Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??

[Guest]

No. It raises the issue of whether or not they're inerrant.

I quite openly declare that they are not. They have never declared that they are.

I don't need them to be inerrant in order to find what they say supremely useful.

I profit from non-infallible things all the time. I'll bet you do, too.

I've laid out my view of scriptural inerrancy in an essay entitled "Historicity and Inerrancy," which appeared in a volume edited by Paul Hoskisson and published by the BYU Religious Studies Center some years back. I don't regard the scriptural canon as inerrant, so it's hardly likely that I would hold every statement of every General Authority to be inerrant.




.

[_The Nehor]

Did Noah's flood cover every square inch of the earth? Y/N

Your answer: I have no idea.

The prophets' answer: No idea, haven't asked any.

Filled it in.

[_marg]

See... now Shades is being the prick, goading the ox (that would be Daniel). And it's not at all sexual!

The way it's used in the Bible and in the D& C is essentially to fight against church authority and/or God. Just because someone may "goad" does not mean it is done in the sense that scripture uses "kicking against the pricks" which is that the goading is done with rightful authority, it's a good thing..ultimately it's by God with Church authority speaking on behalf of that God to keep people on the right path in life, to stop them from perilous resistance to a God's authority.

When you call someone a "self-righteous prick" you are not using "prick" in the positive sense the scriptures use it. You do not think Daniel is offering good advice, proper judgement of you, nor speaking correctly on behalf of church authority. Nice try though

http://www.biblequestions.org/Archives/BQAR075.htm

Question: What does "kick against the pricks" mean?

Answer: The question is probable referring to Acts 9:5 or 26:14. Saul (later called Paul) had been persecuting Christians (Acts 9: 13,14). Even though Saul had been sincere, Saul was wrong (Acts 23: 1,26:9). Saul was acting according to the law of Moses, but this system had been abrogated (2 Cor. 3). Hence, Saul had no authority for his actions.

A large percentage of people in the first century were tillers of the soil. Oxen were used to work the soil. The prick or goad was a necessary devise. The prick was usually a wooden shaft with a pointed spike (prick) at one end. The man working the ox would position the goad in such a way as to exert influence and control over the ox. You see, if the ox refused the command indicated by the farmer, the goad would be used to jab or prick the ox. Sometimes the ox would refuse this incentive by kicking out at the prick. As result, the prick would be driven deeper into the flesh of the rebellious animal. The more the animal rebelled, the more the animal suffered. Hence, the statement to Saul: "It is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." (Saul was rebelling against God.)

God possesses total authority (see Matt. 28: 18). God therefore, has the right to "boss" man. God has given man commandments to be obeyed (IJn. 5:3). However, man may elect to disobey God (Josh. 24: 15). When man disobeys, however, man pays. "The way of transgressors is hard," wrote Solomon (Prov. 13: 20). God/man is analogous to the farmer/ox situation. When we disobey god, we hurt ourselves. When we continue to disobey and rebel, we are like the ox – driving the prick in deeper and deeper, hurting ourselves in rebelling against authority! Beloved, when will we learn? Jesus is the author of eternal salvation to all who obey him (Heb. 5: 8,9).

[_harmony]

Let it go, marg. I explained my reasoning. Whether you or anyone else accepts it or not doesn't matter diddly to me.

[_Gazelam]

Shades,
You mentioned an ensign article on Noahs flood..

1998 Ensign piece

Do you have an issue number or a link to it?

Gaz

[_Daniel Peterson]

It's rare -- it's unprecedented, actually -- for Marg and me to agree, but she's definitely right this time.

I don't care to discuss it any further, harmony, but your reasoning on this one strikes me as ludicrous. Actually, it strikes me as rather desperate after-the-fact rationalization.

You may or may not have intended the word in a non-obscene way, but that's definitely how your use of it came across. And your attempt to justify your usage on the basis of the scriptures simply doesn't work. In fact, it's ridiculous.

[_harmony]

It's rare -- it's unprecedented, actually -- for Marg and me to agree, but she's definitely right this time.

I don't care to discuss it any further, harmony, but your reasoning on this one strikes me as ludicrous. Actually, it strikes me as rather desperate after-the-fact rationalization.

You may or may not have intended the word in a non-obscene way, but that's definitely how your use of it came across. And your attempt to justify your usage on the basis of the scriptures simply doesn't work. In fact, it's ridiculous.

You were obviously never raised on a farm in the 60's. We often used pricks to move cattle from one corral to another. We didn't get a horse until 1969.

You're doing it again, you know... when you call my reasoning ludicrous, desperate, after the fact, rationalization, ridiculous. That's the kind of post that caused me to call you one long ago, and it bbviously still occurs today. I guess that means my promise is now null and void, since it was predicated on your behavior. My apology still holds, because I'm sorry you took my comment as a sexual vulgarity, but your behavior just nullified the promise to not do it again, now that you know my meaning is not at all sexual or vulgar.

[_dblagent007]

You were obviously never raised on a farm in the 60's. We often used pricks to move cattle from one corral to another. We didn't get a horse until 1969.

LOL. I grew up on a farm in the 70s and my dad grew up on a farm in the 40s and my grandfather grew up on a farm in the early teens and I have never, ever, heard anyone refer to cattle prods (that's what us farmers call them) as pricks. I would be laughed out of town if I referred to a cattle prod as a prick.

[_Nightingale]

We're obviously totally on a tangent here, so I'll just carry on. (Sorry Wayneman!)

I'm interested in words and communication so can't resist commenting on the language issue.

In short, connotation is everything. (Just as perception is everything in many situations).

I think it is up to the person speaking or writing to get their audience to understand their message. Even if we know what we mean, if our readers or listeners don't get it, even if they are friendly and are trying to understand us, then surely we need to at least consider the possibility that we have a failure to communicate that could be originating with us. I particularly regret having people misunderstand a point I am trying to make and I especially dislike being misquoted or misrepresented (even if it's an honest misunderstanding). I have long since given up thinking that it's "everybody else" who isn't understanding my clear (to myself) intent. Simply, if the intended audience fails to quite easily understand what I'm trying to say, I think it's up to me to rephrase, explain, do-over, or whatever it takes to achieve some meeting of the minds.

I am Canadian, with a close British ancestry (meaning, all relatives were born in various UK countries, as I was myself). The terms I use are a mixture of both countries and I see a big difference between the two and there is also quite a difference between Canada and the U.S. in terms of language, even though we are all speaking English.

My cousin, visiting from the UK, fell over laughing when she saw "fanny packs" on sale at the shop. In her country, "fanny" is considered a raunchy word. She had been asking for a "bum bag" which, in turn, I thought was startlingly crude. When I lived in Quebec, the English-speaking guys would crack up at the horrified expressions they could elicit from the locals by using "tabernacle" (with a French accent) as a swear word. (French Catholics were not amused).

Most religious folks have a particular sensitivity to swearing, especially profanity that uses words, expressions and concepts that touch things that are sacred to them. I used to especially wince when "holy" was placed before a vulgarity as it intensified the aural shock for me.

Obviously, words have different meanings to different people, especially in different cultures. Some terms are used with impunity no matter who the audience is, with the user obviously not attributing the same meaning or at least not having the same reaction as some readers/listeners do. I'm not saying that we need to always modify our language for the sake of the most sensitive in the group (although that is often seen as being just good manners) but just that the same words have different meanings even for people in the same culture.

So, yes, connotation is very important. And if you care about those who will hear or read your words, or at least want to take into consideration the way they will "hear" you and the perceptions they will have of your message and intent, then you will care about connotation, I'd say.

Just as I think it is very simplistic to say that if someone is "offended" by something in The Church it is their fault, so too, to me, is it missing the point to think that the words you write or utter mean what you think they mean, disregarding how your audience will react.

I work with a big fat ]Oxford Reference English dictionary by my side and frequently check connotation, to be sure that my exact meaning will be apparent in the words I choose, even in recreational writing. In my work, choosing the absolute most correct term is essential (medicine-related). That enhances to me the importance of using language correctly and well. Not that I'm an expert, by any means, but it does make me very conscious of meanings and connotations.

Obviously, there are strict definitions of words but also there is the colloquial meaning, which is often more important than the original meaning in conveying your intent. I have had to abandon some terms I used to use due to changing meanings and new colloquial understandings (the common language changes at an amazing rate!). I figure if your audience is likely going to misunderstand you or if your words are out-of-date you need to modify your language, if you want to communicate well.

So, to the point. There can be many different (and strangely diverse) meanings for a word. How we choose to use it can determine the meaning/connotation to the audience. A physician can say to a patient "You're just going to feel a little prick" as s/he administers an immunization. Obviously, that is a perfectly fine word to use, in context. However, if s/he said to a child patient who was uncooperative, "You little prick" that is not acceptable. Same word. Different meaning. Tone and intent also colour the connotation of the words we choose to convey our message.

Here are the definitions in the Online Dictionary for the word "prick":

1.
a. The act of piercing or pricking.
b. The sensation of being pierced or pricked.

2.
a. A persistent or sharply painful feeling of sorrow or remorse.
b. A small, sharp, local pain, such as that made by a needle or bee sting.

3. A small mark or puncture made by a pointed object.

4. A pointed object, such as an ice pick, goad, or thorn.

5. A hare's track or footprint.

6. Vulgar Slang A penis.

7. Vulgar Slang A person regarded as highly unpleasant, especially a male.

- - -

I have to say that when I read "You are a self-righteous prick", it falls into the #6 and 7 category for me. I certainly don't think of an ox, a goad or a hare. I don't really think of a penis either but in my experience and environment, it is considered crude at best to call someone a "prick". I wouldn't expect to see/hear a church member using that word to describe a fellow church member. (Not that my expectations govern anyone else's actions but just saying how it comes across to me). I don't really see any "critics" using that term against LDS posters, with a few notable and extreme exceptions. That is partly why it is so surprising to see it used by an active LDS.

In a case like this, I definitely think that what an audience understands the meaning to be should be considered by the writer/speaker. You can object 1000 times to people taking that as a vulgar expression but it doesn't change the fact that that is the connotation of it.

I think it highly possible that someone could use a term and not be that familiar with the vulgar meaning of it. I used to use a certain term that I kind of made up (I thought) to express displeasure with someone (often a crazy driver I encountered on the road). My sister heard me one day and with shock (because I don't swear big) informed me PDQ that I should choose another term as that one is highly vulgar. I had no idea! But I didn't spend a lot of time trying to defend the untenable position that I didn't mean it that way, therefore it was not vulgar.

On another note but still on this thread, I must say that I was startled, yet somewhat amused, to read harmony's references to the beach, even mentioning being naked on the beach (in general, not her, I think) and then shortly thereafter saying to DCP [if you want to go to the beach] "you know where I am". I am positive that, of course, she didn't mean anything suggestive at all but it did read that way, at least to me. In such cases, juxtaposition also plays into connotation! It was good for a laugh. In a friendly way. :)

Sorry for length. Just wanted to say that in my world, words are vital and connotation is crucial so I pay a lot of attention to language. And audience is critical so I make an effort to communicate effectively.

To me, the other crazy thing about this thread and many others like it is that the "critics" of the LDS Church can just stand back and watch the members tear each other's eyes out (eg: Scratch and harmony vs. DCP). I'm still amazed by that. Maybe it's more honest, though, than in my world where believers stick together and generally don't rip into each other in front of non-believers. (We save that for church meetings, lol).

[_Dr. Shades]

No. It raises the issue of whether or not they're inerrant.

I quite openly declare that they are not. They have never declared that they are.

But they have made statements about the dangers of being out of harmony (no pun intended) with the prophets.