Christians and Softball

[mossrose]

well it could teach them more better grammar!

I did that on purpose because it sounded more better than just saying "better".

:razz:

[Sparko]

Then post links to ten such threads.

Oh Lord, But peradventure there shall lack five of the ten such threads: wilt thou deny the claim for lack of five?

[JB]

So did they end up saying "No LDS at all are allowed" ? I can't quite figure out what their policy ended up being. It seems to say that they originally were gonna allow individual LDS people to play, as long as they didn't sign up as an official, all-LDS team, but later they suspected that members of that team could or would sign up individually, which caused "concerns" about something or other, so they decided to just say "No LDS at all."

Is that an accurate summary of the situation? I am not at all sure that it is.

I'm not sure if anything has progressed in the past few days, but from the articles I've read (up through May 26), here's how things go:

• Christian churches in Mercer County form a Christian softball league for Christian churches
• Some teams allow individual Latter-day Saints to play on their teams, and nobody in the league has a real problem with that
• Then, abruptly, an independent LDS team forms and goes to a meeting and insists that they're going to join the league (and, recall, all the teams on the league are representing churches that the league can accept as Christian)
• Several teams threaten to withdraw from the league, because while they have no problem with individual Latter-day Saints playing, they have serious theological objections to allowing the league to represent the LDS Church as a Christian church
• Because of this internal controversy, the league decides that the best course of action available is to prevent the LDS team from joining, although individual Latter-day Saints are still allowed to play on the teams that are in the league
• A media firestorm starts over alleged "intolerance", and some people have a hard time understanding that this decision can be about more than just softball, but rather is about a legitimate disagreement with the LDS attempt to represent their church as a Christian church
• OC, being one of those people, starts this thread here

And thus we have our chronology. At no point in the articles do we see anyone having concerns about individual Latter-day Saints playing in the league for non-LDS teams; that seems to be okay with everybody. It's just having an LDS team that's a problem for the league - and, I think, on reasonable grounds.

[mossrose]

Do you doubt that it's possible that some people's behavior could be improved as a result of things they read in a book?

I doubt that simply reading the book changes people's behaviour in any way. There is a choice involved somewhere. I don't say, "I am going to go and read the Bible so I treat other people well today." I manage to remember that I am supposed to treat people well.

[Sparko]

I doubt that simply reading the book changes people's behaviour in any way. There is a choice involved somewhere. I don't say, "I am going to go and read the Bible so I treat other people well today." I manage to remember that I am supposed to treat people well.

then why are you always hitting me with The Pin(TM)?

[Cerebrum123]

Then post links to ten such threads.

I have only been able to find one other thread where CP used that, but it is one that you posted in. http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...vy#post3416518

[nrajeff]

Oh Lord, But peradventure there shall lack five of the ten such threads: wilt thou deny the claim for lack of five?

Well, if I promise to give you "many dollars," and I end up only giving you $5, will you deny that I gave you many dollars?

[Cerebrum123]

Well, if I promise to give you "many dollars," and I end up only giving you $5, will you deny that I gave you many dollars?

I would. (and I could use it too )

[Cow Poke]

Then post links to ten such threads.

This is just diversion nonsense from Jeff, Brum.

I have NUMEROUS times mocked the notion that Smith "Restored" the Church, and I have OFTEN referred to it as similar to somebody restoring a '57 Chevy and ending up with a dump truck. (On at least ONE occasion, I used an Abrams M1A1 Battle Tank, but felt that was a discredit to the Abrams ) That would, QUITE OBVIOUSLY, be a very flawed "restoration", at best. The POINT was (and remains) that Smith's "restored" Church is MUCH more similar in many ways to the Masonic Temple than to the Jewish Temple.

In order for Smith to have "restored" the Church, the end result would need to closely resemble that from which it was RESTORED.

(prepare for redefinitions of "restore" )

[nrajeff]

I'm not sure if anything has progressed in the past few days, but from the articles I've read (up through May 26), here's how things go:

• Christian churches in Mercer County form a Christian softball league for Christian churches
• Some teams allow individual Latter-day Saints to play on their teams, and nobody in the league has a real problem with that
• Then, abruptly, an independent LDS team forms and goes to a meeting and insists that they're going to join the league (and, recall, all the teams on the league are representing churches that the league can accept as Christian)
• Several teams threaten to withdraw from the league, because while they have no problem with individual Latter-day Saints playing, they have serious theological objections to allowing the league to represent the LDS Church as a Christian church
• Because of this internal controversy, the league decides that the best course of action available is to prevent the LDS team from joining, although individual Latter-day Saints are still allowed to play on the teams that are in the league
• A media firestorm starts over alleged "intolerance", and some people have a hard time understanding that this decision can be about more than just softball, but rather is about a legitimate disagreement with the LDS attempt to represent their church as a Christian church
• OC, being one of those people, starts this thread here

And thus we have our chronology. At no point in the articles do we see anyone having concerns about individual Latter-day Saints playing in the league for non-LDS teams; that seems to be okay with everybody. It's just having an LDS team that's a problem for the league - and, I think, on reasonable grounds.

Thanks for taking the time to explain.

[nrajeff]

This is just diversion nonsense from Jeff, Brum.

Don't you find it miraculous how when the pro-LDS make an untrue assertion, you characterize it as not being honest, but when an anti-LDS person makes an untrue assertion, the mere request that the person support it magically becomes "diversion nonsense"?

Or, it could just be a case of a double standard, instead of a miracle.

[Cow Poke]

Don't you find it miraculous how when the pro-LDS make an untrue assertion, you characterize it as not being honest,

Well, Jeff, if it's an untrue assertion, it IS dishonest. Even for a Mormon!

but when an anti-LDS person makes an untrue assertion, even daring to ask the person to support magically becomes "diversion nonsense"?

The game you play, Jeff, is that you don't call it "untrue", or challenge the truth of it... you just come up with this "show me 10 links" nonsense. I really don't believe you are oblivious to the fact that I have, on NUMEROUS occasions, referred to the "restoration" using the analogy I employed.

Or, it could just be a case of a double standard, instead of a miracle.

Or, it COULD just be more JeffyDrama!

[Sparko]

Well, if I promise to give you "many dollars," and I end up only giving you $5, will you deny that I gave you many dollars?

You are not going to make a very good God one day with an attitude like that. Genesis 18

[OtherCheek]

This is just diversion nonsense from Jeff, Brum.

I have NUMEROUS times mocked the notion that Smith "Restored" the Church, and I have OFTEN referred to it as similar to somebody restoring a '57 Chevy and ending up with a dump truck. (On at least ONE occasion, I used an Abrams M1A1 Battle Tank, but felt that was a discredit to the Abrams ) That would, QUITE OBVIOUSLY, be a very flawed "restoration", at best. The POINT was (and remains) that Smith's "restored" Church is MUCH more similar in many ways to the Masonic Temple than to the Jewish Temple.

In order for Smith to have "restored" the Church, the end result would need to closely resemble that from which it was RESTORED.

(prepare for redefinitions of "restore" )

Which was a silly analogy as it only address one aspect of the term "restoration."

"Restoration", as LDS view the term IMO, is to make available all covenants, ordinances, and teachings necessary to fulfill the promises and covenants given to the fathers since the time of Adam.

Part of the concept of restoration is to restore the offices of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. This entails the restoration of the concept of continual revelation.

When looking at the LDS Church, and the LDS view of "Restoration" you can't view it through the lens of "orthodoxy" and "stamped in stone" practices. The idea of everything being "stamped in stone" would negate the need for living prophets.

[Cerebrum123]

Which was a silly analogy as it only address one aspect of the term "restoration."

"Restoration", as LDS view the term IMO, is to make available all covenants, ordinances, and teachings necessary to fulfill the promises and covenants given to the fathers since the time of Adam.

Part of the concept of restoration is to restore the offices of Prophet, Seer, and Revelator. This entails the restoration of the concept of continual revelation.

When looking at the LDS Church, and the LDS view of "Restoration" you can't view it through the lens of "orthodoxy" and "stamped in stone" practices. The idea of everything being "stamped in stone" would negate the need for living prophets.

There haven't been any "true prophets" in a very long time, so I doubt they are necessary.