Leaderboard

Weird thought here, and I don’t know if I actually believe it; but I thought I’d float it for public dissection: I’m not convinced our society values human life as much as we like to say we do. How often have we (especially those of us who are theologically or socially conservative) heard folks gloat about the impending die-off of people whose worldview is as backwards as our own? What if we could have a guarantee that the ONLY victims of COVID-19 would be two hundred thousand neo-Nazis? Or two hundred thousand seniors over the age of 95? Or two hundred thousand viable fetuses between 6-9 months of gestation? Or two hundred thousand trans-sexuais? Would we deliberately push ourselves into a depression—Dow Jones under 10K, 20%+ unemployment, skyrocketing homeless rates—for the sake of those two hundred thousand distant, relatively powerless—perhaps even repulsive—individuals? Or would we say “you know, that loss is unfortunate, but ultimately not worth the sacrifice of preventing it”? And, a darker thought: As Mormons who constitute less than 2% of the US population (and an increasingly unpopular minority, at that)—do we think our countrymen would make those kinds of sacrifices on our behalf? I rather don’t think they would. Whatever’s driving this reaction to COVID-19—I wonder whether it truly is a universally consistent regard for human life per se. I wonder whether we’re actually doing it out of fear that the pandemic will strike someone within our own social sphere. Perhaps all this talk of regard for human life is less of an ideological motivator, than a bludgeon to be used to socially shame people whose noncompliance we perceive as a threat to our own safety?

Husband is considered essential. I'm teaching from home, but originally planned on filing for unemployment since my contract is up if I don't score another position. Seems awkward now. I'm paid up through August, so I'm tempted to just wait and see.

Based largely on various news reports, I'm beginning to modify my previous position that this is all a vast overreaction to what is in effect an unusually virulent and nasty flu. But even if the worst-case reports have truth to them, I think the above judgment is unfair and overly harsh. This is not about valuing economic prosperity over human life. Rather, it's an acknowledgement that our ancestors have worked and toiled and in some cases given their lives, in wars or otherwise, to provide us with the world we live in. If our economy collapses, we risk having people dying in the streets as happened earlier in the 20th century. Worse yet, we risk having a panicked and fearful population demand more FDR-style socialism, and thus lose our freedoms, which were established in the first place only by the loss of much blood. Don't characterize all who worry about the economy as filthy-lucre-hungry monsters looking to trade life for money. I do not believe that's the choice we're faced with, but I do think we potentially have a sobering choice between keeping our economy afloat at the cost of human life vs. keeping people alive short-term at the cost of devastating our economy for a generation or more.

You mean like how when drug abuse was mostly a inner city poor people problem... the answer was to "Get tough on Crime" and Many laws on drug use... Whereas now that it has reached Middle Class Suburbs.. its now a "Health Crisis Epidemic" that we need to "Wake up to" or "Open our eyes and see it'

There's a lot of give and take here, too. There's an unavoidable tension that comes between individual freedom and living in a society (tensions that are probably most easily observed in a home owners association). Where is the line between where a person's individual freedom can ethically be superseded by society's interests? The reality with a viral disease is that one person's idiotic use of individual freedom can put a great many people at risk of serious illness and death. Why should your freedom to keep a restaurant open put my aging father at risk of death? Under normal circumstances, those two things don't relate to each other. This is one of those rare situations where they actually do. That isn't to say all of the decisions made have struck the right balance. But there valid reasons to put societal benefit over individual liberties. As for "who are they to decide [what is an essential business]?" um, well, those would be your elected representatives. That doesn't seem all that unAmerican to me. I would think that tons of evictions, defaults, foreclosures, etc would do a lot more harm to the lenders than a two month hiatus of revenue. That isn't to say it wouldn't be painful, but it seems a little silly to worry about "the lenders" when "the lendees" are effectively unemployed and trying to scrape together money for food. This here is the flip side of living in society--sometimes we have to share some of the pain. As for property owners, well I guess they'd be on the same footing as their tenants who don't have lost their livelihoods (and thus can't afford to pay their rent). The good that such an action does is that it puts off for a couple of months what is for most people the largest expenditure they make each month. And take note, it isn't mortgage and rent forgiveness*. It's just a pause, effectively imagining that two months didn't happen. A 30 year mortgage becomes a 30 year and two month mortgage, with two months not paid in the middle with neither penalty nor interest for those two months. And it's may be the most effective way to prevent a mass loss of housing in the middle of this ordeal. Let's put this in perspective for you. Days between first reports and being declared a global pandemic: H1N1: ~ 60 (exact dates weren't given in my reference and I'm too lazy to go look them up. It was from April to June of 2009) SARS-nCOV2: 71 days (31 Dec 2019 - 11 Mar 2020) Length of pandemic: H1N1: 20 months (Jan 2009 - Aug 2010) SARS-nCOV2: 3 months (93 days from first report) Total Cases: H1N1: 700 million - 1.2 billion SARS-nCOV2: 966,939 Total Deaths: H1N1: 150,000 - 575,000 SARS-nCOV2: 49,295 Yeah, sure, those numbers for H1N1 might seem really high, but SARS-nCOV2 has only been around a seventh of the time--and there's no indication that this disease spreads on a linear scale. It's pretty clearly exponential. If this thing were to double every three months for the next 15 months, you'd be looking about more than 3 billion cases and 1.6 million deaths. Those totals would be three times higher than H1N1. Consider also that the latest estimates put the US death toll at 1.5 million (on the low end) if no attempt is made to control the spread. Recall, there wasn't a wide spread use of mitigation tactics with H1N1, and globally, it only killed maybe as many as 575,000 people. Without mitigation tactics, it's projected that SARS-nCOV2 would kill at least 2.6 times as many people as H1N1 in the US alone. Even with mitigation done well, the US is projected to lose between a fifth and a half as many lives as H1N1 killed globally. Sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_swine_flu_pandemic https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/white-house-issues-stark-coronavirus-death-toll-estimate-n1173716

My job seems secure for the time being. And the govt is about to send every member of my family, money we didn't ask for and don't need. I'll do my "part", and try to spend it on the little guy, small businesses and the like. Fast offerings donations. Might do some outrageously large tipping in the next 6 months. Perhaps in retrospect, it would have been better to limit the individual/family stimulus to those households with folks filing for unemployment?

I don’t think that’s the right question. It isn’t just about economic prosperity. It's about freedom. The government is telling people they can’t go to Church, deciding what businesses are “essential,” and, in some cases, even closing down gun stores. Who are they to decide that? That is completely unamerican. As far as Italy’s move to hold off rent and mortgage payments, what good does that do? That just harms the lenders which will have trickle down effect. Property owners won’t get their rent payments, so they lose their livelihood. Furthermore, I really don’t understand why so many people are soaking up all of the media hype. The Seine Flu produces caused far more deaths than COVID-19 has. The difference is that Obama was president then and Trump is president now.

You're right, it is unfair to characterize this as an either/or proposition. It isn't. And I'm sorry I left the impression that I did. (What I wrote doesn't reflect the nuance of the situation) Realistically, they are ends of a scale. The more lives we try to save, the more economic pain we will suffer. The more we minimize the economic damage, the more lives we will lose. These are correlated (but not causal) features. Perhaps its better phrased to say that as a society, we need to think about where the balance should be between saving lives and preventing economic losses. But I'll still assert my main point--there was going to be a massive economic disruption regardless of the scale of interventions applied to contain the spread. I'm optimistic that most things will be by and large back to normal by the end of the year so long as we can figure out a way to keep people housed and fed until the summer (I kind of like Italy's move to put a hold on all rent and mortgage payments for two months).

Evangelicals...especially those of us emphasizing the 'born again' experience, speak much of being saved. LDS also have the full Plan of Salvation, including how to reach the highest heavenly realm and achieve exaltation. See if the teaching "Almost saved" resonates: https://www.facebook.com/anglelakechurch/videos/329746768002871/

I agree with everything you have said. However, I don't know if we have the luxury of continuing with the simple narratives we learned in the past. It's true that digging deeper feels like opening a can of worms. But we have the counsel from the scriptures to seek out learning, not to be ignorant. And I think the can of worms has already been opened by the internet. Our youth and other members are hearing and learning things that need to be addressed. Elder Ballard has spoken about that. The Opportunities and Responsibilities of CES Teachers in the 21st Century, Elder M. Russell Ballard https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/broadcasts/article/evening-with-a-general-authority/2016/02/the-opportunities-and-responsibilities-of-ces-teachers-in-the-21st-century?lang=eng My problem has been that, as a lifetime member who went to seminary, had religion classes at BYU, has read the scriptures many times, etc. - I find that what I feel that I need more than anything now is questions. I know the basics, all the Sunday School answers. But there is so much more to learn, and I'm getting bored with hearing the same lessons at church all the time. As I have learned more about Biblical studies it has felt like leaving the lazy river and immediately heading down the category 5 rapids. I don't know why learning has to feel so perilous. Or, another metaphor - it's like taking the red pill, if you've seen The Matrix. If I was looking for reasons to get upset and leave the church because of being taught what feels like a naive and simplistic narrative in the past, I could easily do that. But like Abraham, I am a person who desires to have knowledge, and I'm very grateful for what I've been learning. I agree that what matters most is loving God and loving your neighbor. That's what this life is about. But we also have that doctrine that no one can be saved in ignorance - we're all going to need to learn a lot more, eventually.

We may be getting a bit off topic here, but to me, 1 Ne 16: 1-3 paints this situation very well. John 6: 59-61, and 66-68 is another prime example. The Lord spoke hard things, and many of His disciples left...but He did not vary or change what He had said to bring them back. Think the church is a man-made religion? Don't like being called to repentance? Well then don't expect to abide with the Christ and Father again someday. The Father was willing to lose 1/3 of His children in order to move the plan of happiness forth. I have to wonder if some of those 1/3 possibly thought "our Father won't really cast us off forever. If enough of us show him that we want another way then surely he will change his mind." The Father did not change His mind, because He can't. The bar will not be lowered so that more of His children can partake of eternal life, because that is impossible. It defeats the purpose of eternal life, and that was the great hidden lie about satan's so called "plan". One cannot abide a Celestial glory if they are unable to abide a Celestial law. Now, I am not saying that the ministering program of the church is Celestial law...but hopefully you get my point.

Not necessarily - I am only uncomfortable with the concern that it will be misunderstood. I posted something but it appears to have been lost - I will try again. Most of what is in the video I agree with and I am likewise comfortable. But there are problems - if I am to highlight what I think may be a problem - many may think I stand firmly against or for things that I am not. That seems to be most often the responses to surface understanding. Joseph Smith suggested that we teach correct principles and allow each individual to govern themselves. I believe this is at the foundation of the great divine gift of agency. There seems to be to be two important principles for the Latter-day Saints of G-d. First that we teach (by example and expression) principles of truth. The second is that we all other the privileged to govern themselves. It appears to me that the professor concentrated his remarks almost entirely on the second grand principle taught by Joseph Smith concerning agency - that principle is allow and respect others, the privileged to govern themselves. Most that argue, do so in terms of right and wrong while concentrating almost entirely on what they believe to be the first principle. And so it is (often with myself as well) that when we think we teach a correct principle - that others will govern themselves in the same manner as we would govern ourself with the understanding of such principles of truth. I believe the place of disagreement has to do with the "Law of Chasity". There are two aspects of the law spoken of in scripture. First is the "Letter" of the Law and the second is the "Spirit" of the law. I believe the great difference between man and beast is the intelligence of man. Most think emotions are separate and different from intelligence. I believe this is because often emotions are blamed for doing stupid things - but if we understand that emotions are an integral part of our intelligence - we should not attempt to disengage one from the other. We are told that the Law of Chasity is governed by the principles of sexual activity. I believe there is another principle of the Law of Chasity expressed in the divine covenant of marriage. I have learned in life that there is, from time to time, great expressions of hate and anger in how certain individuals disagree with we all should be governing ourselves. This should not be. A Saint of G-d should never be angry with how anyone governs themselves - they may properly be disappointed but when we become angry Satan has taken over our heart. I know for my self it is most difficult to discuss things in anger and maintain the spirit of G-d - so I believe Satan employs such tactic specifically for his advantage. But it seems to me that either a person shuns logic and reason and replaces such with emotion to justify the manner they govern themselves or they have not understood the correct principle to begin with. If they have not understood the principle and are seeking truth - the will embrace the truth and be glad for it. But if ruled by emotion that drives faulty logic - they will become angry if confronted with correct principles or a challenge to their behavior. My point is that whatever a person does in anger - will result in the spirit of G-d withdrawing. And without the spirit of G-d correct principles cannot be taught nor learned. The Traveler

If you had ever met Pam in the flesh, you would know how true this is.

For the first time that I can think - both stocks and real estate (apartments) are doing very poorly. Sadly I have several tenants out of work and unable to pay their rent. I am thinking the losses in the stock market are less of a problem for humanity and that kind of thing that can recover faster when things get back on track. I will not starve from the looses but I am thinking; if this gets to the point that I cannot meet expenses for the apartments - I am not sure what my tenants will do. The Traveler

Indeed. When the ministering program was rolled out Elder Holland was very clear, "We want more Care, Not Less" While they did away with a direct report of Monthly visits... Monthly visits should be the minimum bar... and we should absolutely be doing better then that. The take away that the program is requiring less of us is a vile satanic lie. The program require less reporting to mortal leaders.. but I have not really been to worried what my leaders thought compared to what the Lord thought of my attempts to keep my promises to him.

Well said. To me the most concerning thing that has been said in this thread so far is "The re-named 'Ministering' program lowered the bar on the assignment." This is completely false, and the exact opposite of what church leaders have taught us about the purpose of the change, and it is disappointing to hear. What did the 5 foolish virgins do when their lamps burned out...they ran to get more oil. Even though they were late, at least they knew it was necessary. One who has this view above is akin to one of those virgins outright refusing to get extra for their lamp when a more pure version of the oil is being freely offered to them and their neighbors. "Oil for my lamp...nah...I'm good. Only 5-10% of my ward and stake are out getting oil...plus, I don't think this oil you have is really better. Really though, all of this stuff isn't necessary anyway. I can have a relationship with the Bridegroom without it and everything will somehow work out in the end." The scriptures have many examples of people who thought this way, and what the end result was...and it was never a better relationship with the Lord.

Indeed it is pretty typical the people who scream the loudest about openmindedness and tolerance are the most unaccepting of anyone that dares think differently then they do. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is about as 'old school' as it gets. It is also a religion that has to be applied personally, it always has been. Anyone who is just now realizing this because of the changes the church has made is outing themselves as one of the "Foolish Virgins" but luckily for them there still appears to be time to repent. It reminds me of the Law of Moses really. The Law of Moses was all about the Gospel of Jesus Christ.. with spiritual 'training wheels' tacked on. People might celebrate the removal of the 'training wheels' that is currently happening in the Church. But the sad reality is.. if you couldn't make it work with the 'training wheels' you are unlikely to make it work without them

I can understand where @mrmarket is coming from. While the church leaders are on pretty solid ground in this case (because of clergy-penitent privilege), there's a larger question about whether legal is strictly equivalent to ethical. Unfortunately, in this case, the ethics are murky. There's a strong ethical case to be made for protecting victims and making the report. There's also a strong ethical case in the religious community (not just in LDS, and not even just in Christianity) for not breaching the clergy-penitent privilege. I suspect even ethicists in the religious community would be divided on this one. I can't say one way or another whether this decision not to report was The Right Decision (TM) or not. And I could make arguments either way. I'll just have to trust the guys in the room. These are agonizing decisions for church leaders. Those who claim these decisions are simple and clean cut do not have a full appreciation for the complexity of being responsible for the spiritual and temporal welfare of a ward.

The mission president is, ecclesiastically, in kind of a funky role; and it could be an open question as to how outsiders (especially judges) would view it. The thing that influences my thinking most, is that the mission president does sign the missionary’s temple recommend. (Or did, when I was serving, back when @MormonGator was still in diapers.)

It worth considering that even if we didn't shut everything down the way we have, there'd probably be serious economic impacts. People would eventually self quarantine anyway once news started spreading of a quarter million people dead, and of hospitals overwhelmed with sick. When it gets so bad that needing hospital level care is almost the same as a death sentence (because there aren't enough medical resources for everyone that needs them), people would shut themselves in. And many would do it in a true panic. There'd probably be a lot more looting and rioting than we are seeing now. Would the total economic havoc be the same as what we are seeing now? Perhaps not. But I expect it would only be marginally better. And so we'd have a marginally better economic situation at the cost of ten times as many lives with a side of social unrest. Situations like this don't have "right answers." They have trade offs. As a society, we essentially have to ask ourselves which we value more--human life, or economic prosperity. And then act accordingly.

Anything by Gordon Lightfoot

I absent-mindedly clicked over to the church newsroom. This was one of the first things I saw. I read it as April 2020 End of the World Report.

Yeah. My wife has been out of work for 3 weeks.

Oh whatever. Maybe 40 years ago.

Well, I lived in a fraternity house in college, so.....

.