Yup. It’s obvious the point of Hinkley’s comment was that it is impossible to completely sever the bond between parent and child.
emarkp, it seems you got pretty good grades in Reading Comprehension 101. Unlike some others, it seems.
Gaudere, I don’t see it quite as being vehemant.
Mormonism is not christianity; its trying for popularity by comparison.
Yes, I still have the wonderful book Mormonism 101 and will provide more quotes from it.
Looks to me like the Mormons here are being snide as they can’t handle someone showing the truth about their religion; that its a religion, but its not Christianity.
But thanks for the compliment, I agree 100% with Arg on matters religious.
I studied Mormonism of my own free will, and found it wanting big time.
I can prove it with 100 posts, but Mormons will double talk their way out of the facts that I cite.
I see no reason to wait to show the truth about this religion, snark is just another poster to me.
I am posting the facts to the non Mormons here, so they will know.
Theres no hope of the Mormons seeing the light as it were.
I’m not sure if you really want my gloss on this scripture. I could keep quoting it verbatim repeatedly until the words lose all meaning. But if I don’t quote it verbatim anything I have to say about it would be seen as invalid by some. But let me state a few principles which I feel are basically true to begin with – if what you are after is the truth.
- People who give alms publicly receive a reward from men.
- People who give alms secretly do not.
Now you might quibble that the first statement isn’t always true. So let’s flip it around.
- People who receive a reward from men for giving alms have done so publicly.
We can agree that this is still a reasonably true statement, I would hope – as long as we are not too insistant on the meaning of “publicly.”
I’ve been watching the carpenter on New Yankee Workshop and I’ve seen the guy making a few desk tops. He’ll have the big plank for the top with the grain going right to left, with a sideboard he will attach, so as to sharpen the edge, with the grain going top to bottom. Now the important part is: if you nail down the side board from top to bottom to the bigger plank, when the main plank changes size due to humidity, it will split because wood expands and contracts mostly along the grain. So the secret is to keep the main plank from splitting is to only nail the side board in one corner and let it otherwise float in the top to bottom direction, using pins to keep it from just coming off left to right.
So, in this same way, yes: all alms giving is “public” in the same sense as nothing Jesus taught was “in secret.” But with the application of a little wisdom you can see the biger picture.
Andros,
You completely discount the power of suggestion used in Mormonism. The sentences also stand alone, and it says what it says, word for word. Who are you to second guess someone who people consider to be speaking for God, live, from the great and spacious bighouse? That speech also went through a correlation process, aka editor, before it was even read aloud from teleprompters. (You remind me of those people who claim that there are no hidden themes in songs and movies; yes, “Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds” is really about LSD). Also, as you now know, they did actually delete it from their official transcripts, obviously, since it was intended as a controversial master power suggestion with denial reserved. Luckily, a reporter was there to document the stupid insanity of it all. I’m glad emarkp brought this up, otherwise I would’ve had to prove that something didn’t exist again. I wonder what else they deleted? I would like to see a page of deleted Mormonisms. Oh, where oh where is a link when you really need one?
Let’s see . . . on the one hand, we have songwriter John Lennon, an obvious admirer of James Joyce and Lewis Carroll, as seen in his books “In His Own Write” and “A Spaniard In The Works”; and we have a pencil drawing by his then-young son, Julian, of the titular young girl flying through a bejewelled sky. On the other hand, we have, um, you.
Let’s take 10 guesses as to whose opinion we should most value on what “Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds” is about. The first 9 don’t count.
I doubt anyone is a “professional Mormon debunker”.
Mormons have such vitrol toward anyone exposing them.
They are doing it becasue they want others to see the truth.
How much do they get paid an hour?
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds(LSD)was a secret signal for dyslexic Mormons…
http://members.tripod.com/heyjules/bio/1966.html
So, PLD, you are saying that Lennon wrote a song about his kid’s picture? By the way, the song is not about Lucy, the Sky, or Diamonds. And besides, LSD was made illegal in 1967, what a coincidence, and Lennon was asked publicly at least 666 times what the song “really” meant, and he or his record company came up with at least one great explanation (afterall, American Southerners were having bonfires burning Beatles albums after Sgt. Pepper, ostensibly because their lyrics were “Unchristian” and, besides, who is gonna blast or censor a loving Dad’s song about his own little kid’s picture?). After all these years, their explanation still works for some. Imagine that. Did I say, Imagine?
By the way, Lennon admits to having tried LSD prior to making the album.
Uh, yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. You don’t want to take me on on the topic of the Beatles, son. Trust me.
I have no doubt that Julian’s drawing is precisely what inspired the song. I Am The Walrus was written after John was sitting outside in the garden, heard a distance police siren, and came up with words to match the rhythm (*Mis-*ter ci-ty police-man . . .). He could be inspired by the most mundane things imaginable.
Um, restating your assertion doesn’t prove anything. It isn’t about anything. It’s a stream of consciousness, Carroll-inspired fantasy. With a terrific melody.
Not in the UK. It was made illegal there in 1971 under the Misuse of Drugs Act.
Yes, it is. Especially since the song was written in 1966.
Yes. The ones with brains.
Well, no shit. Let’s try posing the question another way:
“Was ‘Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds’ written while John Lennon was under the influence of drugs, possibly LSD?” Probably, yes.
“Is ‘Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds’ about using LSD?” Probably not, no.
When John Lennon wanted to write about drug use, he had no need to hide behind clever symbology and smokescreens (cf. “Cold Turkey”).
Ah, reading PLD discuss music is as good for me as seeing Polycarp talk religion. Thanks, Phil.
Well, if Brian doesn’t trust pldennison on the matter, we can always try snopes
PLD: you’re not going to mention BB’s use of “666” in this thread?
Back to the alms: I glean from that verse that the dude who gives money just so others can see it is doing it “to be seen of man.” On the other hand, the dude who’s giving the money, and doesn’t give a hoot in the holler if anyone knows or not (which does not discount someone seeing the event), is donating to be charitable.
I was told by many Mormons that drinking tea would lose me my salvation.
You cannot go into the temple if you’ve drank tea.
It is disallowed.
Yet, in the Bible it states that all food and drink is allowable (making things kosher), and Matthew 15 says, I believe that what comes out of your heart is sinful, not putting anything into your body.
One of the many more 180 degree differences between Mormonism and Christianity.
ALso on being worthy: The Bible says no one is righteous, not one.
Jesus is our righteousness for us.
Kimball states in the Miracle Of Forgiveness 210, “Only as we overcome shall we become perfect and move toward Godhood. The time to do this is NOW, in mortality.”
Brian, your not helpin me here. Please forget about John Lennon; post some more contradictions, don’t make me do it all myself.
More tomorrow.
In the Oct. 99 General conference by President Hinckley, the latter day saint must “keep trying” to attain perfection and obey all the laws of God.
Back to the Miracle of Forgiveness 165: “It is normal for children to try. But adults must determine what they will do, then proceed to do. To “try” is weak. To do “the best I can” is not strong.”
Anyone notice the contradiction?
Well, not to nitpick, but doesn’t that just mean that Mormons don’t take the entire bible literally? Don’t most Christian sects interpret the bible in different ways?
They only take what they agree with out of it, not realizing how many instances that their doctrine completely differs from what it says. Thats not interpreting it differently, thats being opposed to it.
Sorry Vanilla,
We’re coming up against some pretty weird denial (Andros, there’s that hate word again!) that I think is interesting, since it conforms to the way in which people quote scripture and insist what it cannot mean, ie, what it MUST mean to validate their beliefs (that’s the method whereby dogmatic commentary is made). People are insisting that the song in question is about a picture, fine, but this means that the song is about a ten other pictures as well, if that be the case. They are also saying it was just a coincidence that letters LSD were cleverly used to title a song about hallucinating in 1966 just after the Beatles tried LSD and wrote an entire album under its artistic influence. This is similar to the way in which pedestrian aethetics assert that art is best when it is obvious, but if the author points out that the obvious is not obvious, well, then it is not obvious, obviously. (McCartney is also listed as author, I believe).
This is a definite case of stodginess versus sense of humor, and the joke is here is pinning a shallow interpretation on a profound song (including music, but that must be about the picture too). I ask rhetorically, Who deeply cares if the song is really about LSD? Well, it seems that alot of people who love the Beatles are more than willing to put people who sell or manufacture LSD to DEATH, and even now they are putting people in prison for five-ten years for having it in their possession, so they have to bend over backwards in denial about this song. But the weird part is actually saying that the song cannot even (also) be about LSD. That’s saying two different things, and hiding behind the fact that Lennon said it was NAMED after his kid’s picture when faced with a laoded question that might have his song censored in America. Oh, and by the way, PLD, don’t brag too much about knowing the real meaning of art, especially when you are saying what IT CANNOT MEAN, and by saying that no one should disagree on this subject. Even the artist of a particular work does not have that power.
But, this is a nice digression from Mormonism. And yes, Monty, 666 is just an intrinsically meaningless number native to magic, that has garnered meaning by being mystical. It came to mind thinking of how everyone once wanted to demonize the Beatles, obviously (remember the rumors of playing the record backwards and hearing Satanic messages?). End of Beatles discussion.
Anyway, I was thinking last night that I must assert one more idea into this mix, the idea that Mormons wishfully believe they are the most honest people (and credit Mormonism for it). This is why they will never easily admit they are wrong, because they were tired of being humble when they joined the movement along time ago. They would rather have everyone believe that I, and people like me, hate them, or that the world despises them, rather than admit they are wrong. Why? Because they are openly claiming to be better and more informed than everyone else. This is only my observation, no link required.
Let me state for the record, that I have no ill will towards any Mormon for simply being a Mormon, and that is wishful thinking on their part. Don’t be fooled. This victimology of theirs serves an important defensive function. If they can prove that I somehow hate them, then they can walk away and feel sorry for themselves all over again, which is a sign of a hugely inflated self-important ego that really has nothing to work with. But this technique won’t work. It just breeds more denial, more frustration.
What I am asking is simple and fair. I am sincerely asking all Mormons to RATCHET DOWN their Mormonism by at least one notch, whatever you feel that safest notch to be, for the reasons described in this thread. If you want to be self-righteous hell-bent whatever and ratchet up instead, then I’m right there with you. My ancestors helped bring this personality cult forth, and they were NOT entirely eager to do so, but because they made certain assumptions and then certain committments, they tried their best to overcome instinct and validate their hope that it was true through a sense of loyalty, including a piece by piece sale of their will and freedom to a growing threat to the world. This was their mistake one fretful decision at a time. I have now doubt they are proud that I can be of service and redeem some of their mistakes BASED ON NEW KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE IGNORED THEN IF THEY HAD HAD THE CHANCE TO KNOW IT. I know this because if those good people could now see the mess they helped create, they would be ashamed. Thanks you all for your time and best arguments, none of which were in vain, not even the Beatles part.
By the way Vanilla,
The Word of Wisdom from the Doctrine and Covenants, written by JS, is a can of worms for Mormons since it does not even proscibe (outlaw) tea, or smoking (it should have) and even encourages wine (of the vine) and beer (mild drinks). It always struck me as funny that it encouraged eating of fruit “in season” since that is when it is available (oh well, when in doubt, state the obvious). It also specifically proscribes meat, with few exceptions. This is another example of the danger of commentary and the danger of “scripture” pertaining to obvious practical matters. If we had a living prophet today, he should be telling us which chemicals will cause cancer. No such luck. Also, tea is proving to be good for you, it prevents some cancers and heart disease. Also there are several sites that deal with Mormon doctrine contradicting the bible, but then there are sites that also show the bible contradicting the bible. I avoid these discussions. Thanks again.
Let’s count the mistaken or unwarranted assumptions that lead us to the realization that someone doesn’t know what he’s talking about:
There’s #1. The song in question, again, was inspired by the picture. It is not “about” the picture; it is not “about” much of anything, except for perhaps evocative imagery, clever wordplay and a good melody. The lyrical content is little more than free-association, with fantasy elements, probably influenced by drug use but not “about” drugs.
Now, “Dr. Robert,” on the other hand, is “about” drugs, in every meaningful sense of the word “about.” So, for that matter, is “Got To Get You Into My Life,” which Paul wrote about marijuana.
If you cannot even understand this basic distinction, there is little point in proceeding, but let’s anyway, shall we?
There’s #2. Is it so difficult for you to admit that coincidences occur? The picture, after all, does exist, and I can accept that Julian called it what everyone associated with the band said he called it. Furthermore, the album is a fairly mature and complete work, and the extent to which drug use colors it (and the preceding single) is obvious. Why would the band stoop to sneaky little juvenile tricks like surreptitiously naming a sond “LSD”?
This sentence has no semantic content at all.
Lennon and McCartney were both listed as author on all Beatles songs not written by George Harrison or Ringo Starr, by an agreement between the two of them at the beginning of their songwriting career. Don’t let that be an indicator of the degree to which either contributed to the writing of any particular song.
There’s #3, since, if you’re talking about me, any poster who has met me will attest to my sense of humor. Furthermore, noting that the inspiration for the song is a child’s drawing detracts not a bit from the song’s importance or profundity. Is “Being for the Benefit of Mister Kite!” any less profound because the lyrics were drawn verbatim from a circus poster John found at a junk store? Is “Savoy Truffle” any less enjoyable because George Harrison cribbed the lyrics from the inside of a box of chocolates? Is “Martha My Dear” any less good because we know that Martha was the name of Paul’s sheepdog? No, obviously.
There’s #4, and it’s a doozy. I sincerely hope you are not including me in this preposterous little armchair analysis, as I have never once failed in this forum to support the legalization (or at the very least decriminalization) of all drugs.
Again, it seems as if you are completely incapable of understanding the difference between the inspiration for a song, and the text of its lyrics. As one noted Beatles reference site states, “John has said in interviews that the lyrics of the song were inspired by the ‘Wool and Water’ chapter in Lewis Carroll’s Through The Looking Glass, where Alice is taken down a river in a row boat by the Queen, who has suddenly changed into a sheep. Additional images came from things like the plastic ties they wore on The Goon Show, one of John’s favorite programs.” Did John’s drug use allow him to creatively amalgamate all of those sources into a beautiful song? Yes. Does that mean the song is “about” drugs? I guess so, if that means that “Martha My Dear” is “about” dogs.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, the man rarely hid what he really wanted to say behind smokescreens, even if it might hurt record sales. The song was banned in the UK from being played on the BBC; why would he care if it was banned from the air in the U.S.? There were no singles released from the album, anyway–programmers played whatever cuts they wanted. If U.S. broadcasters didn’t want to play “Lucy” because of possible drug ties, there were nearly a dozen others to choose from.
- I didn’t brag any such thing, but I bloody well know what I’m talking about in this case.
- Whatever. When we ignore the intentions of the artist while interpreting art is when we begin to make it meaningless.
Well said, PLD, but the part about the intent of the artist goes to the heart of aesthetics, where this assertion finds little support. And don’t assume I was talking about you in any claims, the temptation to personalize things is what this thread is all about. Thanks anyway. If I was talking about inspiration, I would have approached this differently, I was talking about the song’s arch meaning in history and music.
vanilla, you’ve go to stop banging on that one key on the piano and actually read the scriptures. You keep talking about Romans 3:10 (There is none righteous, no, not one), but you’ve ignored such other verses as:
Context is important. You keep complaining that LDS beliefs contradict the bible, and yet if you only quote a single verse and interpret it literally you’re contradicting other parts of the Bible. Note that the quote in Matthew above is in fact a quote of Jesus. Please let me know who you believe: Jesus or Paul–or is it possible that your interpretation is problematic?
See, vanilla? I warned you! 