omegaseamaster75
-
Posts
2163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by omegaseamaster75
-
-
14 hours ago, Vort said:
Clearly omega was one of these admirable, humble types, quick to defend the truthfulness of the gospel and call people to repentance if they dare to assert that (for example) being called as an AP is not a badge of righteousness. How dare they!
I never said that. nor implied, in fact quite the opposite.
-
57 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:
But many people can’t do abstinence with alcohol. And even very low levels of alcohol can damage a fetus. I don’t care! We are still right! Hmm. Hmmm. Fingers in ears!
The title of the article explains it Drinking an extra glass of wine 'will shorten your life by 30 minutes. We are not "right" about anything
We don't obey the word of wisdom because the things in it are bad for us. We do it because God told us to.
- JohnsonJones, beefche, Kshuller and 1 other
-
4
-
10 minutes ago, Vort said:
Really? Only missionaries who served as AP are allowed to say that being an AP isn't a measure of righteousness? What's everyone else supposed to do, genuflect to you?
Only if you want to.
-
1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Or whether one became AP or not.
Said the guy who wasn't
-
Just now, The Folk Prophet said:
I'm not following. You said you became the AP. Are you under the impression that that fact alone means you were more effective as a missionary than you would have been if you had been strictly obedient all the time?
Don't get me wrong. I had my less than perfectly obedient times too. Plenty of them. This isn't some high-n-mighty holier-than-thou thing. It's a principle of right.
I almost never mention that I was AP on my mission. Mostly because I was not the most obedient (even though I was very effective), I may also mention that my mission president was full aware of my imperfections. I think the point I am trying to make is that sometimes the rules can get in the way of effectiveness as a missionary.
For the record I would not encourage our missionaries to not obey the rules. I would advise that they strictly obey all the rules even the nonsensical ones.
-
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:
Well whoopty-flippin-do. What does that have to do with the price of rice in China?
5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
I agree with the idea that some rules are less effective -- perhaps even end up being theoretically detrimental in some cases. But I also believe that obedience brings blessings, and that is even more true when it comes to missionary work. The missionary who strictly follows all "rules" will be more effective as a missionary than the one who blows them off, even if the rules are theoretically less than perfect.
See highlighted part. Sometimes the rules make you less effective.
-
3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
I agree with the idea that some rules are less effective -- perhaps even end up being theoretically detrimental in some cases. But I also believe that obedience brings blessings, and that is even more true when it comes to missionary work. The missionary who strictly follows all "rules" will be more effective as a missionary than the one who blows them off, even if the rules are theoretically less than perfect.
I don't know I was AP and I made my share of mistakes on my mission.
-
Just now, The Folk Prophet said:
This is what I was questioning:
I don't see were I said obedient missionaries hurt missionary work.
Some rules hurt the work, and we have trained our missionaries to follow these rules. I gave the example of the 5pm dinner rule. This rules hurts missionary work in my opinion. The obedient missionaries do not I should have worded differently.
In fairness I was more of a rebel on my mission and if they had the 5pm dinner rule I would have blown it off.
-
11 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
So... obedient missionaries hurts missionary work?
I didn't say that. Show me where I did and we can have a conversation about it.
-
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
1. So you’d overpay her eightfold rather than tenfold?
2. It’s funny how quickly you’ve gone dark about the topic of PR. How do you think it would go over to have the Church sue her to get the money back? And PR aside, collecting a judgment is a full-time job in itself—just ask the Brown-Goldman families.
3. With an NDA? I don’t know. Why don’t you go ask the ex-Mormon forums?
4. That doesn’t really answer my question.
1. I have no Idea what this case is worth I'm just throwing out numbers
2. I haven't gone dark but this is a case where PR is only bad for the church, they don't need it and should pay to make it go away
3. maybe you can recommend a forum? I don't frequent so I wouldn't even know where to start
4. What's the question? that muzzling her would be morally and ethically wrong? (assuming she is correct on all counts) I don't know I'm not the morality police.
-
3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Five or six million?
First, Utah’s SB 54 lawsuit has been under way for three years and the state GOP’s legal fees to date are about $410K. You just let your terror of litigation lead you to pay millions of dollars more than the true worth of the settlement.
Maybe 3 million will get it done, I'd lowball her and see where it goes
5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:Second, you’ve done it for a promise of silence from a known liar who has admitted she *wants* the case to be publicized. At a certain point in negotiations, you have to allow for the “duh” factor.
Hence the NDA she talks they take back the money
5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:Third, have you considered the PR effect of having it be generally known that the Church tries to buy the silence of its “victims”?
So you think the church has never settled a lawsuit?
6 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:Fourth: If Denston is telling the truth, why *SHOULD* she be silenced by an NDA? Wouldn’t muzzling her be morally and ethically wrong?
They cannot criminally prosecute it is a civil case the only thing that can come out of it is money. If it is true the church should deal with it, Bishop should be excommunicated and anyone who knew of or participated in any sort of cover up for Bishop should also be punished accordingly.
Lastly I am not an attorney I just play one on TV
-
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Have you read Denson’s prayer for relief? Have you read her statement to MormonLeaks? She won’t sign an NDA. She wants the situation (or her perception thereof) to be made very, very public.
If they throw enough money at her she will go away, it's always about the money. 5-6 Million should do it. Then we will see if she stays on her moral high horse....
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:As for depositions: unless Bishop disclosed actual crimes to his area president (not just general randy behavior with consenting adults), the whole point of clergy confessional privilege is that people can’t go subpoenaing your church leaders to learn lurid details of your sex life. I doubt the deposition of the area president will be nearly as entertaining as Denson hopes.
Settlement is great when it works; but you’ve got to not be afraid to try cases.
I agree they are going to have a very difficult time trying to depose his area president. That does not mean they won't try and that just drags the whole thing out.
-
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:
You talk as though the Church has done something morally wrong here.
No I don't I don't think the "church" has done anything even remotely close to an impropriety or immoral.
If they pay Denson or whatever her name is it goes away she signs an NDA and problem solved bad press gone it's over. If I was a lawyer for the church I would want to get all of the skeletons out of the closet. Bishop supposedly confessed some sin to his area president when he was a mission president in Argentina, shockingly this guy is still alive, now we don't know what Bishop confessed to but you can bet Densons lawyers want to know. A lot has changed since 1970 something and if similar confessions were made I would want to be in front of it. Search out potential victims and start writing checks instead of getting blindsided 40 years later.
-
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Omega, I suspect that you and I agree far more than we disagree on such things. I'm often found on the rooftops yellin' at the top of my lungs about this subject. That said,
Do you believe the church is not addressing this? Because I see stuff like this:
Church Statement About Alleged Sexual Assault by Former Mission President - Newsroom - March 2018
And this:
How the Church Approaches Abuse - Newsroom - Take a look at what the church says about these headings:Must be new you say? How about President Hinckley's General Conference talk from 2002, where he talks about spousal, elderly, and child abuse:
Maybe we're not doing enough in our communities? How about this news story from 2016: Church Marks National Child Abuse Prevention Month
I think the church is addressing these issues. I think that over the last 20 years in particular they have done a wonderful protecting the members.
2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:No really, omegamaster75, what exactly do you mean when you say "An issue that to my mind needs to be addressed"?
The issue to me that needs to be addressed is training of local leadership. I worked for a fortune 500 company before I landed in my current job and I was in management. Every year they shipped us off for training. All the bases were covered from hiring, to firing, to sexual harassment, to basic leadership skills including how to do presentations, and how to hold effective meetings.
At the local level the rubber hits the road, not one time have I ever seen a Bishop receive formal training. People will jump on and say Well the stake president is training the local bishops. Who is training him? where did he learn it? It's on the job training for the most part they are flying by the seat of their pants.
-
2 hours ago, Fether said:
I never felt it to be repressive.
The only time being closely monitored got in the way was when we weren’t doing what we were suppose to be doing. And the people monitored the most were the people that broke the rules on a daily basis.
One example, the 5pm dinner rule. This has to be the single most nonsensical rule I have ever heard of, they have since backed off of it for good reason. How are missionaries supposed to build relationships of trust with the members if the only contact they have with them is through meal appointments and they have to be held at a ridiculous hour? The single greatest resource for referrals is from the members but leadership basicly blocked that with this rule. I may also add the 1 hour for dinner rule that they seem to have. I get it if the missionaries have book ended appointments, but if they have no appointments where are they going to better spend their time? knocking on doors at 6pm-7pm when normal people eat dinner? yeah I am sure that will get them in a lot of doors.
-
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Perhaps. On the other hand, the PR damage has largely been done;
Has it? Because as long as her team of lawyers are trying to depose people who knew her, or Bishops area authority while he was mission president in Argentina, or subpoena documents they have exposure. If I was on the church legal team I would call her lawyer and ask for a number that would make this go away. I would also talk to Mr. Bishop and ask if there is anyone else who might come forward. Maybe there isn't which is fine. I would also go to all leading authorities and point blank ask if there are skeletons in the closet so that I can get in front of any future issues and write checks as needed
-
32 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
That's an interesting file. I'm not sure it supports any such interpretation.
Maybe not.
32 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:It's a good eye opener for everyone to read. There have been, what, hundreds of millions of living mormons across 50 years, and you can find this many stories of allegations of abuse mishandling. Again, two things that are true at the same time:
- The total is so small that it is statistically pretty much indistinguishable from zero. Our churches and bishops offices and boy scout troops are pretty much always safe, pretty much everywhere, pretty much across the decades.
- More than one is too many. It happens. You do humanity a disservice if you assume it doesn't.I agree statistically the number is very small, and as a whole our children are very safe at church. One thing I noticed is that all but a couple of complaints are from the US or westernized countries. The church is now bigger outside the US I suspect that there may be many more of these cases that are just plain unreported.
Several of the cases as you move to the later years specifically name bishops for mishandling information that they were given. While in many cases these are good men doing the best they can I think it points to the limited training of our lay clergy. An issue that to my mind needs to be addressed.
-
4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:
Settling when you don't have to, to have something just go away, is a thing.
Seems like mormonleaks kind of shot that opportunity in the head. It's seems possible, even likely, that neither the woman nor the church wanted this thing to leak. But leak it did.
I ran across a compilation of legal complaints, news articles and documents that someone had spent a lot of time putting together that detailed alleged sexual abuse by leaders and other people in positions to supervise youth think, scout leaders, etc. I didn't read the who thing as there were hundreds of instances dating from 1959 to about 2014. In some cases the perpetrators went to jail but in many cases there was a complaint and then it went n owhere. My interpretation is that monies were paid and a NDA was signed.
-
3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:
I think some of the reason is higher standards for conduct and closer monitoring of missionaries. If you talk to some older lds women you may hear some interesting stories about the things that they got up to with missionaries, nothing shocking by worldly standards! For example, one woman who is about 60 told me about hanging out alone with a pair of missionaries in a local graveyard. A man of about 70 here went to France on his mission. He treated his mission as a partial holiday and boasts that he was largely unsupervised. My guess is that currently, unlike previously, missionaries who do not obey rules are sent home.
There is much closer monitoring of the missionaries today than there was 22 years ago when I went. I think that it is repressive in a way, and stifles the individual missionaries ability to think for themselves. Now we have a army of drones who live and die by the rules in many cases to the detriment of the people they are serving.
-
7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
I dunno. Denson’s legal theory seems to boil down to:
1). Before her encounter with Bishop: that because the Church knew at some level that Bishop was sexually profligate, it should have known he was a potential rapist; and
2). After her encounter with Bishop: that Denson had a legal right a) to compel the Church to take disciplinary action against Bishop’s status as a member; b) to be informed as to the results of that disciplinary action; and c) to have the Church make a report to law enforcement that Denson herself couldn’t be bothered to make.
These are not exactly rock-solid legal theories. The fight may be ugly from a PR standpoint, but to me it looks like one that is eminently winnable for the Church from a legal standpoint.
Winnable yes but you can be right and still end up writing a check. The Church does not want or need this kind of negative attention. They will settle as they have in the past, Bishop will be excommunicated and he can be the poster boy for how serious they take these allegations.
-
12 hours ago, Carborendum said:
We're talking porn and self-abuse. It's just plain too common.
So pretty much no one can serve?
-
22 hours ago, Lee said:
I am 100% dedicated to my wife for now unless something changes.
I was on our side but your have moved off the reservation with this one.
-
6 minutes ago, Vort said:
Because having children requires sex. Because sex is (or should be) a sacred act between a husband and a wife. Because being husband and wife means that you're married.
From an LDS point of view, marriage and having children are intimately, inextricably intertwined. I assumed this was self-evident. That's what I get for assuming.
If pigs had wings, would we pick buckshot out of our bacon?
No offense, Lee, but you are unusually bad at assuming. You might better avoid public humiliation by not broadcasting your assumptions.
How unusual! Why, I bet there are only maybe five hundred people on this site who did the same. Bully for you! Such the romantic! Way to choose the road less traveled, to brave the unbeaten path! Marrying because you love the person, and not solely to reproduce with them? Why, who ever heard of such an exalted attitude?
I don't know about everyone else, but my hat is off to Lee. What a guy!
@Lee Is a new member of the forum, give him a break.
Look he and his wife waited, he wants confirmation that now is the right time to have kids.
Some people wait, some jump right in on the kid thing I don't think either way is wrong.
It's his life, his decision to make and he will bare the consequences if any with regards as to how long they did or didn't wait to have children. It is between him, his wife, and God.
-
1 minute ago, Carborendum said:
I'm really having difficulty understanding something. In an unrelated case with similar accusations, the child born of that A.I. said:
While I realize what the doctor did was messed up, I don't understand this reaction. This seems like the same thing people believe about adoption. I never felt that.
While i had the advantage of knowing from the beginning that I was adopted, the fact is that I've never really known anyone who felt "betrayed" at finding out. It was a surprise to many. And some even sought out their birth parents. But this "SHOCK" and DISASSOCIATION is just not something I understand.
Are people so attached to DNA that they feel like a different person simply because they found out the DNA was different than what they thought? What does that even have to do with anything? Do you not know who you are?
People react to trauma or change in different ways. For some this would be a traumatic event. The parents of this child never told her she was the product of artificial insemination or whatever they did. They probably thought that they had at least a 50/50 chance that she was their natural offspring. When you find out that who you thought was your father actually wasn't that's a big deal. At worst this is traumatic and at best it is a difficult change to wrap your head around.
Think about the church essays for some this was a traumatic revelation even though if you wanted to know about it you could.
We are so right!
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted · Edited by omegaseamaster75
Actually the didn't the word of wisdom is not given by way of commandment.
Our teetotaling leaders made it policy in the 1920's to prohibit the consumption of it in totality.