Are LDS brides prepared for what they'll wear in sealings?

[_stemelbow]

Perhaps Canada's problem here is that he is not willing to be bound by your functional illiteracy. The word "many" implies a significant part of a whole.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/many

http://thesaurus.com/browse/many

Canada has demonstrated, from the Church's own figures, that a very small proportion of LDS females would fit into the category you are ascribing to them. A small percentage of a whole is not "many." The correct word, based on the evidence, is "few."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/few

http://thesaurus.com/browse/few

Your games maintain their adorable quality, DJ. you do realize that many is defined as a large number. Its a relative term that can apply to 30 people if you want. Let's consider this example:

Teacher 1: There were many kids outside of school when the bell rang.

Principal DJ: How many?

Teacher 1: I'd say about 30.

Principal DJ: you mean 30 out of 800 kids in school were outside and you're saying there were many? You idiot. Many means a significant part of the whole. Here's a dictionary reference for many:

constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people. 2.noting each one of a large number (usually followed by aor an): For many a day it rained. Bible Dictionary
noun 3.a large or considerable number of persons or things: A good many of the beggars were blind. 4.the many, the greater part of humankind.


See somehwere in there it says what I'm saying many says. It means a significant part of the whole. Read definition 1 for instance. Well it doesn't say anything about a significant part of the whole. BUt I still just want to whimper and whine about how I think you can't even think or talk or do nuttin' right.


Oh DJ, when are yougoing to give up on your personal attacks that always, it seems, go back to smack you across the jaw?

Stemelbow---

This message board is not hostile, nor does it owe you an apology, by reason of the failure of certain board members to find it persuasive when you make sweeping, unwarranted assertions based entirely on making up the definitions of words as you go, making up facts as you go, and offering your meandering streams of consciousness as if they were well-reasoned, well-supported arguments.

I don't expect an apology for anything, ding dong.

[_stemelbow]

Darth beat me to it, but because repetition is the best-loved teaching tool of the LDS church, I'll re-iterate: I did not try to change *many* to *most*; I tried to change *many* to *few*. Here is what I said -

Wrong. A *few* women will have seen the sealing ceremony. *Most* women do not see the ceremony prior to their wedding day.

A few thousand is *many* when that few thousand represents a significant proportion of a larger whole or when that few thousand are compared to a significantly smaller whole.

You're mixed up, Toronto. I said "many" when referencing a few thousand. You said I was wrong and suggested to counter that that "Most" women do not see the ceremony prior to their wedding day. Many does not suggest, as DJ's links illustrate, that we must use "many" only to refer to portions that make up most or a significant amount of the whole.

I'll give you an example much like I offered DJ. I hope this helps you guys realize your accusations of my illiteracy, again, is foolish, unsubstantiated, pointless, hostile, thoughtless attack.... Here’s to hopin’:

Jim from Georgia says: There are many people that live in the Atlanta Metropolitan area.

Alfred responds: What do you mean many? There are nearly 7 billion people on the planet and the few measly millions that live in the Atlanta area can't be considered many.

Here look at the definition in the highly laudable dictionary.com:

1.constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people. 2.noting each one of a large number (usually followed by aor an): For many a day it rained. Bible Dictionary
noun 3.a large or considerable number of persons or things: A good many of the beggars were blind. 4.the many, the greater part of humankind.

as you can see this definition suggests you can't accurately use the word "many" to describe a large number of people. That's just...oh wait. Dang. the definition says you can use it to describe a large...damn. Foiled again.

of course you and DJ will, undoubtedly, be much more obstinate then ol' Alfred. You won’t admit that the definition does not require the term to refer to a large or significant part of a whole.

In this discussion, 6,849 is *many* more sisters than, say, zero sisters, or even 10 sisters, and maybe even a thousand sisters. But, 6,849 is relatively *few* sisters when compared to 395,000 sisters, or to 6,500,000 sisters, or, if one were to count only active sisters between the age of 21-24, at an rate of say, 40% activity, 6,849 is still relatively *few* sisters compared to 160,000.

Come on own up to your own functional illiteracy here. There was no indication that my many had anything to do with a sampling of the whole. I merely used many as a term for quantity. And yes a few thousand is many in that context.

Now, I will point out that risk plays a role in contextualizing *many* and *few*. For instance, if we were counting airplane crashes, then 6,849 could reasonably be characterized as *many*, even though the proportion of crashes are low. This is because airplane crashes have a significant impact on the safety of human beings, and if 1.7% of all flights crashed, then we would not be so inclined to take that significant a risk with our lives.

In the case of sisters witnessing a sealing prior to participating in their own sealing, there is little risk involved; there is no physical danger to human life (emotional trauma notwithstanding). Thus, it would be more appropriate to use the word *few* when referring to the proportion of sisters who witness a sealing prior to participation.

Stem, I hope that helps you understand the difference between *few* and *many*.

H.

That was perhaps the least helpful and thoughtful effort I’ve seen from you. It was completely DJ-esque asinine. I’m sure if you didn’t have your blinders on you’d see that though, just like with DJ.

[_Darth J]

Dear Stemelbow:

Whether something can reasonably be described as "many" or "few" depends on its relationship to something else. A number is not "many" devoid of context. The examples you contrived do not prove your point. "Jim from Georgia" is implicitly comparing the population of Atlanta to something else. Alfred is also comparing the population of Atlanta to something else.

The sad part about your functional illiteracy is that you think you are refuting a point that you are actually proving. "Many" LDS women is not meaningful or informative in a vacuum, which is what you are asserting ("many" by what criterion?). "Many" or "few" cannot be determined by raw numbers. "Many" or "few" depends on the proportion between a subset and a whole. As Canada has demonstrated, and you have failed to acknowledge---or even understand---there is no objective basis for claiming that, compared to the overall population of LDS women claimed by the LDS Church, "many" of them know what is going to happen during the ritual when they are sealed in the temple.

I am aware that Stemelbow's de facto autism makes him incapable of basic communication, but for our viewers at home, who can explain the problem with the following assertions?

--Many active Latter-day Saints believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction.

--Many LDS missionaries are homosexuals.

--Many early Mormons murdered non-Mormons who were traveling through the Utah Territory.

[_Darth J]

as you can see this definition suggests you can't accurately use the word "many" to describe a large number of people. That's just...oh wait. Dang. the definition says you can use it to describe a large...damn. Foiled again.

Stemelbow, how did you determine what a "large" number of people is?

--A large number of LDS missionaries engage in homosexual activities on their missions.

Assuming that the number is more than zero, do you see a problem with the above statement?

[_Drifting]

I am aware that Stemelbow's de facto autism makes him incapable of basic communication, but for our viewers at home, who can explain the problem with the following assertions?

--Many active Latter-day Saints believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction.

--Many LDS missionaries are homosexuals.

--Many early Mormons murdered non-Mormons who were traveling through the Utah Territory.

If we are allowed to use Stemelbows definition of 'many' then there is no problem, they are all factually accurate statements.

[_MsJack]

I will have to dig up the letter later, but when I was serving in the stake presidency, so, in the past 8 years, give or take, the First Presidency issued a letter that issued guidelines for allowing women to enter the temple for her own endowment. A woman could enter the temple if:

1. She was called to serve a mission
2. She was getting married
3. She is married to a non-member
4. She is approaching Single Adult age (30)

Young, single sisters were not to be issued recommends, generally, and it was specifically stated that a young single sister was not to be given a recommend just so she could attend the wedding of a friend or family member.

H.

Try 2001-2003. I vaguely recall discussing this change in policy with my roommates when I was a sophomore and junior at BYU.

I was actually surprised when I came to BYU and got female LDS roommates and learned that LDS women are not typically endowed at ages 18-19. My conversations with them went something like:

"You haven't been through the temple yet?"

"No, of course not."

"But the men usually do it at ages 18-19, right?"

"They have to in order to go on a mission."

"I thought the endowment was a great blessing."

"It is."

"So why wouldn't you want to do it as soon as possible?"

They usually had to think about that, and would reply that the church tends to ask women to wait until they've gone on a mission or gotten married. It still made no sense to me. Marriage and missions aren't automatic guarantees of spiritual maturity, so why not encourage other worthy single adults to seek it out?

My best friend at BYU stood out to me because she was my age (18-19 when we met) and she wore garments. After I realized that Mormon women didn't usually have them at that age, I asked her why she did. She had never been married and was too young for a mission. She said that she'd basically had to put up a big argument for it at age 18 and talk to a lot of local leaders about it. I told her that I thought it was so odd that there weren't more young Mormon women who wanted it like she did, and she completely agreed.

Now that I'm older and more cynical, I have to admit, I wonder if the reason the church makes so many wait until marriage or a mission is because they know the temple might distress them, and they want that connection and commitment (marriage or a mission) to anchor them through the shock.

Jason - I agree, it was just one person's perspective. I linked to it mostly because it gives a very vivid description of what the bride must wear for the sealing.

[_moksha]

Apart from any LDS ceremony, I wonder how many husbands realize what they are getting themselves into? Sorry, back to topic.

[_stemelbow]

Dear Stemelbow:

Whether something can reasonably be described as "many" or "few" depends on its relationship to something else. A number is not "many" devoid of context. The examples you contrived do not prove your point. "Jim from Georgia" is implicitly comparing the population of Atlanta to something else. Alfred is also comparing the population of Atlanta to something else.

The sad part about your functional illiteracy is that you think you are refuting a point that you are actually proving. "Many" LDS women is not meaningful or informative in a vacuum, which is what you are asserting ("many" by what criterion?). "Many" or "few" cannot be determined by raw numbers. "Many" or "few" depends on the proportion between a subset and a whole. As Canada has demonstrated, and you have failed to acknowledge---or even understand---there is no objective basis for claiming that, compared to the overall population of LDS women claimed by the LDS Church, "many" of them know what is going to happen during the ritual when they are sealed in the temple.

I am aware that Stemelbow's de facto autism makes him incapable of basic communication, but for our viewers at home, who can explain the problem with the following assertions?

--Many active Latter-day Saints believe that the Book of Mormon is inspired fiction.

--Many LDS missionaries are homosexuals.

--Many early Mormons murdered non-Mormons who were traveling through the Utah Territory.

Probably the silliest thing about your attempted distraction and pointless, inane quibbling about nothingness is the very source you used to define the word "many" explicitly refutes the very point you are trying to make. I point that out and quote it for you to show you and you have nothing but your bald assertion to support your hostile personal vendetta. here ya go again: "constituting or forming a large number; numerous: many people."

Your fighting, vainly, against your own sources. Its pretty adorable to watch you throw your fists in the air, recklessly, while socking yourself in the face. Keep it up, DJ. its bringing back the memories of when I first arrived here. Soon I'll see all your partners here whining about Will, Pahoran, or some other LDS person for acting much more kind and reasonably than you, again, and they'll foolishly support your pointless rants, fawning over your stupidity, pretending you have somehow defeated another LDS by whimpering and speaking nonsense.

With that said, Peace to your troubled heart, DJ.

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow, how did you determine what a "large" number of people is?

--A large number of LDS missionaries engage in homosexual activities on their missions.

Assuming that the number is more than zero, do you see a problem with the above statement?

I'm delighted your back to speaking nonsense to quibble about innocuous statements again, and then going after me with a vengence, DJ. A large number of people can be 1,000 people if ya like. It needs not even be compared to anything else for one to consider 1,000 people to be a large number. But of course, a large number is not the point here. We're talking "many". You tend to think, it seems, 1,000 people when not compared to anything else is few--at least that's what you'd be forced to conclude. But you won't. You'll whimper and whine about me not being able to read or being autistic or something, as though that's some sort of funny joke. Oh brother...Its just adorable your partners fully support you.

you guys...

[_Darth J]

Stemelbow---

If the number is greater than zero, are the following statements valid? Why or why not?

--A large number of LDS women are raped by their bishops.

--A large number of LDS missionaries experiment with gay sex with their companions.

--Many early Mormon settlers murdered non-Mormons who were passing through the Utah Territory.

--Many Mormon leaders in the early Utah period forcibly castrated a large number of men.

--Many LDS bishops embezzle tithing funds.

--A large number of Mormons are in favor of electroconvulsive therapy to cure people of being gay.

--Many Boy Scout leaders in the LDS Church are pedophiles.