Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Beefster wrote:
I think this is a bad way to seek truth, as it resembles brainwashing to some extent (bearing your testimony has a similar effect because humans have this interesting tendency toward believing things they say often).
I sometimes wonder if the Church stance on hypnosis (“under competent, professional medical supervision for the treatment of diseases or mental disorders” and specifically not for “demonstration,” which pretty much says a LDS shouldn’t learn to be a hypnotist) is because people would quickly notice that the whole process of “fake it ’til you make it” and constant repetition is a common workaround for a tough induction. (i.e. silently repeating the hypnotist’s instructions to yourself, and going along with them until they start to happen directly)
Roadrunner wrote:I agree with Mom3, his isn’t something we see much. I’ve never seen a local high up use a church building inappropriately. I have seen numerous family reunions at church which seems aligned with church goals. Weddings and receptions are free to both members and non members (yes I’ve seen two non members married in an LDS building). The BSA uses our building quite a lot and in my area the BSA is minority LDS.
Interesting; I wasn’t one of those “involved in everything” kids growing up, but I think I attended some non-church community function in every church building with >100 members, and quite a few of the smaller ones, except the LDS meetinghouse, at some point.
Quote:I do know of two instances where bishops prohibited quinceaneras which to me is understandable because of Catholic and and big party undertones.
Wish ours had; watching the Saturday afternoon Conference session last year was interrupted by about a dozen women who really shouldn’t ever go out in public in less than a burkha showing up in miniskirts and low cut blouses to set up for what turned out to be a quinceanera. I was half expecting to see Jerry Springer taping an episode based on the looks of the advance crew.
LookingHard wrote:I can’t see one of the Q15 whipping out his iPhone during one of the quorum meetings and sharing a thought via twitter.
“Feelin da Spirit up in here wit ma homies, yo. We gon send out more missionaries real soon.”
Beefster wrote:Now, when I have the missionaries over for dinner, I do my best to make sure they know they can relax (without saying it exactly that way)
You know, maybe answering the door in a beer-holder helmet with a Marlboro Light hanging out of your mouth is a bit too much, though. Could have the opposite effect by making them suspect they’re being set up.
willb1993 wrote:I mean first off I know for a fact I’m not sharing things that are pornographic or “liking” these things on Facebook.
Well, fix that. Who are you to throw a monkey wrench in their worldview by not doing what they accuse you of?
I recommend a Borat-style mankini and live video feeds from the tanning salon. Bonus points if you’re over 300 pounds and/or have at least 15 pounds of body hair.
nibbler wrote:Meanwhile the definition of family in the real world is much more fluid.
This. My parents divorced when I was 7, dad was killed when I was 10, after a couple years of mom severely restricting his access to me. From that point, my granddad and uncle took over. While I wouldn’t say they were more involved than my dad had been, they were far more directly involved in raising me than even many LDS fathers I’ve seen. While I certainly want to catch up with dad, I think those two deserve at least an equal place in my afterlife.
mom3 wrote:
Jesus Christ.
HERETIC!
With that attitude, you’ll be expecting the Church to celebrate Easter next.
nibbler wrote:This. Exactly this. I was in a scout troop sponsored by a Methodist church and
that’s how we did things and we liked itSame here. A large part of Scouting (outside the Church) was always learning how to turn experience into leadership. You can’t get that by splitting up the kids to the point where everyone’s at very similar experience levels.
Quote:I realize this can’t work everywhere due to geography but that’s why I’d like to see one troop at the stake level as opposed to every ward having its own troop. It solves the problem where more leaders show up than actual kids.
Maybe a (reasonable) geographic limitation on multiple troops within a stake. My stake is well over an hour drive across, and the stake center is at the edge of the stake, so limiting it to one troop would be a death sentence for Scouting, (though forcing some of the kids into non-LDS troops likely wouldn’t be such a terrible thing) but maybe no additional troops within a stake boundary unless the meetinghouse is at least 20 miles from any existing troop in the stake. (And I might even say that “within the stake” is being too Church-culturey; what the heck would it really hurt if a troop has some kids from the next stake over?)
Beefster wrote:He, almost instinctively, stated that I wasn’t prepared. It bothered me, but I didn’t really want to follow that rabbit hole, so I just said something like “maybe” and moved on to the next subject.
Well, it’s possible he was a bit slow to continue and you cut him off, but doesn’t anyone else see a problem that his immediate continuation of “you weren’t prepared” wasn’t to start following up on how that could be prevented for others in the future?
Do you really believe the Spirit inspires leaders to
notprepare people for the temple adequately? That the Lord and His eternal Comforter are OK with lots of people having near panic attacks that could have been prevented with a bit more explanation beforehand? That it’s just fine if that often leads people to some level of FC, and sometimes even all the way to leaving the Church? I had a bishop who admitted a few times in classes that some decisions were made by necessity without clear inspiration; more like “we can’t leave this calling unfilled any longer while I stare at the membership list and wait for a name to trigger something special, so I’m just going to pick someone and see if I get a resounding ‘No’ from on high.” It sometimes makes me wonder how many decisions about more important things were also made without such guidance because a deadline was approaching to “do something,” or worse, because “Brother so-and-so won’t change his mind for anything less than a burning bush, so I guess it doesn’t really hurt anything to do it his way even if we don’t really feel it’s inspired.”
Of course, it also goes back to my previous observation that sometimes what people take as clear and total Spiritual confirmation may be more along the lines of “well, it’s not
quitethe dumbest idea you’ve ever run by Me.” On Own Now wrote:Part of the Catholic Mass is to greet your neighbors with a handshake, eye-contact a sincere smile and say, “Peace be with you.” Cynics will say it is forced. How can anyone be sincere in the scripted context of the Mass? Yet, I enjoy it on the occasions when I am there.
Some United Methodists seem to be doing that now, but rather than scripted and forced, it seems to be treated more like a cross between the seventh inning stretch and a chance to go say hello to someone when they’re not trying to get out the door to find some lunch. Some seem to see it as a challenge to greet as many as possible in 2-3 minutes, while others just acknowledge the regulars right around them and then target the closest 1-2 people they don’t recognize.
SilentDawning wrote:Basically everyone told me I was the type of person who forms cliques (closed circles of people) and that it’s no way to build unity in the Ward.
As opposed to the “divinely inspired” assigned cliques.
Beefster wrote:I’d say wards can be pretty good about being “welcoming” to new people but perhaps it’s mostly superficial- something we do to check off the “missionary work” box.
Some seem to try, but it’s so blatantly insincere that it’s fairly predictable and obvious that their script isn’t set up to handle the trifecta of unworthiness. It’s like they’re practicing for home teaching.
