So the Cardinal goes in for a lap dance and that is possible,
I did not accuse of any Cardinal of doing so, y’know.
but the LDS apostle goes in for a drink, not exactly an apple to apple comparison is it?
Actually, it was. After all, it is not only not a sin, but wouldn’t be especially noteworthy, for a Catholic Cardinal to go into a country club bar and have a glass of wine or a beer. Nothing sinful in that. In fact, I rather imagine that it happens, if not frequently, certainly often enough; there is nothing about having a glass of wine or a beer that is even remotely problematic for a Catholic, is there?
The"Apples to apples" here is the seriousness of the respective sins. I picked one that, if engaged in by a Catholic Cardinal, would BE the equivalent hypocritical action to that of an LDS apostle having an alchoholic drink in a public bar.
And the cardinal could get away with it because… he’s sneaky
No, because your own canon law does not specify excommunication for such a thing. An LDS apostle doing this would be excommunicated…or at the very least removed from his position as an apostle.
Of course, historically Catholic Cardinals have done considerably wilder things than that…some of them going on to be Popes. However, I don’t think any modern Cardinals are likely to engage in things their historic predecessors seemed to enjoy.
? no one would notice? no one would care? why???
er, where did you see me write ‘no one would notice,’ or 'no one would care?" Odd, I don’t see those words anywhere. You could at least to us all the courtesy of quoting me correctly and not adding stuff.
And then we have the apostle who could not possibly get away with it why? He’s not sneaky? someone would see him? someone would care?
why??
Because, my friend, it has happened before with us. We do excommunicate apostles who screw up. The point of that whole exchange was that the poster claiming that her friend served booze to an apostle was LYING, and was allowed to get away with that because everybody here simply loved the idea of an LDS apostle who would drink booze at a bar; therefore of course, even though the report was second hand “I have a friend who…” and sketchy at that, everybody simply rejoiced in the idea and took it as absolute gospel truth.
It was incredibly offensive, gossop mongering of the worst sort, and I sure didn’t see anybody speaking up in the defense of this maligned general authority. Nobody questioned the idea…just how likely IS it that a man who was that high in the organization of the church would go into a Utah high end country club bar and drink anything alcoholic, anyway? I mean, really…it WOULD be as stupid as having a Cardinal in full regalia walking into a strip joint for a lap dance. I can’t even conceive of a Cardinal doing such an insanely stupid thing. Why didn’t it occur to anybody that having a member of the LDS Quorum of the Twelve Apostles drinking booze at a bar would be equally as unlikely?
I mean…look at the uproar even the comparison caused; I didn’t even accuse a Cardinal of doing anything like that. In fact, the whole idea was about how utterly unlikely a scenario it would be, but nobody here figured out that,
for us, accusing an apostle of drinking booze at a bar is JUST AS OFFENSIVE???
What we have here is two hypothetical people, one who hypothetically seeks a lap dance and gets away with it and another who can’t even be connected to a lap dance even remotely, in a hypothetical situation.
The hypothetical weights the cardinal and the apostle differently.
Except that the accusation against the apostle, Z, was not hypothetical. The claim was that the event actually happened—and the story was believed by most here, even though the story was third hand (I have a friend who…) and didn’t even BEGIN with the idea that the drink had alcohol in it. That detail was added later as the story became more and more imbellished.
Nope, in this case it was a hypothetical situation given to illustrate the absurdity of the very real accusation.
shaw:
