harmony wrote: Posting on an internet bulletin board doesn't constitute publishing or public speaking.
Reality notwithstanding.
I can see why truth, facts and evidence have no place in your argument here or anywhere.
rcrocket
And once again you demonstrate that you cannot let a day go by without insulting me. A person would think we were still in junior high.
What reality are you thinking of, rcrocket? Yours, or the real one?
I do not insult you. I challenge your argument. I am not sure what thinking objective people really think when you counterattack with a claim of insult at anybody who might disagree with you.
The reality is, simply, that the internet is a medium to publish thought.
As the U.S. Supreme Court said in Reno v. ACLU, 117 S. Ct. 2329 (1997): "Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can become a pamphleteer."
Your internet postings "resonate" much further than the proverbial soapbox, which itself is public advocacy and publication.
The Internet is simply another public medium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet. There are no restrictions on access. Anybody with a computer may read what you post. What you post is called "publishing." I have no doubt that any church pastor or leader, whether it be a Mormon Bishop or an Episcopal priest, or any college communications professor, would agree with you.
What you post is "public" and a "publication."
rcrocket
Well, then I guess my bishop is wrong. And since he's my judge in Zion, he's the one who has the interpretation I'll follow. And until the church has a little better definition of what an apostate is, you're just going to have to continue to faunch at the bit.
harmony wrote: Well, then I guess my bishop is wrong. And since he's my judge in Zion, he's the one who has the interpretation I'll follow. And until the church has a little better definition of what an apostate is, you're just going to have to continue to faunch at the bit.
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. My post said nothing about being an apostate.
Why should I accept your bishop's private interpretation over the law, common sense and common parlance?
I mean, having read what I've posted, do you continue to believe that your posts on this board are neither "publications" nor made to the "public?"
harmony's statement originally came out of a discussion in this thread about what "level" of "apostacy" would require/garner what kind of discipline. Nehor argued that one could "apostacize" in the sense of "dropping out" and no actions would ever be taken. The line, he said, would come if the person was "actively attacking or slandering the Church." His example was,
"If I were to stop going to Church tomorrow and live my life as if I were a non-member I wouldn't face any discipline. If I started publishing or publicly speaking out against the Church action might be taken."
harmony then offered the opinion that conversations on a bulletin board weren't public speaking or publishing. I took this as her arguing that common sensically, as most reg'lr people take it, these spaces (bbs's) are understood as more akin to mere conversation than publishing a tract.
She has previously, in multiple threads If I recall correctly, said that her bishop knows where and what she posts online, and does not consider this grounds for any kind of discipline.
The you came along and threw insults around.
There are very intereresting ways to legally interpret "public" and "private" as it applies to the internet, as well as interesting ways that cyberspace offers challenges to how we understand the production and distribution of knowledge (publishing). So you could really have some interesting and valuable insights for this discussion.
Too bad you don't understand how to usefully contribute. The first step would be to read the thread before you barged in on it.
Last edited by Anonymous on Wed May 30, 2007 2:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
From the Ernest L. Wilkinson Diaries: "ELW dreams he's spattered w/ grease. Hundreds steal his greasy pants."
harmony wrote: Well, then I guess my bishop is wrong. And since he's my judge in Zion, he's the one who has the interpretation I'll follow. And until the church has a little better definition of what an apostate is, you're just going to have to continue to faunch at the bit.
I honestly have no clue what you're talking about. My post said nothing about being an apostate.
All of your posts to me have to do with being an apostate.
Why should I accept your bishop's private interpretation over the law, common sense and common parlance?
You don't have to. He's not your bishop.
I mean, having read what I've posted, do you continue to believe that your posts on this board are neither "publications" nor made to the "public?"
rcrocket
Perhaps you are right, in the legal sense. But this isn't a court of law, and if I remember correctly, law as it applies to the internet is constantly in flux.
Blixa wrote:harmony's statement originally came out of a discussion in this thread about what "level" of "apostacy" would require/garner what kind of discipline. Nehor argued that one could "apostacize" in the sense of "dropping out" and no actions would ever be taken. The line, he said, would come if the person was "actively attacking or slandering the Church." His example was,
"If I were to stop going to Church tomorrow and live my life as if I were a non-member I wouldn't face any discipline. If I started publishing or publicly speaking out against the Church action might be taken."
harmony then offered the opinion that conversations on a bulletin board weren't public speaking or publishing. I took this as her arguing that common sensically, as most reg'lr people take it, these spaces (bbs's) are understood as more akin to mere conversation than publishing a tract.
She has previously, in multiple threads If I recall correctly, said that her bishop knows where and what she posts online, and does not consider this grounds for any kind of discipline.
The you came along and threw insults around.
There are very intereresting ways to legally interpret "public" and "private" as it applies to the internet, as well as interesting ways that cyberspace offers challenges to how we understand the production and distribution of knowledge (publishing). So you could really have some interesting and valuable insights for this discussion.
Too bad you don't understand how to usefully contribute. The first step would be to read the thread before you barged in on it.
That's her Bishop's right to decide.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
Blixa wrote:harmony's statement originally came out of a discussion in this thread about what "level" of "apostacy" would require/garner what kind of discipline. Nehor argued that one could "apostacize" in the sense of "dropping out" and no actions would ever be taken. The line, he said, would come if the person was "actively attacking or slandering the Church." His example was,
"If I were to stop going to Church tomorrow and live my life as if I were a non-member I wouldn't face any discipline. If I started publishing or publicly speaking out against the Church action might be taken."
harmony then offered the opinion that conversations on a bulletin board weren't public speaking or publishing. I took this as her arguing that common sensically, as most reg'lr people take it, these spaces (bbs's) are understood as more akin to mere conversation than publishing a tract.
She has previously, in multiple threads If I recall correctly, said that her bishop knows where and what she posts online, and does not consider this grounds for any kind of discipline.
The you came along and threw insults around.
There are very intereresting ways to legally interpret "public" and "private" as it applies to the internet, as well as interesting ways that cyberspace offers challenges to how we understand the production and distribution of knowledge (publishing). So you could really have some interesting and valuable insights for this discussion.
Too bad you don't understand how to usefully contribute. The first step would be to read the thread before you barged in on it.
No insult intended. But I think your posts are cute.
The Nehor wrote:That's her Bishop's right to decide.
And his duty. Which he takes very seriously. And since he's been my friend for almost 40 years, and he loves and understands me, and knows if he tried to force my feet onto a rigidly orthodox path, he'd lose me, he allows God to bless us both, and follows the inspiration which he is given in his stewardship over me. He believes that if God was displeased with me (or any of his flock), that God would make it known to him. My SP is the same (he's the one who fought for my son in a power struggle with the then-SP that ended with the then-SP backing down.). God watches over those of us who ask the questions and still keep trying.
I could have walked away, and never found a way to make it work for me. I'm sure that would make rcrocket, coggins, and assorted others much happier. Fortunately for my family and I, patient bishops and understanding stake presidents understood when to back off and simply love me, and trust that I would find a way to stay. But then, neither of them are a product of BYU. They both attended Ricks when it was Ricks, and then came home to farm. Perhaps BYU is where the self-righteous pricks are made, so they avoided that mandatory class.
The Nehor wrote:That's her Bishop's right to decide.
And his duty. Which he takes very seriously. And since he's been my friend for almost 40 years, and he loves and understands me, and knows if he tried to force my feet onto a rigidly orthodox path, he'd lose me, he allows God to bless us both, and follows the inspiration which he is given in his stewardship over me. He believes that if God was displeased with me (or any of his flock), that God would make it known to him. My SP is the same (he's the one who fought for my son in a power struggle with the then-SP that ended with the then-SP backing down.). God watches over those of us who ask the questions and still keep trying.
I could have walked away, and never found a way to make it work for me. I'm sure that would make rcrocket, coggins, and assorted others much happier. Fortunately for my family and I, patient bishops and understanding stake presidents understood when to back off and simply love me, and trust that I would find a way to stay. But then, neither of them are a product of BYU. They both attended Ricks when it was Ricks, and then came home to farm. Perhaps BYU is where the self-righteous pricks are made, so they avoided that mandatory class.
I for one am glad you're still there.
"Surely he knows that DCP, The Nehor, Lamanite, and other key apologists..." -Scratch clarifying my status in apologetics "I admit it; I'm a petty, petty man." -Some Schmo
The Nehor wrote:That's her Bishop's right to decide.
And his duty. Which he takes very seriously. And since he's been my friend for almost 40 years, and he loves and understands me, and knows if he tried to force my feet onto a rigidly orthodox path, he'd lose me, he allows God to bless us both, and follows the inspiration which he is given in his stewardship over me. He believes that if God was displeased with me (or any of his flock), that God would make it known to him. My SP is the same (he's the one who fought for my son in a power struggle with the then-SP that ended with the then-SP backing down.). God watches over those of us who ask the questions and still keep trying.
I could have walked away, and never found a way to make it work for me. I'm sure that would make rcrocket, coggins, and assorted others much happier. Fortunately for my family and I, patient bishops and understanding stake presidents understood when to back off and simply love me, and trust that I would find a way to stay. But then, neither of them are a product of BYU. They both attended Ricks when it was Ricks, and then came home to farm. Perhaps BYU is where the self-righteous pricks are made, so they avoided that mandatory class.
moksha wrote:How about a software A.I. scanner can can check our posts for purity of doctrinal content? Red flagged posts could then be scrutinized more carefully by the data analysis section of the Committee.
Why not? No Such Agency has been doing exactly that to all electronic commications into and out of the US and most of our allies with ECHELON for decades now...