Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bear wrote:
Wow. That cannot feel nice in any way for you! I really couldn’t image anyone being ok with that today!
In defense of Bear’s wife, she is probably okay with it as a historical thing – as in ‘they were just human and made mistakes’. I would be shocked if she felt like that was appropriate behavior today.
This might not come as a surprise, but… I’m skeptical. The evidence he provided wasn’t “irrefutable” evidence. Mostly just seemed like conjecture. He referenced several points of evidence, but then didn’t share any details. More info needed.
If the story is true, it wouldn’t be shocking… not because our leaders are evil, but because it’s simply bound to happen… When bad people get power, they tend to do bad things. The Church is no guarantee of someone being good.
I also (sadly) wouldn’t be surprised if there was a coverup in the Church. Leaders have made several statements in the past implying strongly that it’s their duty to protect the Church at all costs. Maybe some of them view a case like this to be acceptable collateral damage.
If it is true, I would be in full support of complete justice. Using clout and power to marginalize a pedophile victim is absolutely filthy, and I don’t care what position you have or what good deeds you’ve done.
amateurparent wrote:
It is interesting to me that we spend so much time in religion talking about money. I don’t think God cares about our income. I don’t think he cares about how often we fast or what rituals we perform. I think he cares very much about our social actions. Are we kind? Do we attempt to do good? Do we give better than we received?I heard someone say that God doesn’t care
whatwe do, but howwe do it. I really liked that. I always intuitively felt that God wouldn’t care about our job, wealth, etc any more than he cares what socks we decide to wear. First, I’ll say that I really appreciate any effort that allows people to communicate in a respectful way. Though to me this feels a lot like mental gymnastics level 100 difficulty – but maybe that’s what’s required for the people committed to having respectful conversation. Here’s my take: Ann wrote:
1) accept the evidence for the materiality of what Joseph Smith presented to others as the plates; 2) accept Joseph Smith’s sincerity in believing that this object was, in fact, the sacred Nephite golden plates; 3) accept Joseph Smith asmentally healthy non-“delusional” person; and 4) yet not believe–i.e. not think that Joseph Smith actually had ancient golden plates. Taves’s hypothesis is that Joseph Smith made plates, or a stand-in for plates, and then transformed them, or believed God or the angel transformed them, into the golden plates.
I just can’t resolve those statements. It’s one thing to say, “Hey, I made this book out of tin sheets and God blessed it and transformed it into an ancient record”, and it’s another thing to create a book of tin plates, and then believe that not only did God transform the plates, but that he also sent an angel to give them to you in the first place. Removing your own hand in the creation/transformation process fits the textbook definition of delusional.
To me, it fails the Bushman/Givens test, and the rest falls down somewhat. I actually think it works better for someone like L Ron Hubbard, who acknowledges the creation of an object (the e-meter) that is then endowed with special divine properties.
Renlund is great. When he was called, his named seemed familiar, and then I realized that he’s the guy that gave my two favorite talks from the last decade. Woot! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If you care, you should say something to the leaders in question. Don’t return with passive aggression, but let them know what you’ve stated here: that you’re trying to create your own path to peace within the Church — which you understand isn’t the normal prescribed path — and hearing that they’re speaking negatively about you makes it much harder to find your own peace. If you can do this without anger or passive aggression, it will give you so much power in the relationship. They’ll understand that when they are feeling negative feelings toward you, there are only two options: a) keep their mouths shut or b) talk to you directly. Seems like a great first step towards a better working relationship.
If you don’t care, then ignore it.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I must live by you. And I loathe Top Golf. Worst eyesore ever. But I don’t remember people bashing on the Temple. I mean, people make suggestions about better ways to spend money, but it’s hard to argue that the Temple is an eyesore, and it’s proven to raise property values.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
university wrote:Do you sincerely want to listen to someone who you would probably classify as someone who “demonizes” the wealthy of the country?
I’m interested, if nothing else to hear a different perspective.
university wrote:
The American Dream as fed to millennials:Work Hard = Material Success/Wealth = Happiness.
As a Gen-Xer (and boy, are we a hot mess), that was also what was taught to us. And to be fair, it used to be true, when the US was a manufacturing powerhouse. We’re not anymore, and nothing was going to prevent that from happening in the long-run.
university wrote:
Consider that America is becoming one of the most difficult developed countries in the world to improve one’s economic class.The “work hard and you will be successful” motto is turning into a myth and already is for many, many people.
Maybe let’s qualify that statement by saying that it’s much more difficult for unskilled or manufacturing laborers to move up in class significantly. There’s just not the same market for those people. Also difficult for people who graduate with “softer” degrees: literature, humanities, political science, etc. I hear of a lot for people that go to college and graduate, only to find that their degree only commands $30k or $40k a year. I feel sorry for these people on one hand, but on the other hand, I have to wonder why this is a surprise…
People that graduate with engineering, science, MBA, medical degrees seem to be doing great. I work in computer science, and engineers straight out of college are making close to 6 figures.
And of course, there’s entrepreneurship. It’s easier now than it’s ever been to start and run a business with low overhead. Funding options have expanded significantly, and the entire world has opened up as opportunity. Entrepreneurship is booming. Failure rates are still high, and always have been, but that’s just part of the game.
university wrote:
Also, I will say this, while I won’t argue that my generation has its own sets of challenges and issues, we have also been statistically proven to the generation most involved in community service and long-term service projects as youth than generations before usI freaking love millennials, and believe they offer a great hope for the future. The main thing that worries me is they seem to lack a bit in resiliency, maybe in large part because they were oversold how special they were, and weren’t properly prepared for the real world.
I believe the intersection of social consciousness and capitalism could be the great legacy of the millennial generation. But it doesn’t work by funding all the care and concern by milking “the rich” (while simultaneously demonizing them). It works best by you guys realizing that the American Dream is alive and well, but it requires a little more ingenuity than you may have first thought.
Demonize cronyism and special interests and political corruption. But realize that the 1% “you people” (ha ha) like to bash on include a whole lot of small business owners that are in the 1% based on their gross income, but are barely eking out a normal middle-class existence when you factor in payroll, expenses, etc.
You’re fighting to raise their taxes.
End of pep talk.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
One more thought: we tend to think of wealth as a zero-sum game… That wealthy people only get wealthy by stealing from the poor. The reality is that most entrepreneurs create value and therefore wealth. When someone creates value at a large scale, bears the risk, and creates jobs, I have a hard time faulting them for buying a $200k Lambo. I worry that our society has developed a ridiculous envy and disdain for wealthy people, and I worry that this simply encourages mediocrity.
Absolutely nothing wrong with being wealthy – I don’t really buy into the idea that money corrupts people. I think it simply creates opportunity for people to be exactly who they are. When you see rioters looting stores… How do you suppose those people would behave given unlimited wealth? Probably no different than the people they love to vilify.
If we are going to fight anything, let’s fight cronyism and corruption, which exists at all strata of the wealth spectrum, and probably makes up a small percentage of ‘rich’ people.
First off, I’ll forgive you for your blasphemy against the Force (you implied that Star Wars is not doctrinal)… Which of Fowler’s Stages do you feel like you identify with the most?? And do you feel like your “opposition in all things” approach has changed as your faith has evolved (in the Fowler sense of things)? How has that worked for you?
The reason I’m asking is that I imagine (though it may not actually be the case), that a Stage 6 “opposition” would tend to come with a lot less angst and frustration than a Stage 4. And is it better for Stage 4’s to generally keep their mouths shut in public until they can work out some internal peace?? This is from someone who craves a more meaningful, different, and less-repetitive experience at Church, but isn’t sure how it would be received…
mom3 wrote:Yet in a sense excommunicating is working. Kind of like taking pawns off a chess board. As each person gets removed their ability to affect the general membership reduces. This serves the general membership well. I grew up during the time of September 6 rush, I never had heard of them until my own crisis. I was completely clueless. The same applies today. Even with the internet.
From a leadership point of view this is just how to manage the flock.
I agree with this statement. It’s a smart move to excommunicate Jeremy. (This is coming from someone who sympathizes with Jeremy) I know people think it will expose more members to the ces letter, but the reality is that the CES letter will simply be rebranded as anti material created by an apostate, and most members will avoid it.
Anecdotally, yes. But likely to produce ‘fulfillment’ reliably for LGBT members at large? Not even close. In fact, the damage caused by people who attempt the celibacy or mixed-orientation marriage and fail in a heap of depression, anxiety, and self-loathing… That damage far outweighs the odd case where someone musters the faith to live a fulfilled celibate life.
The other problem is that it’s not just the celibate requirement- it’s also the offensive and condescending comments made by members about ‘the gays’ and their agenda.
After priesthood meeting a few years ago, I was sitting around with my brothers-in-law, and we started discussing the movie ‘The Imitation Game’ based on the true story of Alan Touring. One in-law immediately jumped in… “Oh, it’s crazy how strong the gay agenda is in this movie”. Normally I’m a very quiet passive person, but I felt my blood boil, and in a polite but firm reminded him that not even 100 years ago, we required gay people to face prison or castration, and how that is plain wrong regardless of anything else going on.
The worst part… I have a brother that I believe is gay, or at least ‘different’. Thankfully, he wasn’t in the room with us, but he’s been subjected to that type of BS from our family.
Gay people need protection, and it’s devastating when they are attacked unwittingly by those they look to for protection.
So, given all those factors, I believe that celibacy is a recipe for disaster, and we’ll someday look back in embarrassment.
Growing up, I remember every election cycle, the bishop would read a letter from the FP encouraging people to vote and stating that the Church has no political affiliation and doesn’t tell members how to vote. I always thought it was really cool and made me proud of the Church. Very disappointing to learn years later of the massively coordinated effort by the Church to affect politics, specifically around gay marriage. And the history goes long before Prop 8. Maybe it shouldn’t be surprising- I actually don’t mind the Church taking political positions where they feel it’s necessary. I guess it was the double speak that got to me, and how it was all so incredibly organized, yet seemed so secretive. To the point that the Church got fined for illegal political practices for the Prop 8 thing. (That fine was relatively minor; I don’t want to make it sound worse than it was)
So, not the end of the world, but disappointing nonetheless. Anybody else had similar experiences growing up?
