Suzie

Members
  • Posts

    3358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Posts posted by Suzie

  1. 10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    I get where you’re going here; and generally agree.  But I would note that I think it’s a rare Saint who vets potential counselors solely on their Church membership status or hires the first Mormon counselor they run across.

    I cannot speak as to the particular case under discussion in this thread.  But I stand by my general comments earlier in this thread and will propose that the problem with most of the nominally/formerly LDS families who wound up in the news over the past few years isn’t that they listened to their bishops too much; it’s that they didn’t listen to their bishops closely enough.  

    I can confirm it isn't as rare as we think it is. Unfortunately, there is a lot of work to be done to change this mindset.

    About your second point, it seems to me that LDS members who wound up in the news over the past few years had clear traits of being part of dysfunctional families prior to becoming internet celebrities. Narcissism is on the rise thanks (in part) to social media.

  2. 22 hours ago, mirkwood said:

    My only issue with your last sentence is it appears you are implying that only LDS counselors are abusers.  As you will see below, that is not the case. 

     

    Doing due diligence in your research for any counselor is wise.

     

     

    Therapist sex abuse case reveals dark past, ethical concerns (boston.com)

     

    Wisconsin therapist charged with sexual exploitation of a client | Fox News

     

    Counselor at Boulder Mental Health Facility Arrested for Sexual Assault, Police Looking For Other Victims – Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Colorado (psychiatricfraud.org)

     

     

     

    I don't think my last sentence implies that only LDS counselors are abusers because obviously it isn't the case. But let me explain again in case my comment was misunderstood. I just speak out against choosing a mental health professional solely based on their Church/religious affiliation.  I observe this often and it has become a serious concern for both clients and professionals who are out there trying their best. Being an LDS counselor doesn't automatically make you a good professional and yes it applies to every other religion but the reason I mentioned this specifically is because Bishops recommended Jodi Hildebrandt and clearly, members trusted the suggestion. I was trying to explain this to my sister but all I can say is that she has been living in UT for too long.

  3. Jodi Hildebrandt is a therapist and the Church would refer members to her. There were countless allegations against Hilderbrandt and this is one of the reasons why she had her license put on probation by the Utah Clinical Mental Health Counselor Licensing Board for 18 months. The allegations are very serious in nature. This is the reason why (even though some people get upset with me) I always suggest that if you need to choose a mental health counselor/therapist/psychologist for you or a loved one please, please, please don't do it only based on Church membership.

  4. One of our sons (teenager) has been struggling with health-related issues for the past few months and we still cannot get a proper diagnosis. It has been exhausting for him and our entire family. Honestly, I feel quite shaky emotionally and I'm not that kind of person but it has been so overwhelming and frustrating to see our own child like this and even do we are doing everything we can, we still cannot get proper answers. I'm not sleeping well and I'm not able to do my best at work either.

    Having said that, I know the power of prayer, I have been fasting and praying constantly. I  know the Lord doesn't abandon us when we most need him but can I please ask you to keep my family and our son in your prayers today? I believe when we unite as brothers and sisters in prayer, anything is possible.

    Thank you all in advance, I truly appreciate it.

  5. 1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

    I don't know if you're joking, but I agree.

    I can't get my family to understand that you're SUPPOSED to eat the skins of kumquats.  Their logic is that we don't eat citrus skins - period.  Then they complained that it was too difficult to peel.  Too bad my trees died in the frost.

    No, I'm not joking. I love it!

  6. 9 minutes ago, Backroads said:

    This actually reminds me of a story that was related to me. Some woman brought to the office for her lunch a can of pork and beans as she was feeling super lazy that day. So lazy she didn't even bother to heat them up, just opened the can and dug in. A coworker was apparently deeply offended by this. It amused this lady so much a cold can of pork and beans is now her daily work lunch, just to be an office pest.

    Many years ago, when I just graduated from college and I had my first job, I was quietly eating a few kumquats and this co-worker became enraged over it and said that she found it very disrespectful to eat this without asking first because some people don't like the aroma of citrus fruits. 🤨 Take a guess who brought oranges the following week?

  7. 1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

     His failure to do so, to my mind, simply affirms his unfitness for leadership.  But was it a product of his specific desire for an armed assault on the Capitol, or was a product of a larger personal flaw that renders “de-escalation” generally contrary to his general nature and character?

    Good questions. And the answers for both "affirms his unfitness for leadership" IMHO. JAG, I appreciate your take on this because it tells me that even though there are people out there who do support Trump and many of the good things he did, it doesn't mean they are blind followers willing to justify anything and everything.

    I don't recall who said it, but a Republican some time ago said something along the lines of "Trump is not part of the Republican party, he IS the Republican party." This level of deification and adulation is extremely concerning.

  8. 1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    Indeed; and as you hint in your post, a lot of the meaning of that statement depends on whether he emphasized the “me” or the “hurt” when he made the statement.  Additionally, just because he didn’t mind armed people where he was speaking (at the Ellipse, right?) doesn’t mean he intended for armed people to enter the Capitol—the really damning thing would be if he ordered the Capitol police to quit using their metal detectors, or whether he blocked a request by Capitol Police for federal assistance.  So far (and granted, I haven’t been following this very closely), I’m not sure that’s been conclusively shown.  

    Conclusively perhaps not, but the "event" was planned and even promoted online. He knew they were fully armed and his speech did nothing to calm the mob but all the opposite. He wanted support, he wanted people to rile up and stand by him no matter what. He took a very Machiavellian approach "the end justifies the means" and that's a very scary way of thinking and acting particularly if you happen to be the POTUS.

    It is the behavior of either a very evil and self-absorbed narcissist or someone who is unhinged or demented. And yet, I feel as though none of this is important because "he was good for the economy". Honestly, I feel as though he can go and commit the most serious crime in front of the whole world and someone will say "but did he really do it? Hmmmm Do we have proof?. Maybe it was a double...those dems again!" or worse: "I don't care about that, look how good our economy is now!".

     

  9. 3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

    I respect the work they’re doing in getting witness accounts “on the record”, but I have no illusions that this is either balanced or non-partisan.  Cassidy Hutchinson’s testimony was disturbing, but I want to know how on earth someone in the back of a limo can get anywhere near the steering wheel.  For her to repeat that uncritically, and for no one to have pushed back on it during the hearing itself, raises red flags for me about this incident and about her credibility generally.

    The truth, if ever we get it, will come via the judicial process.  In the interim I continue to believe that on J6 Trump was incredibly stupid—impeachably so, IMHO—but not deliberately fomenting sedition.

    I agree with most of your post. I was actually surprised that Hutchinson's testimony about the steering wheel incident wasn't challenged or questioned as it should (giving the magnitude of the situation). Having said that, it was hearsay so I don't think she could have said anything more than what she already shared. In my view, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Trump did it. The other statement about Trump knowing fully well that the mob was armed and STILL didn't think it was a problem because "they aren't here to hurt ME" is what I found the most disturbing.

    I cannot dismiss his behavior as "stupid", I think he knew exactly what he was doing. Can smart people like Trump be stupid sometimes? Absolutely. But on January 6, no.

  10. On 6/13/2022 at 6:25 PM, LDSGator said:

    Sure. Most Trumpers are STILL trying to defend the God/Lord/Emperor Trump and pretend that Jan 6th panel is a conspiracy out to get their man. Instead of blaming Trump, they blame the “disloyal” Pence, Barr, etc for not waving a magic wand and putting Trump back in office. It’s creepy. The Obamabots scared me with their cult like devotion to Obama. They still do. The Trumpers really scare me. 

    I agree and what is coming out from the Jan 6th committee is astonishing but for Trump and some of his radicalized followers, it is all "fake" news and what took place in Jan 6th isn't a big deal.

  11. I cannot believe how weak and afraid NATO is coming across! I'm disgusted at the constant "We condemn...." and Biden's empty words. We certainly didn't mind when Poland wanted to send jets but when it meant we would send them to Ukraine, we decided that it wasn't a good idea after all. We are acting like cowards!!! Seriously?! Russia isn't the issue here, the administration is afraid of China.

     

  12. @Jane_Doe First of all, hold on tight because I'm sending a bear hug!

    Now, a bit on the topic...we need to take good care of ourselves and it is perfectly okay to say NO. We are first and foremost individuals and we cannot and should not live up to everyone's expectations. First, because it it impossible and second because it is unhealthy. Listen...they can ask you to set 1000000 goals, feed the missionaries every day, go to every single meeting and the list goes on. There is nothing wrong with these requests (*cough* minus the endless meetings) but YOU know your circumstances and YOU (and only YOU) get to decide what you want/need based on your particular situation. You don't have to feel guilty about it or think you're not doing enough. 

    Many moons ago, the Bishop called me to "talk" but I suspected he wanted to extend a calling. I was in a very rough spot due to a medical issue with one of my kids. I explained this to the Bishop, who was already aware of it. He nodded his head the entire time. When I finished talking, the only thing he said  to me was: "Wow, sorry to hear this. Anyway, we want to call you as..." FWIW, I'm not saying this to bash the Bishop. I'm saying this to show that companies/institutions/organizations (including the Church) tend to focus a lot on organizational structuring but if you cannot do it, guess what? Then someone else will.

    Also (many years ago) I was supposed to meet with a client who scheduled an emergency appointment but I wasn't able to attend because I had to rush one of my children to the ER. Due to the nature of the client's situation, he had no choice but to meet with a former colleague. She wasn't happy at all and she told me about it, not even once she asked about my kid.

    These lessons and others taught me that I cannot control what others "say" or their expectations about me BUT I can control what I CHOOSE to do and apply it to my life IF it makes me feel happy, content and fulfilled. And if it doesn't....Well, I CHOOSE not to do it and if someone doesn't like it, TOO BAD.

    I hate with a passion ANY workshop/training related to "goals". Such a waste of time!

     

     

  13. Another one I remember was calling a woman on the autism spectrum to serve in the Primary Presidency. She admitted she hated working with kids and said, "I will accept the calling, but only because I think it's wrong to decline." At that point, we backed up a bit and advised her that maybe we needed to clarify what was needed of her.  We described the needs the Primary President felt were in her weaknesses, and identified that those weaknesses were in this sister's strengths. We also went a step further and advised her that service in the church should bring joy, and if she went a couple of months and felt miserable in her calling, she should talk to us so that we could release her and find her a calling that she would be more uplifting for her. Her attitude changed from "I'll accept this calling because I feel like I have to," into "I have something to offer, and I find it less stressful to try because I know I can an 'escape route' if I really don't like it." she served for two years before the Primary presidency was reorganized .

    I appreciate this kind of approach where a dialogue is established and where the member can express their needs/challenges/fears and someone is actually listening rather than an invitation "just to fill a calling".

  14. What she said was a clear threat and needs to be taken seriously, she needs to be charged. I hate to say this but if instead of "Amelia" was "John", I don't think the police will be talking about the parent contacting law enforcement and apologizing because the person believes "the statement was not intended the way it was perceived." Ridiculous.

    Angry people may shout, insult, use profanity, etc they don't go around threatening people by saying they will bring GUNS to SCHOOL "ready to..."

    Unbelievable.

  15. The reason behind the question is that I see a teaching that Adam's disobedience is not viewed as a sin, whereas other
    teachings say it was a sin.

    In my opinion, the 1988 quote from Dallin H. Oaks needs to be understood in the proper context. In this talk, Elder Oaks was making reference to many Christian beliefs about the "original sin" and he used the same expression to explain Adam's transgression. Even though LDS theology does not recognize the concept of "original sin",  the two terms are often used interchangeable. Maybe this was the case with Elder Oaks, however by 1993 he is very clear about the differences between sin and transgression:

    "This suggested contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression” (emphasis added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall. "(The great plan of happiness Dallin H. Oaks 1993)

     

  16. Oh, so much.

    Tammy is crazy. Legitimately mentally ill. Spent many years in substance abuse. She lives in a sort of permanent homeless shelter. She's sending Tom to school because her caseworker says she has to. She doesn't want to send him to the local school because government conspiracy. She can't do the online school because the government is spying on her through the school platform.

    Oh, we are talking about an innocent child living in a homeless shelter with a mother who struggles with mental health issues? This is a lot to take for any person, let alone a child. I'm not surprised that online schooling isn't working for this family when they have so many other needs. I understand you did everything in your power to help them and even though it didn't work out, you gave your best. Having said that, I hope the system and those in charge can keep a close eye on this family and can assist them in any way they can. It is hard to focus on education when basic needs aren't met. I will keep them in my prayers today as soon as I finish writing this post.