PrinceofLight2000
-
Posts
824 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by PrinceofLight2000
-
-
*scratches head*
-
I guess Im a little confused..
You use the past tense when you say that you chose not to... But if you're 22 as I understand... Then it's actually that you're CHOOSING not to go.
Since you still have a few years where you're eligible to go.
Not saying that you should... Merely that the tone in what I'm reading says done deal.
You WERE too XYZ, not enough ABC, etc.
No recourse.
No possible change.
When it's not.
It's an ongoing decision UNTIL the deadline passes.
While its certainly more common to go at 18/19... The cutoff is 25.
I'm sure we all know a handful, at least, who went to college or served in the military and THEN went on a mission.
Again... I'm not saying whether you (or anyone) should or shouldn't go.
It's just more of a dynamic thing than I think you are presenting.
Most people change a great deal between 18-25.
Just because a person isn't ready at 18, doesn't mean that 7 years later they'll still be in the same mental & emotional place.
Q
I agree. I clarified later. Sometimes I mix up tenses without thinking about it; while it started in the past and was its most severe in the past it's still an ongoing issue.
-
I would take the loan so he can get a better job sooner, but it depends on some things. You can always pay extra on the loan later, and also during his time at school to reduce interest. You should calculate how much it will cost to get the master's degree and then use that to determine how long it would take for him to save enough money to do it at his current position. If it takes more than 3 years I'd say it isn't worth saving.
-
dude, i'm biting my tongue to avoid making the "even-mussolini-made-the-trains-run-on-time" argument. Don't make me go all godwin on you!
do it do it do it
-
Let me help:
Caffeine, medical marijuana, obesity, women wearing pants at church, women and the priesthood, blacks and the priesthood, gay marriage, Obamacare, temple vs. civil marriage, tithing financial transparency, and sex offenders at church.
Let's hope I didn't just break the internet.
-
I think it can, but it doesn't do so by its own merit. Either way they'll still have to be rehabilitated, behind bars or otherwise. Putting someone behind bars is only really appropriate if they're a threat to the safety of others or their property, anyway, in which case they would need to be tangibly confined away from others.I'm a little confused with all the "formers" and "latters", but if you're saying that as a general principle penal sanction doesn't prepare a person to be taught the error of their ways--I heartily disagree; and I suspect Prisonchaplain may have a bit more to contribute in that regard. Rehabilitation is one of the major philosophical rationales for incarceration.
With that contrast then perhaps I am in a faction that is neither here nor there, since I have my own motivations that apparently go by separate reasoning.I submit that a person who hops onto a bandwagon, deceiving him/herself into thinking "I will only go so far and no further", knowing very well that the driver of the wagon in fact does intend to go further and that the driver is using that person's support to move towards that goal, is very much responsible for what happens.But that's probably a bit of a threadjack at this point, so I'll let it lie unless you want to open a separate thread on that issue.
Food for thought: If I'm getting a ride in a wagon free of charge and not pushing it, what support am I giving to the driver?
Mooching is GREAT! -
Does the definition of marriage actually change just because the government says so?You're operating on the assumption that none of us will be affected by the change of the definition of marriage.
Well, if this isn't incredibly offensive then I don't know what is. The idea that making a sin criminally punishable will somehow make others understand the spiritual significance of the sin is a joke. If that actually happened, prisons everywhere would be cranking out fresh converts, but instead we have to teach the truth to them just as much. Your ideas, while well intended, are completely misdirected and futile. I place my trust in the prophets, but not in your methods. And we can agree to disagree on that note.I disagree. So no, I'm not ignoring you, I'm just not agreeing with you. There are many reasons that we should protect marriage, which have been laid out in detail in any of a million threads on the topic. The primary one for me being that I believe in the authority of modern prophets. You clearly don't, so you'll find that your idealistic arguments which ignore their counsel and warnings won't get you far here. -
If they do, I'll move there!
-
You missed my edit.Asking which is better, A or B, is a curious way to point out that B can occur without A. -
You just blatantly ignored pretty much everything I've said so far. Laws that protect us from each other ought to be enforced by the government. All other spiritual laws ought to be enforced by God.From now on we should just suggest that people not speed, ask them nicely to abide by traffic rules, and if they don't mind our business. Nevermind how society may suffer for it. -
This situation would fall under the protecting us from each other category because the child is a third party without any capability of making their own decision. Same reasoning for abortion being illegal. I made my argument against the last part of your post earlier.Also there is the issue of children being "entitled" to a loving father AND mother, as set forth in the Proclamation to the World. Not to mention the last paragraph, which sets out the warning I referred to earlier. -
Then nothing more can be done, whether the former is included or not. This is how agency works.And when the latter doesn't work (which it hasn't)? -
The point there was to illustrate the abject lack of necessity of the former when the latter can be accomplished whether the former takes place or not, not to declare the two mutually exclusive. Although I still maintain that it generally skews the focus away from the spiritual aspects, at least insofar that prisons aren't penitentiaries, something that in all likelihood will remain true for a very long time.I'll take false dichotomy for $400, Alex. -
So...
Given that you couldn't care less what laws the government passes are we to take the above as completely devoid of conviction? Or have you changed your position since you posted it?
I thought I made enough of a differentiation in my previous posts to allow for just an ounce of ambiguity, but apparently not. I didn't mean that I couldn't care less about ALL laws, only ones that assert that the government should protect us from ourselves.
-
And I think that trying to enforce laws of this nature is using that commitment in all the wrong ways. Is it better to fine someone or put them in jail, or to actually teach them why what they're doing is spiritually destructive?I don't believe that being passive about society's moral decay is being committed to doing the right thing. -
Do we not believe that if we as individuals live righteously that we'll be blessed and spared? I couldn't care less what laws the government decides to pass when I know I'm in the right place committed to doing the right thing with others who are also doing so.I'm not satisfied with breaking God's law as a society and letting the chips fall. You say "consequences" as if they aren't a big deal. Famine, pestilence, destruction. . . no thank you. -
No. True discrimination would fall under the protecting us from each other category.So then, you are a foe of anti-discrimination laws?To be clear, the point was toward your previous claim:
I answered why it matters if sins are legal or not. I'm also wondering what "we're supposed to have agency" has to do with anything.
I'm saying that because we have agency, any legal penalties that protect us from ourselves are ultimately futile because they don't address the spiritual root of the problem at all. They are counterproductive because they conflate true righteousness with merely following social expectations, which undermines everything the Gospel tries to accomplish.
Can you think of any time in the scriptures that God was in the least apathetic about the laws of the land that the people lived by?Can you think of any time in the scriptures that God took away agency and forced people to live righteously? And don't confuse it with presenting the consequences. There will always be spiritual consequences whether there are legal consequences or not, and ultimately anything God does in the scriptures is a spiritual consequence.
See Vort quote for better wording.It must be the latter. It seems to me that you're saying "hey, morality and legality are two different things; so why are we bothering with the latter?"; to which I reply "hey, a lot of people are already conflating morality and legality; and government has been only too happy to aid and abet that process; and if government legalizes something then society as a whole is more likely to conclude that the thing is moral."
I'm not responsible for other people's motivations."Hey, I have no doubt that the position of racial integration is held by a lot of crazies in the Republican party; but it's certainly not my position and it's definitely not the only way to approach the issue." --Abraham Lincoln.(OK, maybe he didn't say that in so many words; but he may as well have--he wanted to ship blacks back to Africa. Bottom line: Just because you don't plan for something to happen, doesn't mean that the people who are ultimately controlling your movement have similar intentions.)
-
Yes, but I know now isn't the right time. If something changes later, then so be it.At 22, you're far from too old to consider serving. Are you still thinking about it? -
Amen. Although sometimes the right time doesn't happen until even later in life, as seems to be the case with me. While my life has gotten a lot better than it was, I still don't feel ready yet.Responding to your points, as I understand them:1. Young men who are socially immature ought not serve full-time missions. Perhaps this is true. My response would be that the young man and his parents should work to get him socially and otherwise mature enough to serve a mission by the time he's 20 or so, rather than just writing off missionary service as "unwise".
I'm not sure I'm picking up what you're putting down here. However, as a psych major, I totally agree that groupthink is terrible. Haha.2. Mormon culture's emphasis on serving a mission is dangerous and misleading. I acknowledge that their may be a grain of truth to this, perhaps a rather large grain. But what is the alternative? Having a culture that says, "Oh, yeah, missionary work, whatever, no biggie"? Almost by definition, the functional IQ of large groups is about 20% lower than that of the constituent individuals. I don't know that a "societal expectation" can be as nuanced as "Serving a mission is the expected course and is the duty of every young Priesthood holder, but sometimes things don't work out as expected."
I don't think the problem is entirely about taking the Priesthood duty to missionary service seriously. I think it has more to do with the stereotypes that have been created within the church that surround it, and those who believe or even teach those stereotypes need a new perspective.If we take our Priesthood duty to missionary service seriously, I don't see how the societal expectation will be substantially changed.For example, marrying a returned missionary is in no stretch a guarantee of happiness, of course, but it's a game of odds. Returned missionaries have demonstrated a commitment to duty and a willingness to do hard things, and that counts for something. When the time comes, you can bet I will counsel my own daughter to date men who have served missions. Why would I possibly do anything else for my precious daughter? It's no guarantee, but it certainly sweetens the pot, odds-wise.Again, I think it's just a matter of perspective and improperly equated concepts. Would it be more important that your daughter's future husband was of great spiritual character or that he served a full-time mission? Obviously (I hope), you'd prioritize the former. A lot of people think they're identical by necessity.
Amen indeed.3. Member missionary work is important; we should be finding investigators for the missionaries to teach. Amen. -
Fewer dead babies?
Are you also a foe of laws prohibiting rape, murder, drunken driving, and embezzling? Because your same questions could be asked of those laws, too.
I stand with you on abortion in this position, but not gay marriage. I believe the government is only obligated to protect us from each other, effectively ruling out rape, murder (including abortion), drunk driving, and embezzlement, not to protect us from ourselves. Assuming we're of sound mental capacity, anyway.
-
As far as I can tell, you're making the same point I am, either that or you're missing the intended message of my previous post.PoL, I don't think you can neatly parse out "government precedent" from "socially acceptable norms" anymore. The role of government in the life of everyday American citizens has just become too pervasive.
I have no doubt that this position is held by a lot of crazies on the left, but it's certainly not my position and it's definitely not the only way to approach the issue. I hate and always will hate judicial activism. My comment was more about the spiritual futility of the restriction, not the apparent legal implications of allowing it.Moreover, if you equate discrimination against gays with discrimination against racial minorities--which seems to be the overall aim--then that's likely to have serious repercussions for the way the Church operates, if it maintains its position regarding the inherent sinfulness of gay sex. -
Tomorrow.
And as for tonight, pray.
-
Why would such a moral precedent need to be enforced by the iron fist of government as opposed to the conscience? What good comes from forcing someone to make a righteous decision when they don't actually understand the significance of it? There have been arguments from both sides of any ideological conflict throughout the ages that just because something is legal doesn't mean it's moral, and I believe that commonly used line of reasoning stems from the fact that righteousness isn't taught by legislation, only social expectations are, and inevitably when government is used to attempt to accomplish that end is also when righteousness begins to be confused as being simply a social expectation. We see it today. The phenomenon has been around for at least 60+ years at this point, if not longer.Welcome back, PoL.It matters because what we learn from larger society shapes our moral compass. This is true for all of us, but especially for those who do not have religious training to help them.
Two generations ago, almost everyone knew and accepted that elective abortion was a horrible evil; the argument for legalization was not that there was nothing wrong with it, but that it was necessary that women got to "choose" rather than "having their bodies controlled" by others, invariably characterized as old men. It was a minority fringe argument that babies were mere "tissue". Yet today, forty years after the vomitous (and legally appalling) Roe v. Wade, a large segment of society has come to accept that elective abortion is Just How Things Should Be. Societal acceptance of homosexuality is same song, verse two.
Not sure what agency has to do with anything. We have our agency regardless of which laws might exist.
-
I just felt like my story in this department needs to be shared. Don't worry, it won't be a thousand-page novel.
As some of you may remember, I and my family have had various financial and medical struggles for many years now. I lost a good 3 years of my life via indecisiveness which originally started with post-high school laziness and gradually morphed into a period of anxiety and depression that I couldn't find a way out of. I didn't need any medication, I just needed to get my life stable again.
I chose to not go on a mission. I did this despite direct and specific personal revelation that I will be going on a mission at some point in my life, which, at this point will probably be taking place once I'm married and retired. I received apparently contradictory personal revelation that I needed to stay home and get my life in order. During the time in which I was expected to go on a mission (after I had turned 19), it simply didn't feel like the right thing to do even though I hadn't seriously prayed about it at the time. I underwent mountains of pressure from family, ward members, friends, and my girlfriend at the time to "just go" and "let everything take care of itself". I didn't feel ready, and the cognitive dissonance that was taking place in my mind made me confused, and when I get confused, I become indecisive and idle. Naturally, the idleness made the anxiety problem worse.
It got to the point where (and here's the bigger reason why) I finally realized that I wasn't actually emotionally healthy or mature enough to go on a mission. Because of what I was told by members around me, since I was in adolescence, I had always assumed that a mission is what brings your true, righteous character and self-reliant maturity out. I was wrong, and so were they. In reality, that character needs to be present before you go on a mission, otherwise you will never be an effective missionary. I came to this epiphany in the midst of my greatest trial, the chronic pain I have to deal with every single day. It gave me a lot of time to sit and really think about my choices and where they had led me, which resulted in prayer, which fed the decision I made not to go.
At the same time, I believe bad things that are allowed to happen to one person can cause good things to happen to another. Had I left on my mission when most of us in the church expected young men to go, at 19, several things would likely either not have changed in my life, or the change would have been delayed so much as to cause additional damage, which I now know for a fact wouldn't have been good for me or for other parties involved. I would probably still be with my ex, who I knew deep down wasn't right for me but I wouldn't admit it because I, in my state of denial, bought into the lie that seems to permeate LDS culture (I see it a lot here at BYUI, actually) that you can marry anyone you want, even the first person you see, and if you work hard enough despite obvious signs of incompatibility then undoubtedly you'll be satisfied, nevermind personality or other relatively static factors that may affect your communication and relationship overall. But this isn't the most compelling aspect of this reason. Had I gone when I was "supposed" to, I would never have met my current girlfriend who is now converted and will be attending BYUI in just a week, she would have never been introduced to the gospel at a crucial point in time, and more than likely she would have committed suicide as a result of the psychological abuse she suffered at the hands of her parents.
The moral of my story is this: You have to be prepared for your mission before you go, and only after you've received revelation that it's where you need to be at that point in time. I had an LDS friend who told me that he left his mission because he felt that he wasn't prepared, and he taught me a valuable lesson. A missionary needs to be physically, spiritually, and emotionally prepared. I learned that I wasn't even close to being emotionally prepared for a mission, or for autonomous life.
Now that I'm done sharing, I'd like to add a little commentary about missionary work in general. I dislike the way Mormon culture (NOT prophets or general authorities), at least as I've experienced it, treats going on a mission. I think it emphasizes missions in a way that can be incredibly spiritually dangerous and misleading. From what I have observed, going on a mission is more of a social expectation than a spiritual act. It's assumed that all young men will go, and that nothing will get in their way, and that as long as they are taught correct principles that nothing can get in their way. Missions seem to be treated as a duty to the church (I observed this amongst my young men's instructors) more than as a willful act of service and a virtue.
Secondly, not going on a mission is a social stigma of the highest order in LDS culture, something I find incredibly offensive. Everywhere I go, I see young women refusing to date young men not because of their spiritual character, but because they didn't go on a mission, and worse yet I've seen the claim made here numerous times at BYU-I that missionaries are automatically more spiritually aware. At the same time, unconscious positive stereotypes exist about anyone who has served on a mission, spiritual character aside. I've heard many, many stories about missionaries sent home for doing abominable things and return missionaries who should have been sent home but weren't, and despite all of this being revealed there's still this cognitive dissonance in our culture that compels people to think that mission = saint. Even as I type this post, I worry, though perhaps unnecessarily, that I'm being judged for my decision.
Lastly, I'd like to touch on the importance of member missionary work. Believe it or not, I think it's OUR job to be doing most of the missionary work, and that the true reason why we have full-time missionaries is to give investigators whom WE as members already made interested a deeper level of spiritual example and better, more precise instruction. The thing that we have that full-time missionaries lack is the ability to create more long-term, intimate relationships based on not just the gospel, but other aspects of life, which I believe can help break the ice and more easily open the door to mutual understanding. We, the members, need to be just as spiritually powerful as the missionaries so that we can find those in our lives who need and are receptive to the gospel because we're around non-members just as often! I feel like there are a lot of people in the church who get so wrapped up in their daily lives that they forget this obligation and justify their laziness by deferring to the full-time missionaries on grounds of unpreparedness, and the pressures and burdens of full-time missionaries are increased because of it. But we must be prepared. I wonder what it would be like if every single member did everything they could feasibly do to use their relationships to teach the gospel. I'm inclined to think that we wouldn't need full-time missionaries the same way we do now.
Frozen review (in seven words)
in General Discussion
Posted
I'm pretty sure you were already cynical, buddy.