgymnast
1st Counselor
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by mentalgymnast »

Bret Ripley wrote:
Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:06 am

For my money, the best reply in this thread probably came from Dr Cam: "I think it looks pretty." Honestly, what more needs to be said?
Ha! I think I can go along with that.

Regards,
MG
User avatar
Shulem
God
Posts: 7090
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:40 am
Location: Facsimile No. 3

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by Shulem »

Yeah, the idea of embracing homosexual love is just around the corner for the Mormon Church. It's coming. It will happen. Mormonism today is not going to be Mormonism tomorrow but will morph and change to suit whatever changing purposes it needs to in order to survive and keep its door open.
mentalgymnast
1st Counselor
Posts: 453
Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:29 pm

Re: BYU did not authorise the lighting of the Y...

Post by mentalgymnast »

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Mar 07, 2021 12:09 am
Of course these depression-era conservitosauruses aren't ever going to change rock-bottom fundamentals in their policies on gays. I agree with you there.
There’s my new word for the day.

Conservitosauruses.

I think I’ll enter it into my vocabulary. 😁

Regards,
MG
Post Reply