Queer Mormon poet with radical political views. I have been married 27 years, and we have 6 children. Sunday school president. Served in the Utah Provo Mission.
View all posts by Kim Siever
120 thoughts on “Do you think the endowment ceremony is literal?”
Okay. If you prefer those who spend their time in tasteless, infantile mockery of other people’s faith, I can’t dissuade you.
You’re just full of ad hominem attacks today, aren’t you ltbugaf?
Kim, I’m continually puzzled that among the piles of ad hominem attacks made on these pages—against me, against Gordon B. Hinckley, against Boyd K. Packer, and so forth—that you seem to notice only my criticisms.
Let me point out a basic definitional truth about ad hominem attack: This logical fallacy is the practice of responding to a factual statement or logical argument with a personal attack on the proponent of that argument. That isn’t what I did:
When rick accused Elder Talmage of hubris, I responded with substance, offering an explanation of why the quoted passage was reasonable and not arrogant. When, for his amusement, rick lampooned me, the scriptures and the concept of prophecy in comment 89, I responded with arguments and substance: I showed that his admonition to repent was inconsistent with his own logical position rejecting the concept. I also pointed out that his using a scriptural argument to tell me I shouldn’t make a prediction was (a) inconsistent with his position rejecting the scriptures, and (b) inconsistent with his stated position that the Prophet should speak words God hasn’t commanded him to speak. I pointed out that his citing of a Catholic doctrine had no persuasive weight in a discussion between two people who don’t believe in said doctrine. I pointed out that the scripture he cited obviously didn’t apply to the normal, everyday variety of prediction I had made because it wasn’t a prophecy.
When rick continued his ridicule of the sacred in comment 92, I pointed out that his reference to the Gift of Tongues was inconsistent with his own position. I pointed out that his response to my question about spiritual gifts was nonresponsive. In addition, I pointed out that the way he had treated topics such as the Gift of Prophecy and the Gift of Tongues was immature and disrespectful.
Those aren’t ad hominem arguments.
In addition, let me ask you something: When you read rick’s comments above, can you honestly disagree that he’s engaging in puerile mockery of the faith of others? Do you actually believe my description is in any way inaccurate?
Rick: Get over yourself. You’re not that smart. You know way too much about LDS doctrine. It’s kinda creepy. Get a life, man.
ltbugaf: No use getting into doctrinal debate (or any debate, for that matter) with someone who will refute everything you say simply because you said it. If you were to say “The sky is blue,” Rick would point out to you that, on average, the trend in North American cities is for grey/mixed skies over blue skies.
Kim: As a Priesthood leader I feel you have an obligation to stop these threads before they get this far. Healthy debate is one thing, but providing a forum for continuing disrespect of the gospel and the sustained prophets of this dispensation is quite another.
Dallas, you’re giving rick way too much credit. Where have you seen him actually refute anything I’ve said? :)
Fair enough. I just don’t understand the motivation here.
Ltbugaf,
You may want to re-read the commenting policy. It was written partly in response to all the name calling at the time (from more than just you). Yours is the only name calling I noticed yesterday, and the frequency of it prompted my response. Calling someone a child and an idiot is hardly constructive debate.
That being said, I think everyone could do with a refresher read of the commenting policy. There doesn’t seem to be much logical, mature debate on here lately.
Dallas,
You may want to re-read the comments in this thread? The comments that seem to disrespect the gospel are actually aimed at ltbugaf and the way he responds to comments and topics.
Dallas,
What section of the handbook does “Blogging” fall under? I’m sure Kim needs to re-read that part.
And when should we be scheduling our VPPI’s with Kim?
Give me a break!
This is the internet. A free exchange of ideas and thoughts. Any idiot is free to contribute. Kim has set up guidelines for the use of this site. If anyone violates those, I’m sure he’ll act.
If you can’t take it, maybe you need to look elsewhere for socialization fix?
ltbugaf, the only person I’m mocking here is you.
Dallas, thank you for the drive-by smear. When you have something more substantive to contribute, please stop by again.
Sorry folks. I let myself wake up on the wrong side of the keyboard yesterday. Not appropriate.
You’re not the only one at fault here, Dallas. Further personal attacks from anyone on this thread will be deleted.
Kim, in 107 you say I was “name calling” when I described rick’s mockery of spiritual gifts and other sacred topics childish and idiotic. You directly equate that with “calling someone a child and an idiot.”
If that’s the case, then when you say, “There doesn’t seem to be much logical, mature debate on here lately,” are you engaging in name calling? Do you equate that statement with calling people illogical and immature?
When you say “The comments that seem to disrespect the gospel are actually aimed at ltbugaf and the way he responds to comments and topics,” do you actually believe rick is not showing disrespect towards our religion? And do you think the comments you say are directed at me—such as 83, 92, 95 and 97—are “constructive debate”? Or are they puerile mockery of faith, just as I said?
Wow!
Re: comment #104
I’m having a hard time understanding why it is a bad/creepy thing to be knowledgable about any religion. I like to read about all religions. This is where I come to the realization that it is possible that the LDS church is NOT the one-and-only true church. I like to be well informed about anything I am involved with or do.
Re: comment #101
Ouch…So, we as parents are wrong for teaching our children about all religions and making decisions for themselves. Wow.
Just because someone doesn’t believe the same things as you do, it doesn’t make them less of a person.
JM
JINX! You owe me a……diet coke!
Dar…
I’ve got one in the fridge for ya. Next time you’re up in cow town, stop by. :-)
So, does anyone want to still talk about whether the temple ceremony is literal or not, or should I just change the post to an open thread?
Re: comment #101 Ouch…So, we as parents are wrong for teaching our children about all religions and making decisions for themselves. Wow.
Dar, in which part of comment 101 did I say any parents were wrong to teach their children about all religions?
So, does anyone want to still talk about whether the temple ceremony is literal or not…?
Kim, I tried to discuss that topic. I offered two excerpts from Apostles that deal with that topic directly. Every time I’ve tried, someone else has immediately dragged us back off topic, because—as he says—he enjoys making fun of me.
Apparently, I wasn’t clear, ltbugaf (considering you continue to draw out unrelated discussions, re: #118).
Any more comments unrelated to this thread will be deleted. I am quickly growing tired of the sandbox fighting happening lately.
Okay. If you prefer those who spend their time in tasteless, infantile mockery of other people’s faith, I can’t dissuade you.
You’re just full of ad hominem attacks today, aren’t you ltbugaf?
Kim, I’m continually puzzled that among the piles of ad hominem attacks made on these pages—against me, against Gordon B. Hinckley, against Boyd K. Packer, and so forth—that you seem to notice only my criticisms.
Let me point out a basic definitional truth about ad hominem attack: This logical fallacy is the practice of responding to a factual statement or logical argument with a personal attack on the proponent of that argument. That isn’t what I did:
When rick accused Elder Talmage of hubris, I responded with substance, offering an explanation of why the quoted passage was reasonable and not arrogant. When, for his amusement, rick lampooned me, the scriptures and the concept of prophecy in comment 89, I responded with arguments and substance: I showed that his admonition to repent was inconsistent with his own logical position rejecting the concept. I also pointed out that his using a scriptural argument to tell me I shouldn’t make a prediction was (a) inconsistent with his position rejecting the scriptures, and (b) inconsistent with his stated position that the Prophet should speak words God hasn’t commanded him to speak. I pointed out that his citing of a Catholic doctrine had no persuasive weight in a discussion between two people who don’t believe in said doctrine. I pointed out that the scripture he cited obviously didn’t apply to the normal, everyday variety of prediction I had made because it wasn’t a prophecy.
When rick continued his ridicule of the sacred in comment 92, I pointed out that his reference to the Gift of Tongues was inconsistent with his own position. I pointed out that his response to my question about spiritual gifts was nonresponsive. In addition, I pointed out that the way he had treated topics such as the Gift of Prophecy and the Gift of Tongues was immature and disrespectful.
Those aren’t ad hominem arguments.
In addition, let me ask you something: When you read rick’s comments above, can you honestly disagree that he’s engaging in puerile mockery of the faith of others? Do you actually believe my description is in any way inaccurate?
Rick: Get over yourself. You’re not that smart. You know way too much about LDS doctrine. It’s kinda creepy. Get a life, man.
ltbugaf: No use getting into doctrinal debate (or any debate, for that matter) with someone who will refute everything you say simply because you said it. If you were to say “The sky is blue,” Rick would point out to you that, on average, the trend in North American cities is for grey/mixed skies over blue skies.
Kim: As a Priesthood leader I feel you have an obligation to stop these threads before they get this far. Healthy debate is one thing, but providing a forum for continuing disrespect of the gospel and the sustained prophets of this dispensation is quite another.
Dallas, you’re giving rick way too much credit. Where have you seen him actually refute anything I’ve said? :)
Fair enough. I just don’t understand the motivation here.
Ltbugaf,
You may want to re-read the commenting policy. It was written partly in response to all the name calling at the time (from more than just you). Yours is the only name calling I noticed yesterday, and the frequency of it prompted my response. Calling someone a child and an idiot is hardly constructive debate.
That being said, I think everyone could do with a refresher read of the commenting policy. There doesn’t seem to be much logical, mature debate on here lately.
Dallas,
You may want to re-read the comments in this thread? The comments that seem to disrespect the gospel are actually aimed at ltbugaf and the way he responds to comments and topics.
Dallas,
What section of the handbook does “Blogging” fall under? I’m sure Kim needs to re-read that part.
And when should we be scheduling our VPPI’s with Kim?
Give me a break!
This is the internet. A free exchange of ideas and thoughts. Any idiot is free to contribute. Kim has set up guidelines for the use of this site. If anyone violates those, I’m sure he’ll act.
If you can’t take it, maybe you need to look elsewhere for socialization fix?
ltbugaf, the only person I’m mocking here is you.
Dallas, thank you for the drive-by smear. When you have something more substantive to contribute, please stop by again.
Sorry folks. I let myself wake up on the wrong side of the keyboard yesterday. Not appropriate.
You’re not the only one at fault here, Dallas. Further personal attacks from anyone on this thread will be deleted.
Kim, in 107 you say I was “name calling” when I described rick’s mockery of spiritual gifts and other sacred topics childish and idiotic. You directly equate that with “calling someone a child and an idiot.”
If that’s the case, then when you say, “There doesn’t seem to be much logical, mature debate on here lately,” are you engaging in name calling? Do you equate that statement with calling people illogical and immature?
When you say “The comments that seem to disrespect the gospel are actually aimed at ltbugaf and the way he responds to comments and topics,” do you actually believe rick is not showing disrespect towards our religion? And do you think the comments you say are directed at me—such as 83, 92, 95 and 97—are “constructive debate”? Or are they puerile mockery of faith, just as I said?
Wow!
Re: comment #104
I’m having a hard time understanding why it is a bad/creepy thing to be knowledgable about any religion. I like to read about all religions. This is where I come to the realization that it is possible that the LDS church is NOT the one-and-only true church. I like to be well informed about anything I am involved with or do.
Re: comment #101
Ouch…So, we as parents are wrong for teaching our children about all religions and making decisions for themselves. Wow.
Just because someone doesn’t believe the same things as you do, it doesn’t make them less of a person.
JM
JINX! You owe me a……diet coke!
Dar…
I’ve got one in the fridge for ya. Next time you’re up in cow town, stop by. :-)
So, does anyone want to still talk about whether the temple ceremony is literal or not, or should I just change the post to an open thread?
Dar, in which part of comment 101 did I say any parents were wrong to teach their children about all religions?
Kim, I tried to discuss that topic. I offered two excerpts from Apostles that deal with that topic directly. Every time I’ve tried, someone else has immediately dragged us back off topic, because—as he says—he enjoys making fun of me.
Apparently, I wasn’t clear, ltbugaf (considering you continue to draw out unrelated discussions, re: #118).
Any more comments unrelated to this thread will be deleted. I am quickly growing tired of the sandbox fighting happening lately.