Guess which image Colton removed from the Dallas gamethread

[Bronco70]

I just want to be clear. The temple garb is sacred like bigb said and is something not to ever be worn or shown in public?

Sort of, depending on what you mean. They are called temple garments because they are symbolic of sacred covenants made in the temple, not because we wear them only in the temple. But yes, they are considered sacred and not to be displayed. Clothing worn over the garments is supposed to cover them completely.

As has been mentioned before, mormons are heavily indoctrinated as to the sacredness and specialness of temple garments. They (we, I should say... I am an active, garment wearing mormon), as a group, can be very defensive about them.

Personally, I'm not. They're sacred, not secret. If someone else wants to use that angle try to be disrespectful, well, that's their prerogative. I can choose not to be offended. Hard core Morms find it difficult because they don't seem to understand that other people don't hold their underwear in the same high regard.

Like I said, I'm a Morm, and to this point I still wear mine, even though I am a horrible Mormon. But I often think it's a pretty cozy little scheme, telling members "You have to wear a certain type of underwear and, oh, by the way, we're the only supplier."

Posting (and re-posting) the pic was a deliberate attempt to rile the you-know-whos. And it worked. So, mission accomplished, right Alt?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

*Ring Ring*

Jimmy eat jazz "hello?"

Phone "hello sir this is Westboro Baptist Church calling. We would like to invite you to protest the funeral of a queer. As a special added bonus, this person is of Arab origin an a vegan an is fat. Whaddyah say?"

Jimmy eat jazz "no thanks not my cup of tea but I support you fully in your efforts to be as offensive as humanely possible. It is your right!"

Yep, that is precisely what freedom of speech entails. You take the good with the bad.

BTW, I'm sure you didn't intend this, but your clever little vignet here actually reinforces my point. Westboro Baptist Church's rhetoric and actions are religiously inspired. If we were indeed to grant a privileged status to religiously sourced beliefs (as some would argue, but then, mostly only related to their own religious beliefs, less so to others'), then we would be enjoined from criticizing Westboro. But, because we are free to criticize religiously-based beliefs, we can criticize those of Westboro.

Note, you can't claim the right to criticize others' religious beliefs, while simultaneously demanding that we privilege yours. Well, you can, but then you'd be guility of inconsistency, which I'm sure you'd want to avoid.

 

[The Midnight]

I, nor anyone else, has any obligation to respect any particular belief. Just because a belief emanates from a religious source does not automatically afford it respect. I tire of religious folks insisting that their beliefs, merely due to the fact that they are religious beliefs, are somehow privleged and thus merit special status and respect. They are beliefs, and like every single other belief, are subject to scrutiny, criticism, even mocking if they deserve it.

I agree with the courtesy part, which if you had read my message with an intent to try to understand its meaning, rather than reacting in a knee jerk way, you would see that that is precisely what I was implying.

I think it's ok to scrutinise, and even (constructively) criticise .... but mocking is really uncalled for in most cases.


Leads to conflict. Leads to hate. Leads to war.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I don't recall bigb ever suggesting that anyone had any kind of OBLIGATION to not be a dick. He seemed to be suggesting that one could just be a considerate person, y'know... voluntarily.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz mobile app

And again, that is precisely what I was implying. We refrain from intentionally giving offense (or at least where it is reasonable to do so) in the interest of promoting harmony within our online community. Thus is a 'positive' obligation, done so with good intent, rather than a 'negative obgligation, or done so to avoid being a dick.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I think it's ok to scrutinise, and even (constructively) criticise .... but mocking is really uncalled for in most cases.


Leads to conflict. Leads to hate. Leads to war.

Mocking is often well deserved. It's frequently impolite and impolitic, and thus we, for the most part, refrain from doing so out of felt social obligation (or because the easily offended are childish and violent). Mocking is best used to 'punch upwards' to ridicule and call out the powerful and less well used to 'punch downwards' to ridicule the weak. And in Utah, the LDS Church is the state's most powerful institution, so . . . .

The problem is that often those religiously inclined perceive legit criticism by the non-religious as mocking, while the converse is also true in many cases.

 

[Miggs]

As has been mentioned before, mormons are heavily indoctrinated as to the sacredness and specialness of temple garments. They (we, I should say... I am an active, garment wearing mormon), as a group, can be very defensive about them.

Personally, I'm not. They're sacred, not secret. If someone else wants to use that angle try to be disrespectful, well, that's their prerogative. I can choose not to be offended. Hard core Morms find it difficult because they don't seem to understand that other people don't hold their underwear in the same high regard.

Like I said, I'm a Morm, and to this point I still wear mine, even though I am a horrible Mormon. But I often think it's a pretty cozy little scheme, telling members "You have to wear a certain type of underwear and, oh, by the way, we're the only supplier."

Posting (and re-posting) the pic was a deliberate attempt to rile the you-know-whos. And it worked. So, mission accomplished, right Alt?

This is pretty much what I thought. Some are being way overly sensitive and subjective while Alt is being a dick for the sake of being a dick.

 

[fishonjazz]

Says the guy who seethes in every post.

This

 

[bigb]

I just want to be clear. The temple garb is sacred like bigb said and is something not to ever be worn or shown in public?

Bronco said it pretty well. Personally, I will be in the house without a shirt on over my garment shirt. But I won't answer the door like that or take out the garbage, etc.
And no, I didn't take offense to the picture alt posted. I think it's on poor taste. It was also retarded to post it the second time.

 

[bigb]

Would an image of Muhammed be removed to avoid offending any Muslim board members? Just curious.

I've thought about this question for awhile. With the disclaimer that I don't know enough about what Muslims view as sacred, I don't think it's any different than a Mormon (or any Christian) posting a depiction of Christ. As long as it's not done in a degrading easy.

 

[addictionary]

I've thought about this question for awhile. With the disclaimer that I don't know enough about what Muslims view as sacred, I don't think it's any different than a Mormon (or any Christian) posting a depiction of Christ. As long as it's not done in a degrading easy.

We believe that it is offensive and a sin to try to depict all prophets (not only Muhammed) and give the images sacred meanings. For example when praying you cannot have an image in front if you to remember this rule. Because you know, Islam came down to a society of paganism so statues and concrete God symbols were pretty much the enemy of true belief. It wanted to destroy the entire 'people worshipping statues' thing and lead them to one true God that all religions were actually in the seekage of.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz

 

[bigb]

We believe that it is offensive and a sin to try to depict all prophets (not only Muhammed) and give the images sacred meanings. For example when praying you cannot have an image in front if you to remember this rule. Because you know, Islam came down to a society of paganism so statues and concrete God symbols were pretty much the enemy of true belief. It wanted to destroy the entire 'people worshipping statues' thing and lead them to one true God that all religions were actually in the seekage of.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz

Interesting. Thanks.
So let me ask then. Are you offended by the images posted in this thread?

 

[addictionary]

Interesting. Thanks.
So let me ask then. Are you offended by the images posted in this thread?

I thought I wouldn't but somehow I felt like this ain't right. Hekate is my man and he and I are homeboys so no hard feelings. But aside from that the images reminded me that we should not try to create images of those awesome people who tried to save our souls, because it downgrades their true values which was about their teachings not the beard and outfit etc.


Sent from my iPhone using JazzFanz