Fether

Members
  • Posts

    3690
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    27

Posts posted by Fether

  1. From what I have found, a good majority of what Charity is is empathy, if one can feel what the other person is feeling, they can more fully Koran with and comfort. I’ve been seeking to have empathy more and more in my life and it’s been pretty incredible and has helped me with my charity.

    I have a sister-in-law that had a very difficult life, much of which is self inflicted. When I first entered the family, I had a lot of empathy for her and was always excited to talk to her and help her grow. Fast forward to 4 years later and the same problems she had when I met her have compounded. She continues to make the same mistake and her sorrow and anger just get bigger and bigger. Having empathy for her has become extremely exhausting. My wife and I have avoided being around her because we can’t take the complaining and the hollow “self help” conversations she wants to have.

    So for the question. How does someone maintain. Charity in a situation where is is exhausting and stressful to do so, and there doesn’t seem to be an end to it?

    Is the answer to continue just more empathy and patience? 

  2. 3 hours ago, Anddenex said:

    @Fether Can you describe the difference between a system and a goal, and an example of what that might look like? Right now it appears like a great idea but more a semantic paradigm.

    Generally speaking, we would call them the same, but the book makes the distinction between the two.

    Goals:

    - Have a 6-pack

    - Make $100,000

    - Run a marathon

    - lose 50 lbs

    - Read 25 books

    Systems:

    - set an alarm every morning for 6am and exercise

    - call 15 potential clients every day before I can have lunch to try and sell them my product

    - Run 1 mile every night right when I get home from work

    - meal prep every Saturday 

    - listen to audible while I run and exercise. 

  3. 3 hours ago, Vort said:

    The artificiality of goals has always left me cold. Unsurprisingly, I don't do well with them.

    This is entirely me. And I bet most people are like this too.

    I remember in my mission I found it so hard to buy in to my own goals. I always was consistently annoyed with my mission leadership’s attempt to get explain, training, and sell us on some abstract concept of the importance of goals. What I did find extremely helpful, and I didn’t have a word for it till a year or so ago, was I had systems in place for what I would do when I saw someone on the street. I knew how many people I would talk to each day, I knew my routine in the morning, and I knew how I would act in various situations. Those systems helped me become who I am today.

    I still set goals, but my relationship with them and how I use them today is very different then years past.
     

    I also find that having a vision of who I want to be is extremely helpful. Part of my morning routines is to imagine excellent versions of myself that align with who I want to be. For example, when I imagine myself as being called as the Prophet, I all of a sudden get an excitement to start memorizing scripture, develop Christlike attributes, and be an incredible husband and father.

  4. 1 hour ago, laronius said:

    unless we have an enormous amount of willpower, which apparently I don't

    Read Atomic Habits. It talks about this. There is another book called “Willpower Doesn’t Work”. Simply put, will power is an unreliable source and that it should never play a role in our decision making not should we expect it to be of any assistance. It’s nice when it is there, but it is like that really cool uncle that never shows up when he says he will.

  5. Probably my all time favorite books is James Clear’s Atomic Habits. It was even the topic of a talk in the most recent general conference. There are some incredible lines in that book, but one line in particular says “You do not rise to the level of your goals. You fall to the level of your system”. 
     

    A large portion of the book is about not worrying about where you are, but rather creating systems in your life that will take you where you want. It’s about finding joy in the process. After it’s not about what your weight is, how much money you have, if you can dunk a basketball, or what your current job or calling is. It’s about the kind of person you are

    So instead of making New Years goals, make New Years systems that will turn you into the kind of person you want to be. 
     

    some more quotes from the book:

    ”Goals are good for setting a direction, but systems are best for making progress.”

    ”When you fall in love with the process rather than the product, you don’t have to wait to give yourself permission to be happy. You can be satisfied anytime your system is running.”

    “Every action you take is a vote for the type of person you wish to become.“

    “Be the designer of your world and not merely the consumer of it.”

    “The purpose of setting goals is to win the game. The purpose of building systems is to continue playing the game. True long-term thinking is goal-less thinking. It’s not about any single accomplishment. It is about the cycle of endless refinement and continuous improvement. Ultimately, it is your commitment to the process that will determine your progress.”

  6. 57 minutes ago, mikbone said:

    Im an identical twin.  In vitro fertilization only results in fraternal twins. We have 11 children all singles, most are about 18 months apart.

    Have you considered Irish twins?

    The type of twin doesn’t really concern us. We have considered Irish twins and will likely go for that

  7. 1 hour ago, Grunt said:

    Interesting idea.  In my opinion, your dilemma is compounded the fact that you're using this treatment to subvert a natural timeline.  I honestly have no idea what the moral implication of that would be, or if there even is one.   That would be an interesting talk with the Bishop, in my opinion.

    I have been down this road and would be more than happy to discuss it privately if you need to.

    It is nothing we are seriously considering. Just something I thought of during conversation. We joked about it because it would be cool to have twins / triplets and it would fast Track is the number of kids we want

     

  8. We have two sets of friends who struggle to to get pregnant. Both went through a somewhat expensive process to getting pregnant that involved doctors deliberately fertilizing the wife’s eggs with the husband’s sperm. I don’t know the exact process or what it is called, but one thing they told us was that it increases you likelihood of twins and triplets. One of our friends are actually having twins from this.

    My wife and I are extremely fertile. Like, I kiss her and she gets pregnant. But This got my wife and I thinking. There is a certain number of kids we think we want before we are done, so we jokingly played with the idea of going and paying a doctor to do the same treatment, but with the goal of having twins or triplets. That way we can get closer to that number of kids we want that way we can have all the kids out of the house 4-6ish years earlier than they otherwise would be.

    The likelihood of us doing this is pretty much 0. But I wanted to ask everyone what they think the morality of paying a doctor to force us to have triplets would be.

  9. 3 hours ago, laronius said:

    I think the practical application of the eternal family doctrine to couples is pretty straightforward. They remain united enjoying the continuation of the seeds, I assume perpetually. We call it eternal marriage.

    When it comes to the children though I have often wondered what's the point? In the ideal situation they will grow up and get sealed to their own spouse and start their own family. And to top it off, to my knowledge there is no covenant made between parents and children. Neither do we speak of them as our eternal children nor us as their eternal parents (lower case p).

    But if we look closer at the doctrine of sealing we find that the sealing of parents to children is generally couched in the broader doctrine of the welding together of all generations back to our father Adam with whom God made covenant and then later renewed with Abraham. Entering into this Abrahamic covenant relationship is clearly referenced in the temple sealing ceremony. In doing so we can become the "seed of Abraham" and potential heirs to all that the Father has. 

    Our Father in Heaven's kingdom is patriarchal in nature, it is a kingdom of family and families. He seeks to exalt all of His family and this should be our goal as well. This is far more than simply being able to hangout with them in the eternities and through the sealing power we assist our families in that endeavor.

     

    I would also add that I don’t know that brothers and sisters are sealed together, but rather just to their parents. I may be wrong on that though.

  10. 6 hours ago, Grunt said:

    Interesting.  I have NEVER heard anyone say this.   Is this a Utah thing?

    Perhaps… but I would say it’s more of a jabbing point for people who leave the church or are wanting to find problems with the doctrine. They decry “so I won’t be with my family if someone doesn’t go to the celestial kingdom!?” I heard this a lot in high school and on forum posts by members who left the church. I have also heard it many times in interviews with people who left the church.

    It is easy to see where this idea comes from, but hard to back it. 
     

    Im mostly just curious about the phrase “eternal families” why do we use that wording? It seems to augers we can’t be with our family forever outside of the celestial kingdom… which then suggests we will be barred from them somehow.

  11. “Eternal Families”

    “Families can be together forever”

    “family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave.”


    What does all this mean? What does this actually look like? Do we have any sources that qualify this a little more beyond those phrases? What do we know and not know?

    I have met MANY members (current and former alike) that understand it all to mean that if you don’t go to the celestial kingdom, you will be barred from seeing your family, but you can still hangout with everyone else in your respected kingdom. 
     

    I have always taken the approach that we don’t really know what eternal family means beyond those few lines. I’ll sometimes point the Doctrine and Covenants 19 where it explains that the word “Eternal” simply means “belonging to God”, so “eternal family” is just “God’s family” that that not being an eternal family does not mean that God is going to bar you from those you were raised by, but rather, eternal family means to eternally live in an ever growing family setting…however, as nice as that sounds, the context of what is said and the feeling of the wording doesn’t always support that, but rather seems to support the cultural understanding many members have.

    Does anyone have any insights on this? Any references to words of the prophets or scripture?

  12. 5 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

    Is there something worse about complaining about the to-be bishop vs complaining about the sustained bishop? Or do you mean to imply that once sustained, those who would complain before, having now sustained, wouldn't complain any more? I guess that makes some sort of sense I guess.

    Doesn't seem to apply to the "who's the new librarian" idea though. :D 

    Keeping a standard rule of “dont tell anyone before sustaining” seems to be the most simple approach and easiest way to avoid problems.

  13. 1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

    I vaguely understand why it might be important to keep it under wraps who's being called as the new bishop or something akin. Even then, the only real reason I can think of is for the special "reveal" moment when it's officially announced so everyone can go "Ooooo" together.

    But why (in your various opinions) do we keep who's been called a secret until they're actually announced for sustaining. Particularly in lesser callings? Like as the Sunday School president, I feel the need to keep it secret from my wife who I've submitted to be the librarian. Which is weird. 

    I can understand why it should be moderately kept under wraps prior to the person accepting the call. Because then there's the potential issue of the resultant gossip if they don't accept the call, or if the bishop simply rejects them...then why? Are they not worthy? Etc. etc. Sure. Makes total sense. But once they've accepted then.... ???

    I mean I've been specifically counselled to not tell anyone until I've been sustained when I've been extended callings. Why? Does anyone have a good reason for this thinking that can satisfy my curiosity? :)

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not frustrated or anything by the matter. I've just come across several situations recently where it's come to my attention and I've thought, "weird." Like the bishop is talking to me about the librarian's that have accepted (as I'm attending to the library due to not having any librarians) and will be sustained soon, and his wife walks into the library and he clams up like we're the CIA discussing classified national security secrets. I'm not saying he shouldn't. And, generally, for a bishop just keeping things between the involved parties is good practice. But it still felt weird to me.

    Anyhow...probably a short thread. But..... no one I've asked has been able to give me a satisfying answer. Not that I need satisfaction on the matter. Just.... you know....curious.

    Thoughts?

    One reason might be to avoid complaints prior to sustaining. I have seen a couple times where someone was called as bishop who the congregation was not a fan of. Had word gotten out before sustaining, there would likely have been complaints. It could become political fast if everyone knew who was going to be called to a specific calling

    Another reason may be to avoid people seeking the future bishops judgement on something prior to them having authority.

  14. On 10/29/2021 at 12:02 AM, Comp said:

    You know that . . ." - I think it's rude and condescending to say this

    I was endowed two days after HS graduation. A week later I was in the MTC. Prior to flying to my mission, I had gone through the temple only 3 or 4 times. A year and a half later I was serving near a temple and was able to attend. While there, I had a question. I think I was trying to remember whether I was supposed to wear my socks or shoes. I asked a temple worker and answered my questions and finished with “Common elder… you know better”

    It was a very annoying situation. But it did help me vow to never be condescending like that to anyone.

  15. 26 minutes ago, Vort said:

     Not at all. But my understanding was that this was a Giving Tree, where people ask for stuff.

    Are they asking? Or was someone asking them what they wanted?

    I think that is an important distinguisher. In the judgement of morality.

    Im sure there are plenty of entitled people out there. I just get annoyed when I see others and catch myself making unfruitful judgements without all the info.

  16. 1 hour ago, Backroads said:

    This is where I have my conflict. Fancy things are fun. It's just difficult to find the balance and pinpoint just what they "deserve".

    In line with what @Vort was saying, however, are these families asking others to provide them Christmas or are they asking to be provided an all-out Christmas?

    Deserve? I don’t think anyone deserves anything. The giving tree is about charity, which takes out the whole purpose of asking who “deserves” what. Are we not all beggars of at least salvation, of which we fall extremely short of… yet it is offered freely.

    Now I do not mean to compare a $200-1000 gaming system to Salvation, but if we get irritated about a child asking for a gaming system… is that not at least a little hypocritical? I understand not buying it because you can’t afford it, but let’s not complain or judge the poor kid.

    Im reminded of the parable of the unrighteous servant in Matt 18

  17. 2 hours ago, Vort said:

    Perhaps some are. I am not. But a $1000 gaming system—or, heck, a $300 gaming system—seems utterly beyond the pale for people struggling to provide any gifts at all to their children.

    If someone has the ability to offer it and wishes to, is there a problem? 

    I mentioned this earlier, but in my situation, we were approached by the bishop for a list of things our kids want. we didn’t go to the bishop. If you ask a kid “what do you want”, be ready for an honest answer.

  18. 2 minutes ago, Vort said:

    Maybe it is generational. My Christmases and birthdays often included fun, non-essential toys and other gifts like that. But we commonly got socks and underwear and other such necessities.

    I guess I object to an expectation of luxuries and toys. To my nose, that reeks of an entitlement mentality. I concede I may be missing something from the context of the rising generation, but I probably will not change my mind until and unless someone can explain to me, in terms I can understand, why such feelings do not constitute entitlement (or why this kind of entitlement is acceptable).

    I’m fine with essentials and non-essentials together in the gift pile. It seems, however, some are asserting that families that are destitute should only receive the essentials.