Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SilentDawning wrote:
Is failing to give someone privileges, get into close relationships with them, etcetera, considered holding a grudge after you have let go of the emotional angst? Particularly when the withheld privileges and close relationships are based on lack of trust and self-protectionism?
I believe a perfect man would be willing to restore relationships, trust, and privileges, should the offender demonstrate true repentance and change. But the thing is, not everyone who claims “repentance” has changed, even if they believe they have changed. And sometimes the victim is hurt bad enough that to maintain that relationship would continually remind them of the offense. Neither side is perfect.
What’s important to look at, I think, is the reason why you continue to withhold privileges, and close relationships. Is it because you’re honestly afraid they will betray your trust again? Or it is because you’re still ticked at them? At first glance, you might put yourself in the first category, but I think it’s worth a deeper assessment. For example, would you be willing to maintain a relationship with them, if they were literally unable to betray your trust the way they did before?
I think that’s a very good analysis, OON. I think the evidence points in high-likelihood to those conclusions. HIstorically, Jehovah has been a God of War.
It’s the best value for LDS students, who are required to adhere to certain standards, including the paying of tithing, or risk expulsion. I have no doubt the system is in place to guarantee the Church a hefty return on their investment. Compared with other universities, they operate on an “alternative revenue stream”. That being said, I think most every other private college is all about getting the most profits up front. It’s not a good deal for students. I really hope, and think we will, completely change our current secondary education system. Education beyond high school doesn’t make a lot of sense, and a lot of companies are forming their own “universities” (from Google to McDonalds), which cater their education towards a specific skill set, rather than giving a “general education”, thinking it’ll prepare students for the workforce. Plus, online education is becoming a lot cheaper, more effective, and more lucrative.
But maybe I’m biased. I earned one of the toughest degrees from BYU, and couldn’t find a job that paid more than $17 an hour (after three years of searching), completely unrelated to what I studied. So I took some time off, went through a bunch of online courses in programming, built up a portfolio… and in six-months of non-formal education wound up with a job that I love, and pays a
LOTmore. And the company I work for (which is incredibly good to us), straight up doesn’t care if you have a degree. They only care if you know how to do the work. War is an awful thing. We’re still killing far too many people for no good reason. But we have seen an unprecedented amount of peace these past few decades, that I’m grateful for. The news will always sensationalize things, and make it seemlike the end of the world is nigh. But all things considered, we’re doing very well (comparatively). rrosskopf wrote:
The people of Utah had a genuine beef with the wagon train, which they tried to settle first through legal means, and although they were extremely paranoid because of the current tension between the US and the church, it wasn’t part of Brigham Young’s war plans. It was an independent and isolated decision. The wagon train either 1) shouldn’t have poisoned the well or 2) turned over the people suspected of poisoning the well to let justice decide their guilt or innocence. If you put it in today’s context, you can’t just go to New York, poison a public water utility, and then refuse arrest because you are not a New Yorker.
Far too many assumptions in this. Utah was a theocracy, in practice. Early Mormons were extraordinarily superstitious. They were out for blood. And to be very frank, the Mormon method for determining truth should
NEVERbe allowed in a court of law. I think your example could better be rephrased as: “If you put it in today’s context, you can’t travel through Saudi Arabia, get accused of poisoning the water supply (because you hate their religion), and then refuse arrest because you are afraid they’ll stone you without a fair trial.”
nibbler wrote:
Don’t look directly into the comments.
*Immediately looks at the comments*
. Thanks, Nibs. DarkJedi wrote:
(I read that last part somewhere and thought it kind of catchy.)
You might want to check that source. I thought it came from some radical polygamist, or something.
Yeah… EVERYBODY does this. Matthew did this in the New Testament allthetime. I don’t think it’s intentional. I think most GAs, members, etc believe that if it supports their central message, and helps people to “come unto Christ” (however/whatever that means), it must be true… without checking context. It’s not really what I’d call deciet. It’s seeing evidence in everything to support what you already believe.
SilentDawning wrote:
I might add — is it possible to trust someone without forgiving them? We’ve established, I believe that we can forgive someone without trusting them, but is the reverse true?
If you can trust someone, but not forgive them, you’re in a very dark place.
SilentDawning wrote:
If you can agree that in forgiving someone, you are not necessarily trusting them. And if you can agree that forgiveness is a different virtue than trust, then we might have some agreement here.
I completely agree, trust is different than forgiveness. I wouldn’t call “trusting” a virtue though, by any stretch. But I also can’t say a person will be happy in a long term relationship, until they feel they can trust the other party. If “forgiving” means moving past and healing from the incident, maybe you can’t forgive without a restoration of trust or separation of the relationship. I don’t know. I think there are many definitions for “forgiveness”, and it’s often a process over time. But I don’t think “checklist forgiveness” is a healthy approach.
How would you define forgiveness?
D&C 64:9 wrote:“Ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin.
I get the premise behind this scripture, but I think it is often very misused. I think many in the Church use it to excuse themselves and reject responsibility for their mistakes, the moment they feel they are “forgiven” by God.
We should do our best to forgive those who have wronged us. But I think we should also be willing to forgive and empathize with those who can’t or won’t forgive us. I think we should offer especial care, consideration, and kindness to those we have wronged, regardless of what God or anyone else has to say about the “state of our soul”. Forgiveness doesn’t excuse us, and is not equated with repentance. Repentance is a long, ongoing process that does not end the moment we are “forgiven”.
I think we could all do to be a little more charitable and kind towards ourselves and others. Even where “agency” is at play, there are so many forces outside our control. As an example: Let’s say two people (Person A & Person
go out drinking. They have a few drinks too many, and drive home. Person A ends up running over and killing a kid. They gets arrested for vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated. That’s a minimum 4-10 years in most jurisdictions. Plus, if you’ve got a felony on your record, in the US, you’re life is pretty much ruined. Person B makes it home safe, and has no lasting repercussions. Maybe they hear what happened to person A, and resolves never to drink and drive again.Ultimately, our judicial system will hold person A accountable for manslaughter. Person B was given a “second chance”, and had no lasting repercussions. Also, if the parents who kids got killed by person A had been better at watching their kid, not letting them wander the streets late at night, Person A would’ve also had no lasting repercussions. Or what if person A had just “one more drink” than he had? Maybe they would’ve realized he was too drunk and gotten a taxi. Or what if they had just stayed an extra minute at the bar, before driving home. With the difference in timing, that kid wouldn’t have been there, and Person A wouldn’t have had any lasting repercussions.
I was at BYU, back in 2007, when First Counsellor Monson lifted the ban on homosexual (non-practicing) students. It’s pretty crazy to think before then, you could get kicked out of BYU for so much as confessing to your Bishop you were attracted to your same gender. I also remember back in 2011, when they lifted the ban of homosexual advocacy. It’s incredible how “quickly” things have changed. It still seems like a very polarizing issue at the BYU campus, but I don’t think that’s the fault of BYU itself, but rather old over-the-pulpit teachings from Church leaders. It
feelsmore accepting (again, the university, not all students/faculty), though I wonder if it’s largely due to publicity and social pressure, more than a “change of heart”. Can an organization really have a change of heart? rrosskopf wrote:
We are asked to take leaps of faith to discover whether something is inspired. Look at the brass serpent. See if you are cured. Pay an honest tithe. See if it doesn’t improve your relationship with the Lord. Go to the temple. See if it doesn’t improve your sense of fulfillment. Minister to others. See if it doesn’t bring joy into your life. Repentance is a leap of faith.
Many people have taken such leaps of faith. But what about those who fall and crash? Are we supposed to take only the words of those who survived?
[img]https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/survivorship_bias.png [/img] With the LGBT, there have been many over-the-pulpit doctrines taught that have had disasterous results when “tested”. There have been teachings that if parents are faithful in teaching their kids the gospel, it will prevent them from being gay. There have been teachings that certain “bad practices”, such as masturbation, are responsible for turning young men gay. And there been other teachings that if you do “struggle with same sex attraction”, that if you have enough faith, struggle and try hard enough, and trust in the atonement, such feelings can be conquored.
Any many people have trusted in these things. Many have taken “leaps of faith”. Many have felt that being gay is your own “fault”, or your parents “fault”, and if you have enough faith you can overcome them through the mercy and grace of the atonement. And when those feelings persist, it only makes them feel worse. This has lead to suicide on no small number of occasions.
Hi Jaxzmin! Happy to have a new voice in here. We’re all over the spectrum, but I’ve found it’s a wonderful place to bounce ideas and hear a variety of perspectives. I look forward to hearing yours.
Jaxzmin801 wrote:
But what good is religion that disconnects us from communication in our marriage?
IMHO, I think sometimes good marriage requires selective communication. Or at the very least,
tactfulcommunication. I think one of the biggest and most harmful myths of marriage, is that it’s supposed to fill all our needs for emotional support and intimacy. But humans are incredibly complex; everyone has a backstory as deep and conveluted as our own. For every person, there are some things we just don’t want to think about. We frame our reality not by what’s “objectively real”, but by what we need to believe to survive. When someone says or does anything to jepordize those “reality walls”, they can really go on the defensive. I guess what I’m saying is, it’s important to be empathetic and careful.
It sounds like a lot of your struggles have to do with “humans being human”. I get that. I’m not a fan of the statistics game, but for a lot of people, seeing numbers (any numbers) go up gives them courage to carry on. With the judgement, I think it’s because some people aren’t ok with being “not ok”. We often get down on ourselves in the Church, and pointing out the shortcomings in others… well, it’s stupid, but it does help to dull the pain of our own. Sort of like drinking in order to forget that you’re ashamed of your drinking (to paraphrase “the Little Prince”). It drives me nuts at church… but it’s ok to feel frustrated.
Welcome to the group!
