Obolus

Critique of behavior is not an equivalent to insult or attack. But go on with your bitter parade of straw men, if it suits you. When I come across your posts, I've seen several keen points on many topics. But it's hardly worth digging through the scathing sarcasm and cynicism to glean them. So I can't promise to read a reciprocal 11%.

I wasn't being sarcastic. And I wasn't preying upon you, Snow. Maybe some day you'll learn the difference.

It's like anything that strokes an ego. Like staring someone down, or deriving satisfaction from cutting someone off on the freeway. You're just catering to the natural man. Your post was incendiary, and you fed off Dove's reaction: That "bonus" is something you seem to cash in on in many threads. There's no drama in someone pointing out that you're just feeding on other posters like some kind of disembodied vampire. The only drama is your increased use of sarcasm to project the appearance that you're actually operating from a position of strength. But for the individual who is speaking/typing, all words necessarily sanctify or profane their own body/soul. According to Christ, at least. This is why any real adult is gentle and kind. They realize that strength and power are best expressed with restraint, not with violence. Violence is a crutch for those who have no spine, and no real identity. My guess, considering your response, is yes.

It seems you led the way. OED: Sarcasm: A sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter gibe or taunt. The etymology is even better. Greek meaning "to tear flesh" or "gnash teeth". Or to speak in a way as if to do so. If the body is a temple, then all action is temple work. Ultimately sewing the seeds of the Covenant, or sewing death and hell. Which is why it makes perfect sense when Jesus states that "...those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man" in Matt 15. Sarcasm has no other intent than harm. It's like fight club culture, only with words. There are words of power in the temple, and the world's counterparts to them are words that serve and give sensation to the ego. The inference is to invite listeners into a world where community & belonging are gained by allowing pleasure, pain, abuse and moral decay to meet in the flesh by degrees as a result of sarcasm in the spoken/typed word. It is a tool of desensitization. For you to suggest that Dove needs to "thicken her skin" is really just trying to say that something is "wrong" with her when she's not as calloused as you and all other partakers of profane speech. We feel words in our flesh, and their intent cuts straight to the heart. So when Dove stated that your sarcasm was hurtful, that's what she meant. She has nothing to feel guilty about. She simply addressed the topic at hand, and in my opinion she did so in a tasteful manner. This place is either a discussion forum, or it isn't. It seems like you'd prefer it to be a safe haven for your particular foibles. If you don't want to read or discuss certain topics, then why click on the link in the first place? Is it just to wield your obvious intellect around like a sledgehammer? It seems so.

The "good things" have to come from someone. I think many of us run into this issue when buying books; is it written by one of the Lord's anointed, or is it a product of the world? The truth is that both groups must subsist by making a profit. "Print or perish", as the saying goes. The LDS Industry, as you call it, provides a wide range of media. Some of it qualifies as "worthwhile" and some it doesn't, but the range of needs within our culture is wide as well. While you and I may be sickened by a film made by the Liken company, for instance, there may be a dozen others who can't get enough of that stuff and who extract great spiritual resonance from watching those films. It is a matter of compassion to allow people to utilize the tools they see as fit for use until they are ready to move on to different ones on their own. Even if we think these tools are lame. Are there those who take advantage of this market for gain? Of course, and they would be fools not to. One man's squandering is a miracle to another, and not everyone has a subsidized retirement plan or a 401K. Yes, we could allow Mattel and Hasbro to control the action figure marketplace, and the result would be that those kids' consciousness would be tied to those mythologies instead of one more closely related to our culture. These markets are valid and valuable to more than just the artists producing them. To me, every artist that is able to survive (or thrive) on their craft is one more individual removed from all the major industries in which they would otherwise be miserable. I'm a writer and a musician, but until one of my projects becomes a viable product I'm obligated to make my living as a servant to the business model and profits of someone else. But just like the manufacturer, the administrator and the entrepreneur, I am at some point obligated to make an accounting of my talents to the Lord. As for the FP or the Q12 writing books, it is either billed as scripture or it isn't. They're allowed to fulfill both roles. When they write scripture, it is identified as such and added to the Standard Works. When they write their opinions on doctrine/ordinance/life and publish them, the books are either worth the money or they aren't. It depends on the individual. The mere fact that we have a market wherein to negotiate and argue about such widely distributed texts as Mormon Doctrine, A Marvelous Work & a Wonder, Signs Symbols and Sacraments, or Jesus the Christ is a tremendous blessing that few generations before ours have ever enjoyed. The world went centuries without apostles, so even when one like McConkie is making public apologies in press conferences about erroneous doctrines I'm still glad that he was there to make a human mistake in the first place.

Much thanks to all above who posted such informative links. I can only add that I feel a strong kinship to the KJV, mainly due to the repeated use of archaic English in the sacramental prayers. The usage of this dialect may be traditional, but the tie to renewed covenant is a strong one. A layer of removal from common, modern English seems very appropriate to me personally. That said, I see no reason why anyone wouldn't want to cross study as many versions of the Bible as they have time for. I've just ordered a used RLDS JST. The mere fact that it won't contain all the footnotes that our KJV has sounds completely liberating to me.

Huh. Sounds like about a few guys I knew when I served. I think it breeds such possibilities in all who are taught the doctrine. Especially when paired with the Smith's contiguous claim that ours is the only true and living church upon the earth. The ego/Natural Man is omnipresent amongst the range of continuously developing/faltering testimonies, and such doctrine is superficially self-inflating. But Traveler's post above answers the point: It is impossible to follow Christ's lead without stepping into his shoes. All sheep are made into shepherds. Likewise, it is impossible to serve others without serving him. He is essentially saying that each human being is a direct conduit to the Godhead. So when you do unto others, you literally do it unto the Lord. Hence, for a testimony to progress, it is impossible to simply bask in the light of revelation. One must act. And to act correctly, one must learn to be humble. No. You're in right field. But the types of doctrines we're talking about are closer to the infield, meaning that they are necessarily more complex and more dangerous. If the body is a temple... and Christ said it is... then all action is temple work. And if we're talking about temples, then we're talking about covenants. And covenants mean ordinances, and ordinances mean authority. Therein lies the danger of Joseph Smith and his doctrine.

We're dealing with a king and his kingdom. Paul says that we are "joint heirs with Christ", meaning that we will share his inheritance. Christ is the same guy who used the parable of the talents to explain his rationale in dealing out stewardship and reward. The revelations Joseph Smith received concerning the breakdown of the Kingdom of God in Section 76 of the D&C is where Latter Day Saints get their fixation on the Celestial Kingdom as the ultimate end to Christ offering us this loving relationship in the first place. So it's Jesus and Joseph Smith who are at fault for your cringing. Relationships are rewarding, period. There is no way around this principle of "gaining" from interacting with others, because if you love someone you will always gain something. It's the law of the harvest; sewing and reaping. Even between people. Asking mormons to split Exaltation and their love for Christ into a dichotomy is like telling them to choose between cereal and milk.

Just some thoughts: The thing that keeps me paying tithing is the covenant I have with the Father. But the covenant does not cause the relationship, it merely seals it. The relationship was from before I came here, before the veil was pulled down upon my consciousness. The relationship was close back then, and it is not as close as I'd like it to be now. But the promise within the covenant is of something even greater than what we had when I was a spirit in the pre-existence. It is a promise that I shall relate to my Father face to face, where both our faces are flesh and bone. We will embrace with corporeal arms, and he will begin instructing me on the use of keys of unfathomable power. Every act of obedience, including paying tithing, keeps me current in the covenant. I don't pay it for any earthly gain, and I don't pay it to avoid being burned at the coming of Jesus. I pay it so as to partake in the everlasting burnings of Isaiah 23:14. This to me is the great blessing that there is no "room to receive" here in mortality. Wealth, property, and means for temporal power come and go like a wind whether I pay tithing or not.

Any thoughts on the JST published by the former Reorganized church? I've considered obtaining one over the years because I'm bugged about having to bounce around between footnotes and whatnot.

We can't even live up to the commandments of the scriptures we've been given. We can't even home/visit teach as a church at better than a 35% clip, and thus we can't adequately administer to the sick/afflicted in our own culture alone. Who are we to ask for additions to the canon? Are we the Gentiles of 3 Ne 21:22? Or are we the Gentiles of the eight verses that precede it? It is an elementary principle that prerequisites precede the advanced courses of any discipline. And we are talking about a discipline here, aren't we? So... disciples. Seriously take the fundamentals into your heart. Study what we have like a buddhist monk. Obey the commandments as if Jesus lives in your closet and you have to face up to him after work every day (it's the truth anyway). Take the sacrament as if you're Jonah, and the chapel is the whale. Administer in your calling as if all your relationships depend on it, and fast for MANY days (but probably not consecutively). Fast like Alma the younger and all the other badasses of scripture who eventually didn't even need scriptures cuz they got to the point to where they were spittin' scripture like mad game on the fly whenever they opened their mouths. That's where your "open canon" really exists for the purpose of expansion. In your very soul. Saturation leads to crystallization. And it is crystals that can actually do something interesting with light.

Mattai, I never meant to offend. You'll notice that I put that word in quotation marks so as to indicate that I myself do not consider the word to be an accurate descriptor. But in truth, there are many in our culture who do feel that way about Midsingles. There are many who regard us as if we're broken. Even amongst our own, for every dozen that remain active there are hundreds who no longer come to church. Isn't that an indication that some feel the descriptor is accurate? I believe so. But it's the logistics of the system that are a little messed up, not the Midsingles. I agree totally that we all have our own timetables, and there are roles for all to fill.

I've been attending a midsingles/family ward for a little over a year here in Seattle. The MidSingles have their own Sunday School and FHE, but otherwise interact with the rest of the ward. It's a weird experience for all involved. Not much dating happens, really. But it's nice to interact with kids and older folks. I think many of the midsingles are comfortable in the ward. I also think that some of the young marrieds are apprehensive about the situation. But no situation is perfect. I only attend our Sunday School half the time. There is a really good teacher who teaches the regular SS, so I attend there on off weeks. I've gotten a few "Really?" looks in there for doing so, but eventually people get used to the idea. I'm there to experience the ward, not be cordoned off. Ultimately, though, I do believe that it is a cordoning off. It's good that it involves a geographic ward, but it's still gathering up the "failures" of the YSA system into one place to make it "safe" for them to go to church. But I feel the same way about YSA wards, so... :)

I think you should put the friendship on hold until he's through it. There will be plenty of time for that afterward.

Yes, well, if you had read the essay you would understand the summarized point. Of course they are more active if they attend a singles ward now, because right now that is where most in their peer group are. But if that peer group were attending the geographic ward instead... along with all the families, kids & old folks... would these same people still be inactive? Would the activity percentage increase or decrease? I happen to think that activity would increase across the board. I think the reason why "family" wards are so boring and lifeless is because most of the people with the most time and vitality are separated from the rest of the herd and given less responsibility. I think young marrieds and older individuals are removed from their natural roles as mentors to young adults because all of the singles have been removed from their community on the ward level. I think having a dozen (or 3, or 4 dozen) young people in their twenties around is exactly what most family wards have been missing for the last three decades. Yeah, and the attendant problems you described are no surprise. Any time you split the 99 and start handing out budgets you're going to run into inequalities and greed. This is one reason why the Son prayed to the Father that we would be one as they are... or in other words, in an actual relationship with a common goal. I think it shows that the baby boomers who are currently in all the leadership positions in the church are basically desperate for singles to get married, but they don't know exactly what to do about the fact that, on the whole, they aren't. So they pour more funds into the YSA, institute program, Etc., and try to encourage stakes to have multi-stake activities so that people can get out there and meet. But what they don't realize is that all this shoving isn't helping a generation of young adults that are seeking a divine identity. And where does that identity come from? It comes from giving one's whole soul to God. It comes from serving each other, and thereby performing our labors unto the Lord. It comes from attending the temple, and not by yourself for some self-centered purpose, but as a community that recognizes the temple as the one thing in this slippery world that has any grip... the one thing that seals us permanently (as a family, not as individuals) to God. I think that young people who are caught up in such a community are smart enough to see who the other singles are without the aid of singles wards. FHE, activities, and Institute are enough to fulfill the social club role. I'm sure that's a common opinion. But I think it insults the intelligence and capability of the people we're talking about. I think being around married people encourages the unmarried to follow suit far better than the comfort of a YSA ward. Yet you have the time to correspond within an argument for an approximately equal amount of time/energy. I know you aren't intending to insult me my friend, but to be honest, that's a little insulting. Not some. Most. And it's not just about meeting these people. It's about serving with them in callings and as home/visiting teachers. Do you want unmarried women to put marriage and motherhood first in their lives and the world second? Then surround them with mothers and children. Do you want unmarried men to obey Elder Bednar's counsel and stop wasting their lives playing video games? Then surround them with a quorum of experienced priesthood holders who will lead them to the temple and show them what it means to stand in holy places. Yeah, it does. Why? Because it is your interaction within a diverse religious community that will show a potential mate a clearer picture of who you are on the inside than what she will see from observing you interact with what is essentially a social club with a built-in popularity contest. There are a thousand other reasons, of course, but that's the first that comes to mind. I don't know what to say. Old people are an untapped wealth of knowledge and experience. And not just the ones you are related to, either. You can get more substance and knowledge from and 80-year-old in an hour than you could get in 50 hours on Facebook. Essentially you are saying that there is no real reason why these people should know and love each other. I think most people in our culture feel the same way, and I think it is absolutely sad. The scriptures say we knew these people before we came here. Joseph Smith said we are sealed to them through covenant. Is it really such a waste of time to interact with them and gain the blessings of their friendship? You know there are millions of them out there, just lonely as can be because their own children and grand children only see them at holiday time. Why not know them? Why not let them have a big effect in your life? They have endured to the end. Their funerals should be filled to capacity. If a ward is lucky, then the Bishopric & their families will be heavily involved. But even then, having three marriages to observe isn't nearly enough. YSA's should be exposed to a wide range of marriages and family situations. They should be able to see what works in marriages and what doesn't on a ward level. They should observe how different people cope with death and disease. YSA's would be able to more clearly see the issues in their own relationships if they were surrounded by people who are striving to live The Proclamation. I've been in a lot of singles wards, and not all Bishoprics are that involved. Not all bishop's wives open their homes to the YSAs. So if it's a matter of luck, then the unlucky get the shaft. Additionally, some of these families have kids and are torn as to whether they should take them to the singles ward or leave them in their local ward. Often times they just call older couples who's kids are already grown, and they release couples once a new baby is born. YSA's should be surrounded by kids and experienced adults every step of the way as they find mates. Especially if they are far from home, which most of them are. A marriage decision should be an informed decision, and being surrounded by families should be part of that flow of information. The information gathered by observing and interacting with singles only is far from adequate. Why throw all that responsibility on one person? A local ward has a large group of leaders who will naturally fulfill the roles of mentors for young people if you simply reunite these separated groups of people. Plus, the YSAs will be recast as mentors and leaders themselves to the YM/YW & children present in the ward. The reason they feel out of place is because these wards are called "family wards" in the first place, which is a misnomer. Geographic wards are not intended to serve families only. A widower is not a family. A divorcee is not a family. But it's not just singles who feel out of place in local wards. Those who lose their family/spouse via divorce, death, Etc., are just as likely to feel out of place. Hence, the term "family ward" should be eradicated from common use. They are just wards. I think either a 45 or 24-year-old Relief Society president can relate to a wide range of sisters. We are talking about Christians here. But I think Singles wards bridge no gaps. These people would still meet and know each other without them. In fact, this is why most singles activities like FHE and institute currently feel like overkill. If all of the social needs are met in church, then what is the point in going to one or two more things during the week? I think most YSAs are sickened by having too many social activities on top of church. Yes, and to stop 35-year-old men from having opportunities to hit on 18-year-old women, the Church decided that people who feel the way you do are wrong. But that's the beauty of having families and old folks around. They make ridiculous acts appear ridiculous. Singles wards, on the other hand, make ridiculous things seem normal. I think she had precisely the correct answer. You shouldn't need to ask the question of which ward to attend. Everyone should just attend their local ward, period. We don't go to church to socialize or "feel comfortable". We go there to atone and to serve. We go there to transform like Jonah transformed while inside the whale. Was Jonah willing to go serve and prophesy? Not at first. But he was compelled to humility, and eventually fulfilled his role. Jonah was forced as well. But you should be glad that your testimony is still relatively in tact. Most unmarried people simply stop attending once they reach the age limit of the YSA program. But the issue you bring up about belonging is the crux of what I am getting at with all of this. Everyone should have a community of which they fulfill a role and feel a part of. Fragmenting the membership into "family" and "singles" units removes many of those roles, and consequently undermines the sense of belonging for all involved. I agree to an extent, but when there are ten women on the compassionate service committee because there aren't enough callings to hand out, and two of those women pull together three events over the course of a year, then those callings essentially do not exist for the other eight women. I'm sorry, but when people complain about "made-up" callings in singles wards, they aren't kidding. It's no wonder that so many balk at fulfilling them. YSAs have vast capacity. But the current program seems intent on filling most of those urns with a tea cup's worth of water. Don't take this the wrong way, but WHO CARES about "leadership" callings? It is an organization of service and atonement. It has one leader, and that is Christ. Everyone else bends to His will, right? So if you're going to use the argument that YSA wards are great because they provide opportunities for leadership positions, then I say you are privileging the opportunities of the few over the opportunities for the many. In other words, a YSA ward is set up thusly: 10 people with callings that are "important", 80-150 people who do little more than socialize, and 100+ who are inactive. What an incredible waste of energy and potential! These people would absolutely be far better edified by teaching Deacons, Miamaids, CTR-Bs and Sunbeams. Or adult Sunday School, or Gospel Essentials to married people, bums, widows, divorcees, and old freaks that no longer bathe. These people who are called as "greeters" would be far better utilized visiting inactives and home teaching less-actives. There is so much to do in a local ward and relatively so little to do in a YSA ward, and half of the work force is separated into a social club. I blows my mind that people think this is the right way to utilize the dynamic talent and testimony available. That sounds cool. But I think it actually proves my point. The Sacrament should not be a forum for meat-market social clubbing. We already have a vast media system that emphasizes youth, beauty and independence, and we already have night clubs. There's no need to do likewise in church by gathering up all the young available people and shoving all of that awkwardness into a Sacrament situation. Church is about gathering all people, regardless of age or marital status, to atone with the Lord. I feel bad for RMs. They come from a life spent serving and thinking of others and are thrust into the miasma of the LDS singles scene. They are suddenly encouraged to serve themselves instead of others. When you consider that, it's not surprising at all that half of them go inactive shortly after coming home. They should come back and be put right into ward missionary service. Their testimonies are strong and sharp... this is an advantage that should be utilized by ward mission leaders. It would likely lead to more baptisms at the local level, and a higher percentage of RMs staying active long after they return.

Thank-you for the response, tubaloth. For point 1, I would ask how can you know this? Is there data showing that more singles stayed active longer before there were singles wards than there were after they became popular? Because if your point is simply about the current program, I don't see how Temple marriages would diminish in the least should YSA wards be dissolved. These people would still meet and date via the vehicles of local FHE, activities, and the Institute program. You should probably read the entire essay to see this argument fleshed out. The point is to build relationships with one's entire religious community, not just the YSA's you encounter at a singles ward. As it stands, many YSAs who aren't locals end up missing out on many in the community simply because of the way our people are subdivided logistically. Perhaps in their own families. But on a geographic ward level? I don't think so. There is no mob of YSAs attending the funerals of local 80-year-olds that they have served with for years and grown to love through church association. Unless the YSAs are local, these people are usually alien to each other. I certainly agree here. However many YSAs are transplants either working or studying far from home, and many also don't necessarily enjoy the blessings of a close family and/or extended family. So the local community available to them through the Church can end up meaning a lot depending on the circumstances. "We" who? There are a lot of atypical situations out there. People that come from non- and part-member families, Etc. Witnessing the death and birth across the entire scope of one's religious community is a greater truth than only witnessing it within one's own family. Well, it's not really a "family" ward, is it? All sorts of people go to a geographic ward. Also, I never used the word corrosive in reference to singles wards. It is in reference to a culture of uprooting people from wards because they have reached the age limit of the program. The Mid-singles transition is one of the most difficult transitions of the church, and most testimonies simply do not survive. In my stake in SLC, fewer than 30 of 300 known mid-singles were still active when I lived there two years ago. And here in Seattle it is even worse. Just ask the Stake Relief Society president in your area what the percentage is of YW that make the transition into RS. Then when she tells you (it'll be around 50%) ask her why she thinks that is. If your discussion lasts for over 20 minutes, the chances are good that she'll tell you that many of these young women simply can't identify with a Relief Society that is often represented by women that are often 25 - 90 years old. The YSAs are the missing link in this equation. My issue here is with logistics, not with doctrine or authority. The Church has made plenty of changes in the scheme of Sunday worship over the course of its history, and the decision to create a lot of YSA wards 30+ years ago was just another shift that seemed like the right idea at the time. My argument is simply that it no longer best serves a fragmenting LDS community on the whole, and that a movement towards fully integrated geographic wards would be better for the coming generation of young single adults. While I can see why you believe the way you do, I do not share your experience. I have been in my family ward for a year and am already in the EQ presidency. In truth, there are more callings and opportunities to serve in geographic wards than there are in YSA wards. And it's because there are kids and old people there. In my experience, more than half of the callings handed out in YSA wards are tenuous at best... only a privileged handful of people are given callings with any weight in these units. Trust me, I've been there. I think your arguments would be better served by actually reading past the summary. That'd be wrong. I thought it was a great party, and it lasted for over a decade. But should church really be a glorified social club where Jesus is often a subtext? I feel I would have been far better enriched by building relationships with all kinds of LDS people in that time than just the single people. It's regrettable that you had to choose between these two worlds in the first place. Teaching deacons is the opposite of a waste of time... but here you feel like you missed out on something. If the other local YSAs had been present in your ward in the first place, then there would have been ward activities for that group and you would have been plugged in to the social scene. But having to choose between families and singles is the wrong way to run things, imo. I see no reason why YSAs (and all members) can't have things both ways. They have one here in Seattle, and I attend. It is a regular geographic ward with families and all kinds of folks. The singles all meet together for sunday school, and they have an FHE of their own. But in the end, it still just feels like a cordoning off of those who failed in the system.

Deleted.