JohnsonJones
-
Posts
4067 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Posts posted by JohnsonJones
-
-
17 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Do I understand correctly that, because you see the LDS church becoming more accepting/friendly of this stuff, that you and your entire family stopped going to church?
I'm interested - do you folks figure the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's church, led by Him and His Prophets? Or do you figure something else?
(I've made a bit of a study over the decades on why folks lose their testimonies, and if y'all lost yours over this issue, it'll be the first time I've encountered such a story.)
I've seen it.
I'd give examples of it, but I don't think it would be very faith promoting or useful to do so in this thread currently.
However, I've seen this and similar items be an issue in the past decade with several members.
It could be something that could be discussed in another thread, but I don't think it will help anything to talk about it in depth in this thread, at least from me.
-
7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
And for the sake of context, I believe the "basic claim" here is that Uchtdorf is "privileged"--notwithstanding his having grown up in Hitler's Germany with a father who was a non-Nazi bureaucrat, being evicted from Czechoslovakia into eastern Germany, starving in postwar Germany with the rest of his countrymen, living under occupation by Soviet troops, then ultimately having to flee east Germany because his dad was an anti-communist.
But we know that Uchtdorf made it into the (barely-one-year-old at the time) German Air Force, which (we are to conclude) means:- He was privileged (because if you didn't have connections you couldn't make it *anywhere* in mid-20th-century Germany) (except the chancellery, multiple times);
- His rise from destitution to prosperity had nothing--nothing!--to do with his own efforts, qualities, or anything else that might support the idea of meritocracy (because as we all know, German culture absolutely values caste, charisma, and the ability to schmooze at the expense of competence, efficiency, and skill); and
-
Most germane to this discussion: White™ Dieter simply has no idea how hard or cruel life can be; and his apostleship would have been better conferred upon some hirsute womanizing tent-dweller in Portland or some "From The River To The Sea!"-gibbering student in London; either of whom would have had the wisdom and passion to funnel the Church's vast resources towards the
croniescauses that rightfully deserve them.
Before I being, I will point out that there is a great deal of sarcasm to follow...
1. Germany is NOT the U.S., though many want to think it's the same. That said, you have a strange idea of what makes one lower class. For example, I know of an individual who's father was only a Lowly shoe salesman. How could such an individual with a father who struggles to sell shoes from such as small shop be from anything other than a lower class. I mean...adidas is such a SMALL company in the world!
You used the Second Chancellor as an example. This business was big enough to have executives and branches, but yet, as per you, was just a lowly store (much like adidas is a lowly shoe selling place).
If it WASN'T for his father and the situation of such, he probably would have had more problems being an "unemployed" academic for 3 years (at which time he also was, in theory also an executive in his father's company). Such a destitute and poor world it was, such a lowly class of poverty and struggle there.
Kiesinger is a bit of a different duck as he gained his "privilege" before World War 2 and the changes to Germany (among which is where it became East and West Germany. It does not appear he was starving during the Wiemar Republic). He DID get the privileges of being a Nazi (and all that this entailed in gains above those who were not part of the Nazi party) early on. He became a Nazi in 1933. This was prior to him even graduating with a degree in Law. Such a terrible lowly thing to have everything provided when people were starving in Germany in the late 1920s. Surely that shows how far down on the totem pole he was in class. Then, to go to College and be a Nazi where he had to watch those in higher classes gain such great things such as losing all their property, being sent to camps and such while he had to suffer by seeing others in his class get their stuff!
Then, with such terrible connections he avoided being conscripted to arms in the War during 1940 because he was able to obtain a position in broadcasting where, because he had such horrendous opportunities he became deputy head of the department and liason to the department of Propaganda.
Luckily, his loyalty to Hitler and high position in the Nazi party during those times gave him no advantages, if I understand what you wrote correctly?
I DO find it interesting you chose to highlight him (the third chancellor) as he is considered HIGHLY controversial at times (which I've hinted at strongly, but won't go into detail as that is a MUCH LONGER discussion) as an example of one who had low privileges.
I would actually have thought that it was due to his ability to divorce himself from what he did in his past and justify how he actually avoided supporting the Nazi's (despite close ties to the Office of Propaganda) as well as the close connections he had to certain individuals of the time is a prime example of how one in a certain social status can use those advantages to their ability to obtain power...but...as long as we are being sarcastic on these things...
Such a hard struggle coming from such a place!
2. Germany has a great social mobility in some areas. I would not refute the idea that Uchtdorf had lowly origins in regards to what we see in the United States. One reason he is a member is due to his grandmother standing in line to try to get food after World War 2.
When one struggles with poverty, it is impossible to be part of anything but lower class.
I know a prime example that comes from our United States history. It's a PRIME example of how poverty forces one to remain in the lower class and never grants any privileges to their children.
This person was in the United States as an Irish Catholic. At this time there was a massive amount of prejudice and discrimination against Irish Catholics. In the early 1900s this individual worked hard and managed to get into Harvard, only to find out that discrimination there was alive and well. A little depressed at how classism worked he swore that he would become a successful businessman and show the others that he could succeed. He swore he would make a million dollars (being 20-30 million in today's dollars) by the time he was in his mid 30s.
This wasn't helped that he ended up having 9 children which he also had to try to support. However, luck struck and his father started to have success in local politics, with many of the Irish Catholics in the surrounding area also supporting their rise to power. Joseph actually succeeded in his goals despite these challenges and even better, massively exceeded them.
One of his children, Jack, was raised during this time period but suffered dearly. Because of the time and the situation, this son was regularly sick having measles, whooping cough, and then...what was at the time deadly...scarlet fever. The young boy survived and grew with the family. This boy would grow up to show that no matter what the prejudice, one can gain positions and power.
This young boy's name...John F. Kennedy.
So you see, this is an example that one who has a family that struggles at some point can never have any privilege at all. John F. Kennedy became President without any connections, help, or advantages because, as you put it, once in poverty...always in poverty????
Now, as seen, Germany is NOT the United States. However, I would expect someone who was a Vice President in an Airlines would have no privilege and, despite making a LARGE amount of money, also still be in poverty and in the lower class in Germany...if I understand what you are phrasing and how you are phrasing it?
3. I have had a LOT of sarcasm in my above posts. On this point, I'm not going to use any sarcasm. I've tried to offer the opposite view you presented in the points above to show an alternate take on the same thoughts. This is one I just can't do it. I don't have the spirit. I can't malign Uchtdorf just to make a point. That's just too far from how I feel that I just can't do it on this point.
Elder Uchtdorf was a brilliant pilot. He worked hard. Whether he had advantages in getting there or not, it was ultimately his hardwork and talent that enabled him to become the head of his class in the military and gain better positions at Lufthansa.
He has been part of the Upper class in Germany for many decades. That said, I have often felt that he has great empathy for others including those who are poor and destitute. He has great sympathies for those who are disabled and suffering. He is a wonderful person and I can't reduce my own opinions of the man to squabble about such a thing.
The general point I think was representation. It was how people and members in the Church feel represented. I think I already posted a view of this in the 12th post of the first page of this topic in my "Counter" and how this actually is.
So, though I will still stand by the point that Germany is NOT the United States (and Brazil is not either), and both have different systems and ways of evaluating class, position, and other hierarchical ideas, I have already presented that I think our General Authorities and Church leaders are Led by the Lord and it is the Lord who leads our church.
-
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Hm. Do you have a low opinion of UofU folks in general, or do you have a low opinion of anyone who's going to be a fan of any university? I'm a UofU fan, but all my smack talking about BYU is done lightheartedly, restricted to good-natured sports competition festivity.
No, of course not, but I find it par for the course. The same commentary going on here about BYU is probably valid in triplicate towards the U.
Of course, what is said about the U is probably valid a dozen times more towards other universities.
HOWEVER, on the final portion of my post, in regards to football...yes...I admit...I hold BYU and the U in low regard. That's sports though, not the university or the education they provide.
That said, BYU is normally known nationwide more for football then other things. After that, occasionally it's also known for being "Mormon, but IRONICALLY...outside of Utah and Utah influenced areas, the U is ALSO known for being "Mormon" so it all sort of balances out.
I have no hard feelings towards any of them, and most of my above post was said in jest or poking lite fun with no hostile intent. This is why I brought up football, because in the eyes of the SEC...both BYU and the U are equal in their eyes.
The BYU/UofU rivalry is sort of like two kittens going at each other. In the eyes of a Bulldog...kittens going at each other is cute but no real challenge there.
3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:I mean, I graduated from the U, but I've had a mostly positive opinion of the Y for as long as I've had an opinion. Back in my college days, my BYU buddy and I would 'crash' each other's campuses every now and then and sit in on each other's classes, just to get a taste. We offered/urged our kiddos to look into attending BYU as their college of choice. My wife is currently doing things through BYU pathways. Do I somehow surprise you, JJ?
Of course you surprise me sometimes, but probably not on this one.
More seriously, both are decent universities. BYU is a well respected university and has many of the top 100 colleges in the Nation (for things such as accounting and Law for example). The University of Utah is also very renowned and is famous for it's Hospital and medical connections the world over.
As for Religion professors teaching things about the Book of Mormon at BYU, I have no control over that. I imagine that if they are teaching this at BYU this is actually on a SYMPTOM of something far bigger and pervasive going on in the CES system of the Church which would also translate that it's probably also happening on other campuses at their institutes of religion or elsewhere (which would also include the U's institute of religion which if I recall, either that or the Aggies at Utah State have the biggest institutes in the nation).
It would be interesting to see which professors at BYU are actually promoting this idea, but I would also think that an investigation of how widespread it is among the Institute and CES system it is or has spread would be necessary at the same time.
Another thought I had is if this is actually something that's being promoted at BYU and the CES system...this could spell a change in the church's approach to things. IF it IS an officially endorsed and promoted item from Church leadership itself to the religion professors...this could be a precursor.
What would people's opinions be if this is actually NOT something that is coming from the Professors themselves, but something they have been INSTRUCTED to teach from higher Church leadership, and is a precursor of an official stance that the Church may be preparing to take in the future?
(and as an aside, this is similar to a stance the the CoC took decades ago and has been being pushed towards Church Leadership for awhile. It is NOT something I support, but I've seen this push to have this type of teaching and stance towards the Book of Mormon take place in our Church as well. I do not approve of this idea, but I don't know what my reaction would be if the Prophet himself decided that this is the Church's stance from now on, except that Utah culture [where I have seen this come from most often and where a LOT of the more liberal ideas which have changed the church recently have come from] is alive and strong in it's influence on Church policies still).
-
On 12/15/2023 at 7:55 AM, Carborendum said:
This New Yorker article published just last month asks whether it is morally acceptable to have children in a burning drowning world.
Not a new thing, I know. But I see this as becoming a more mainstream ideal that will be a "cancellable" offense in the coming years, unless things turn around.
I just wanted to highlight one of the introductory phrases of the article which, I believe, encapsulates the feelings, intent, and mentality of the green-to-human-extinction mindset:
I want to point out that the word "crystalline" may mean one of two things in this context:
- structured
- clear
I gotta ask: Is it clearly structured or is it uncertain? Certainly clearly structured uncertainty is an oxymoron. And isn't it a bit redundant to say a "structured uncertainty to the structure"?
Yeah, not really. This kind of self-contradicting reasoning is what is driving the ideology. Do they even listen to themselves?
Apparently, it is now considered irrational to have children. This has always been the center of the whole green movement. Yes, it also includes many other aspects that will (if left unchecked) destroy the world as we know it. And the new world order will not be pleasant.
I'd say that if they really believe that having children will actually destroy the world, then let them go on without having children. We'll have children and raise them with good sense, work ethic, time-tested morals, and faith in God. That's the way to win.
Several thoughts are brought to mind on reading your post.
Part I
I recently read an article on Climate change about how the oceans are rising and destroying a village in Mexico. It was pointed out in the comments that if you look at the coastline beyond that village, you will notice that the ocean hasn't actually risen at all. That the village itself only came about around 40 years ago. That the reasons why there wasn't one previously were due to the exact reasons the village had suffered as per what the article posted...AND...even with that, most of the buildings were still standing and NOT damaged.
I feel Climate Change is occurring and that there is a Human factor that is involved with causing it to accelerate. I also think that there is a awful lot of alarmist statements and articles that exaggerate how it has affected the world thus far. This way of doing things only diminishes how believable the actual claims of Climate Change are. When someone reads one of these articles and then finds out that it's basically full of lies, they are apt to discount ALL of the Science behind Climate Change. These types of articles do more of a disservice than to help with anything, but these people pushing them and whatever agenda they have do not seem to understand they are doing more harm than good.
However, it IS affecting our youth and it is part of what they catalogue on their issues that are ongoing in the world. I would be remiss if I ignored that many of my university students have these concerns. It adds to the general malaise many of them feel towards the world and it's future. I think there are many types of articles and influences like this today which make many of our students and young people give up hope about the future.
Someone without hope for the future is less likely to invest in a future...which also includes having a family.
Part II
The bigger concern I've seen in regards to family and children recently has to do with money and the financial situation in the West. Housing is becoming unaffordable. If a young person cannot afford a home, they are much less likely to start a family. Many young people today look at the prices of housing and think they will NEVER be able to afford a home. This is a DIRECT impact on them having families.
If WE want more kids to get married and have families we HAVE to solve the housing crisis that is occurring in the West. Unbridled greed and seeing housing as investments rather than a place to live and raise a family have caused what I see as a extreme problem to our society today. I would say this is actually the #1 factor in students saying they won't ever have children...simply because they do not see themselves as being able to afford a family and children in the future. This is from those who are in college.
I hate to see what despair is hitting those who are not looking at having a college education and the ensuing benefits in the future.
We NEED to somehow tackle the greed that has consumed the housing market. We need to somehow make housing affordable for young families and those who want children. We NEED to make children affordable.
By making the necessities that are needed to raise children so expensive, we are guilty of being the cause of decreasing the desire and ability of our younger generations to HAVE those children.
Even having a child now days (giving birth at a medical facility) can cost over $20,000 in the initial bill. That's insane. It cost me less than $100 for my children to be born. That's 2000x the amount I paid to have children. That's ridiculous and is worse than inflation by a FAR amount.
If we want young people to have children, we have to make it so that they can actually AFFORD to have those children.
Part III
I don't know if it's seen as irrational, but if you combine the two above (despair and giving up about the future and not being able to afford a family) you get a deadly combo of kids who look at families and think it doesn't make sense to try to have one.
It's coming from both sides of the equation. One side basically trying to kill all hope that the Kids have OF the future. The other side basically making it impossible to AFFORD the children even if they wanted one.
There needs to be SOMETHING done, but I don't see the collective will of society in the West being able to come together at this time to get rid of both of these ideologies and greed to be able to actually stop the destructive forces that are fighting against families today. It's a sad state of affairs we find ourselves it.
-
On 12/16/2023 at 11:35 AM, mirkwood said:
BYU is cancer ridden and I continue to be surprised there has not been some serious chemotherapy.
Aren't you a solid UofU fan?
This is the type of comment I would expect from one.
Nothing wrong with being a UofU fan, but I would think all UofU fans would have a rather low opinion of the Y. (Being a UGA fan I have no skin in this rivalry, as UGA would crush either one of them in the only sport that matters...being football and all).
-
21 hours ago, Ironhold said:
As an MBA and thus an academic... that's not how this works.
If you bring an argument, you need to provide evidence and work with contradictory evidence.
I am somewhat familiar with the German way of life.
I'm not absolutely certain at which angle he is coming from, but there are MULTIPLE ways that his statement is actually accurate.
One of the easiest to point out is how the education system works in Germany (and much of Europe). Education and higher education does NOT work like it does in the United States. You are sorted into (at least) three different groups. This differentiation will determine what you will be able to do in the future, how much education you will get, how much pay you might be able to expect, and much more.
In order to be a Pilot and a VP at an airline, Uchtdorf would have HAD to be placed in the highest tier. This allows one to go to a University and get a University education. Education is FREE, but only to those that Germany grants that education to.
The lower tier would be those who would be deemed in the US to be worthy of Blue Collar work. This is where your tradesmen (but many times, not their white collar office workers who tell them where to go) come from.
Finally, at the lowest tier, you will find those who are deemed unable to really be educated. They will be taught the basics of life and be reliant upon the state for all their needs for the rest of their life generally, unless they somehow miraculously break out of that role.
This placement sort of determines where you are going to be considered in life and what jobs will consider you. You can get into the highest tier if you have really good test scores, your relatives have really good connections, or you have a really good reputation to overrule everything else. Uchtdorf would probably have had to come from this class of individuals or he came outside the system (Such as from the US, his biography doesn't indicate that he came from outside the system).
I have relatives that moved from Germany to avoid this classification of their children as they wanted them all to have the freedom to choose to go to college if they wanted to.
-
8 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Lemme get this straight:
—Two of the last three apostles are men of color; one of whom is in an interracial marriage (which I’ll bet has never created any difficulties for him) and the other of whom is from Latin America (but is still privileged because he chose to take a clerical job as a teenager and went on to get an accounting degree).
—But: we’re concerned because the third apostle is
—an Englishman
—who was born on the Scottish border
—and spent much of his youth in Saudi Arabia
—(where his dad was apparently a weapons contractor),
—and spent much of his Church ministry advocating for refugees—
And thus, is ill-suited to properly comprehend the problems posed by ethnic tensions and/or poverty?
And we’re also going to keep kvetching that the recently-called apostles are, on the whole, “too white”?
Side note: Not trying to detract from the conversation, but this actually opens up another line of discussion unrelated to the original topic, but actually has had a direct impact on me when going out with the Missionaries. Different topic, but it is a question related to what you brought up here.
I know Gong is considered a PoC, but is Soares really a PoC?
I KNOW what the church claims about Soares, I also know that in Brazil many consider him white, and that overall many consider him a majority of European descent. The question is what is considered white vs. non-white? These definitions can differ between Brazil and the U.S. in many ways.
I also have seen minorities scoff at the idea of Soares being a PoC or being considered non-white in the U.S. when it's been brought up.
I HAVE TO ADMIT I do not fully understand why, but I have seen this reaction. Without knowing more about the why, I'm not sure repeating this often and loud is the smartest thing to do among those who may have a darker skin than Soares (the majority of racial minorities out there).
If he ISN'T seen as a minority by the majority of those who are minorities due to race, claiming he is a PoC may actually work against us. I don't bring it up these days when we are with the missionaries as I've already seen a few bad reactions to these claims when presented to some of the Hispanic investigators we visited.
I have been embarrassed enough by their reactions that I've never actually pursued the question after that, so I'm not fully informed on WHY they do not see him as one of their own (talking about the non-white hispanics that we talked to) in being a non-white PoC or of a non-white ethnicity. I only know that though members are very proud to see him as a PoC, the investigators (plural) that we've brought this up to at times in trying to empathize with them...did not see it in the same way and actually on several occasions seemed to be quite offended.
-
1 hour ago, NeuroTypical said:
Welcome to the JP Party Bus, @Traveler! Always room for one more!
Peterson is, first and foremost, a trained and practicing clinical psychologist. So he's got lots of advice for individuals wishing to improve themselves and not succumb to bitterness/hate/etc, and he probably gives general advice to people in one of his books. (I haven't read any, so can't point you in the right direction.)
I'm guessing that on a cultural level, he'd opine about how all of human history has always included heated discussions, so it's not a problem that anyone can actually solve culture-wide, although they can solve it in themselves.
I like his thoughts on American diversity from the viewpoint of a Canadian:
I don't think he's actually been practicing since 2017. I think he has also retired from being a professor, but still operates on a per quota basis occasionally. He is still licensed though.
-
I think the complaint isn't that Kearon isn't a good person, but that it appears that the Church has a bias towards the prosperity gospel and promoting the idea of a prosperity gospel.
This comes from the idea that starting with Bishops a majority of those called are almost always from the Upper or Upper Middle Class. If a ward is not part of a wealthy area, the Bishop is normally one of the wealthier members of the Ward (so, even in poverty stricken areas, a Bishop may still be poor, just not as poor as some of the poorest of the ward). This isn't ALWAYS so, but it has a strong enough trend that even those beyond the church notice that the leadership of the church seems to be a bunch of wealthy people. The wealthier and better off you are, the higher the position in the church.
The Path to being a General Authority seem to come from three directions. You are either rich and powerful to begin with, you are part of the CES system and have connections, or you are related to someone notable.
Some try to pooh pooh this idea, but ignoring the trend and HOW IT IS SEEN by others does not make this problem of perception go away.
This brings up the other idea I think that was found in the OP. When all you select are people from a certain type of background (in this case, mostly White, Upper class, Men) your leadership tends to have no idea about what others lives are like. They have no idea what it is like to grow up or live in poverty. They have no idea what it is like to be a minority among the white majority. They are insensitive to problems and desires of the common man (or women).
If we use this as an example, a way to see how this reflects on the church is the ACTIVE membership and how many are actually joining the church. The church has stopped releasing official numbers in general making it hard to know what the membership is like, but reduction of stakes and wards and other indicators seem to show that baptisms are extremely low these days as well as active membership being a small fraction of what the full membership is reported (so, something like 17 million members, but only 7-8 million are actually active...etc...etc..etc). By losing touch with the problems of those who are lower classes and not part of the ruling class, you tend to not be able to speak to them or understand WHY they may not want to join the church or not want to be active. Others, who are not part of that group may feel that they are not represented amongst the leadership of the church.
This is what I understand by the comments that I hear regarding the composition of the General Authorities of the Church and how some perceive it when the comment on this. Is this a correct understanding?
Well, I have to admit I am probably also part of the problem to a degree and thus may not be able to frame it entirely accurately. I'd probably fall into the Upper Middle class dynamic as well as being a White Male. This means, that I also may not fully understand the complaint, but I HAVE tried (as I've tried to explain how I understand it above). I also sympathize having seen this type of item in action.
I can't say I have an explanation to every question. I can't give a satisfactory answer at this time to such a query. That said...I DO have some things to point out...
MY COUNTER
When the Lord was alive he chose from People he knew to be his leaders. At least two of the Apostles were his brothers (so, direct family). It is probable that Peter was a family friend and that most of the others were those he already knew before he started his ministry. In this case, many of them probably were ALSO part of his social and economic strata.
Did this make him blind to the needs of others or to what was needed to be taught?
I would argue this did not diminish the Holy calling that the Savior or his Apostles had. The tools they had were utilized to the fullest they were able to do, and in such were led by the Spirit, the Father, and Revelation in how to proceed in teaching and establishing the religion of their day.
This same idea extends to the Apostles today. They can only assign those that they are familiar with. If they do not know you exist, or are not familiar with you, how can they judge on whether someone would be a good fit.
Some could say the spirit, but we also know that when given choices we are to try to make the best choice possible and the best decisions possible and THEN go to the Lord and ask if he is okay with it.
I think they try to do this today, and it is after they approach the Lord with the question, it is then that they are guided by revelation on whether that is a good or bad choice.
This doesn't negate the holy and divine calling each of them receive in serving the Lord. It is that, just as we are, they are meant to work and do as much as they can themselves and THEN ask the Lord. He then gives them revelation on how to proceed.
In this way, each of the Apostles (and the leaders of the Church) are divinely called through revelation after prayer and diligence on the part of our Church Leaders. As such, they are each divinely empowered to lead the church and to fulfill their callings they have been given.
-
As the Semester has ended I may be visiting with family and other things soon. I will finish the BoM with you, but may not be here to comment much longer before it is done (limited as my commenting has been, even so, it will be less).
It's interesting how those who were there spread the word as far as they could and those who were able, or at least many of them, journeyed to get to the location where the Savior had been the day prior. I wonder how far the message was able to spread. They didn't have the technology of today, and it was soon after (perhaps) the greatest disaster their civilization had ever had. In any case, it was a LOT of people that gathered.
I was trying to think on this. If we take modern day Atlanta and then hit it with a massive disaster, I suppose people who REALLY wanted others could know could travel 10-20 miles out. That could take 5-10 hours in and of itself. Then those who heard and really wanted, pack and walk back would be another 5-10 hours. Putting it at a median of around 15 hours. That would literally be walking through the night for each without any rest so that they could go.
I would hope that in this event I would make that type of effort if I were in similar circumstances. It's easy to say you would, but looking at those type of numbers, it's more of a hope than an absolute.
I imagine many may have been extremely tired upon getting there the next day, but the events (the Disciples, then Angels, and finally the Savior again to minister to them) would probably be enough to keep many of them awake and engaged.
-
12 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:
Y'all paying attention to the rise of antisemitism globally, including here in the USA?
The latest startlingly hypocritical example: The presidents of MIT, Penn, and Harvard, asked if calls for genocide against Jews would violate their school policies against bullying/harassment. In case you've been in an international news blackout, all 3 presidents refused to give a clear 'yes', instead couching their answers with maybes. You might get disciplined for intentionally misgendering someone, but apparently advocating for another holocaust is just fine, unless it crosses over into "conduct".
A good bit of reading about how calls for genocide should be treated by folks who relish freedom of speech:
Another portion of What I would consider Anti-Semitism...
The Republicans in Congress REFUSE to send aid to Israel unless they get money (aka...money to send to supposedly fight the border wall, but from what I've looked at, it appears more to send to contractors who will give them kickbacks and then say they are doing something on the border).
In addition, they refuse to support Ukraine in it's fight against a nation that literally has threatened us repeatedly over the past few months with nuclear war or worse (though we properly have called it a bluff, Russia IS NOT our Friend currently).
I AM AGHAST.
They are choosing to purposefully NOT send aid to Israel unless their temper tantrum is met.
This is NOT the Republican party I remember from decades ago. I can't believe the Religious portion of the party isn't throwing a fit about this!? This should upset the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists at a minimum. No one is throwing a complaint though!
Has the entire portion of Christianity gone to supporting Antisemitism? Or being Anti-Semitic unless they get kickbacks or something in return?
Now, though the Democrats look to be coming out of this a tad cleaner on this, I have no question that if the shoe was on the other foot, they would be doing similar things (probably just as dirty)...but so far they haven't.
Which is probably one reason the Republicans are doing what they are doing. They just want to do the opposite of the Democrats for no other reason than to be contrary.
It sickens me. While Israel fights against those who would destroy it from the River to the Sea and kill all the Jews and Arab Israelis (who Hamas at times consider traitors) in a genocide...the United States Congress doesn't do what is right and support Israel in it's own 9-11 attack on it.
In addition, former Presidents and those who fought against the Oligarchy in Russia (Russia claimed to be following Marxist Communism, but at least from Stalin and probably before that it was more an Oligarchy than pure Marxism) are probably turning in their graves. Ukraine is fighting for it's freedom and democracy and we are sitting on our haunches.
When did the Republicans change from a Party that wanted smaller government, but ALSO normally on international affairs were rather strong (it was Reagan and Bush who won the Cold War if anyone recalls) changed into the party of Big Government (the deficit has risen due to the Taxation policies of Trump greater than it has ever before...though the Democrats could have revoked them and didn't for starters) and trying to ignore the battles against democracy (Israel is also one of the ONLY democracies in the Middle East) and Freedom?
We want to talk about Anti-Semitism...I see it coming from both the Left and the Right currently. There's no side which seems to be in the clean right now and it has me stunned. I'd have never thought we'd be in this type of position if you had asked me years ago (and Ironically I may have put the Democrats as the ones who would be asking for something in return to aiding Israel, but nope, it's the Republicans)...and yet...here we are.
-
Not all faith based movies are poorly made, though the studios that were big enough to make major productions have decreased.
One of the biggest movie studios that used to have Christianity and Christian based values in it's movies has turned 180 degrees after it's founder died.
Disney didn't have EVERY movie with some sort of faith based message, but there were several which had very pointed messages about faith and deity within them. Sometimes they were more obvious in the live actions films they made. Unfortunately, it seems Disney is the exact opposite of what it used to be. One movie my wife really loves is The Happiest Millionaire which has references to Bible study and Christianity blatantly within it.
You won't find that type of movie being made by Disney today. You have to turn to other film studios for material like that.
-
On 12/7/2023 at 4:37 PM, The Folk Prophet said:
Argh...just the first 10 seconds and I'm disgusted!
Edit: Okay I watched it all. And.... I'm still disgusted. But.... there are some interesting points he made. Particularly, I have never understood the Church's support for LoveLoud. And similar matters. Some of his points are ridiculous though. The church's ads in The Book of Mormon musical wasn't support for or endorsement of the musical.
I don't think the Church should support his movie. He's being a whiney baby man about that. And complaining about the church publicly, particularly from a position like his, is just terrible. But I do understand how he would feel frustrated at the some of the things he points out.It is an interesting thing to consider. I was telling @LDSGator in a pm earlier how I used to write exclusively church related stuff for my musicals. I always struggled a bit with that on the commercial balance side of things. One side of me thinks that profiting off of "spiritual" things in any way feels an awful lot like Priestcraft. But the other side of me thinks what better way to profit than by also sharing spiritual messages that might benefit the world. I'm still torn on the idea. I really dislike a lot of "spiritual" artists like Michael McLean and the like because it feels so much like they're selling spirituality. It bugs me. And yet...I have had some of my greatest spiritual moments in life with music from Kenneth Cope. So I'm so very torn on the matter.
Either way, the "open letter to the church" video is a big thumbs down from me.
I think the problem is actual priestcraft. There is a difference between priestcraft and other arts.
Priestcraft is the art of being a priest. You get paid to be the one who has the authority to perform religious ceremony and acts. In essence, you are being paid to perform ordinances, to tell people they are forgiven, to run the religion or run the church.
In Priestcraft you are being paid to be the Priest. You are paid to be the one preaching sermons and telling people what the scriptures say. You are being paid to tell them when they are forgiven, and to give the ordinances to them (sacraments, etc). You are being paid to do what the Lord gives away for free. You are trying to be paid to hand out salvation.
If you are writing uplifting books, music, or other items, IN MY OPINION, that falls under the category of other arts or crafts. It's the craft of writing or the art of being a musician or painter or other facet. You are working on something that benefits others. It is not seeking to be paid to profit off of ordinances or the materials thereof, but to uplift people and inspire with your works of art. It is a different field entirely (once again, IN MY OPINION).
If no one makes uplifting material, than those of us who try to find uplifting material to read or listen to will not have anything to read or listen or see or watch.
It's like other artists and such, but you do it in the spirit of making uplifting and righteous material rather than that which pleases the world.
-
How does it work, or how does it know how or what to filter?
Is there someone who has to go through it first to find it and mark it, or does it use some sort of AI?
-
World War 2 is closer to some of us than our younger generation thinks. I had a Father and cousins that fought in World War 2. We should never forget.
I recently read that 1/5 of Americans do not believe the Holocaust is real. That shocks and saddens me.
I've seen how the impacts and sacrifices of those who fought the Japanese in the Pacific have been forgotten over the decades be each succeeding generation.
How, slowly the ideas and thoughts of the Imperialist from Asia, and the Facist from Europe have been gaining ground in our modern society.
I only hope that later generations do not have to relive the horrors that we unleashed upon ourselves again because they forgot our past.
- NeuroTypical, CV75 and Jamie123
-
3
-
Different post on a different topic. On the idea of UBI...I'm not sure what I think thus far. Some experiments have shown that it works to create a better economic boost....but I would imagine it's the same type of boost you see around military bases.
The influx of money from the government at cities where military bases are helps the economies of those areas. It's one reason why some see military bases as desireable for their local economies, both nationally and internationally.
In that same light, suddenly giving a bunch of people government money may have the same result. That doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea though to go all in on a national scale. That may actually cost more money than it brings in. I'm not sure what I think of it yet.
A better program would be that which the Lord instituted, but there are problems with that program as well. In this program each person is given what they need. Their needs are met. They have enough food, housing, and clothing, but no one is given excess. In return, everyone works and does labor. It doesn't matter if you are the ditch digger, or the CEO, everyone is given the same amount as per their needs. There is no stratification in this type of order where one gets more simply because they have more education, or they have the "better" job, or they come from a "better" family...etc...etc..etc.
Hence...the problems of running it in our modern day. It's similar to what Joseph Smith ran into with Missouri.
In Freshmen classes of philosophy and History we teach an idea of virtue vs. greed. To run the program as described, it requires virtue. Everyone must be willing to help out society simply because that's what they want to do. They can't be thinking of their own selfish desires...or the program will not work. The problem is that people are inherently greedy, and that greed disrupts the program above.
The best program is if everyone was virtuous, or cared more about society and their neighbor. Then all would work, but no one would necessarily be given more than another simply because they wanted it. Everyone would be given as per their needs...not necessarily their wants.
UBI isn't this. Until we all become Christlike, I don't think the Law of Consecration and the United Order will work all that well either. The best it ever ran was under Brigham Young, but even then, you slowly saw it deconstructed as people wanted to have what the rest of the US was having and to get gain where they could enjoy the pleasures of the world. After a few decades, they were no longer living under those rules and other regulations came to be.
-
UBI is sort of practiced in the US already by a very Socialistic program (perhaps the Only TRUE socialistic program in the United States. It is completely socialist in many ways. This organization does NOT actually provide or produce any credible goods, does not create anything more out of it's labor than what it is given out of the taxes that fund it, and is a key on how socialized medicine, housing, and other items in the US might work if we turned completely socialistic as they are). This program is the United States Military.
It is ironic how many of them live in a socialistic society but are, they, themselves, against socialism or having anyone else live in that type of society.
No matter what the rank, they receive a minimum amount of money no matter what they are doing as long as they are not criminally charged (via military justice). They have housing either supplied, or they are given a housing allowance. They have free medical care given (or mandatory medical care in some cases). The DO protect our interests abroad, though they haven't really been called up to protect us from an attack on the mainland for many years. Thus, as far as something that produces money...the military doesn't actually have a positive product produced. The money that is spent is money they gain from what is given to them by the US government.
If Taxation is stealing, and then that stolen money is given to fund an organization like the military...what do you call the people living off of that "stolen" money?
Would they be Thieves???
For some reason, I don't feel comfortable with this line of thought, but if we TRULY are going to say that taxation is theft, than that money is stolen money and those who are funded for their entire occupation and lives would be the ones who are living off that stolen money?
I think this is a dumb line of conversation. Taxation isn't THEFT anymore than the military is made up of a bunch of parasites that live off of society without producing any products that actually create value to that society in general.
Neither is true. Both are part of what we would a social contract.
(Add to that idea, that the government basically forced a bunch of us to serve many decades back...where draftees were paid but most of them would rather have not been in the military and been back at home instead).----------------------------------------------------------
The Government cannot rule without the consent of the governed. Thus, what the government does is allowed by those over whom it governs.
Taxes are part of that social contract. I don't like many of the taxes today, but paying them is part and parcel of how the government is supported in order to run the programs it does.
These programs (such as the military, welfare/medicare/medicaid, social security...the three biggest items which draw money from our goverment today) are run by the government.
If we do not LIKE how these things are done, it is up to us, in our Democratic Republic to make that known to those who represent us. If they don't represent us, it is up to us to try to elect someone else. IF we can get enough people to agree to our ideas, then such ideas can go forth. If NOT enough people agree, or have different ideas, it probably will go nowhere.
These program then are seen as public goods. They produce NOTHING of value inherent to a capitalistic society, in that no monetary good that can be sold for profit is produced. HOWEVER, the government in utilizing these programs produces a net positive on society. There are different purposes behind these net goods, even though from a monetary point of view, they detract, rather than add to, the amount of physical products being created.
The Military obviously is there in case we are attacked. They are there to defend us. It is not a constant need, but it exists as a backup so we don't have to scramble to build up a military (as we have in past times) if something happens. In addition, we use the Military to project force and hence push our Diplomatic goals across the globe.
Social Security is there so we don't have our old folks starving to death in the streets. It was supposed to be SUPPLEMENTAL income, but many use it as their primary souce of income today. This is to make it so when people get old and feeble they have a way to eat. Similarly, Military and government retirement is to ensure that those who have served our nation are able to be housed and eat rather than become homeless and starving after their service is done. This is normally seen as a social good, even if it produces no physical product in return.
Medicare and Medicaid is seen to try to also provide for these people (along with Tricare...which some see as a branch of this). Welfare is also a back up to try to keep those who are unable to do so, fed and sometimes housed.
The reasons for these ideas of social goods go back to WHY we have governments in the first place.
Originally, people grouped together for safety and to be able to produce more together than one individual could do alone. Eventually, when these groups of people got large enough, some sort of organization on HOW to run the social contracts between people needed to be created. In this, people agreed to certain things among each other for a common good. That good could be defense, trade with each other (money in today's terms), and other items which may not be a product in and of themselves, but are seen as beneficial to society. This is...a social good.
The problem then comes on how to FUND these social goods. There must be a way to make sure that those weapons bought for us to use against invaders, the storage spaces used to store our food, and other things are paid for. Someone came up with the idea that everyone donates a little to the common good (aka...taxes) and hence...we can fund these things.
Taxes are part of that social contract. It is part of why we live together in a society, because together we are stronger than we are individually. AS the lord says....
Quote17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
Not that I LIKE to pay taxes, but taxes are not necessarily theft. NOW...OVERLY taxing people is seen as wrong in scripture...but taxes in an of themselves...are not necessarily theft.
-
It sounds more like a slow descent into anarchy. Similar to what happens when empires or great nations fall apart.
People may be most familiar with one of the most famous Western empires faultering, or the Roman Empire. It slowly retreated it's borders until most of Europe was held by a bunch of independent tribes and such. For a while it was chaotic as well.
-
16 hours ago, Ironhold said:
OK. I just tried to use the Gospel Stream app, which is what we're supposed to use now to watch church videos as most of them have been pulled from the church's website.
Well, a single session of Conference drained about 45% off of my phone's battery while also heating the battery up to a very alarming degree. I actually deleted the app as a result.
Has anyone here had issues like this when they tried to use the Gospel Stream app?
Not necessarily with the App, but with the church's streaming services. I had great difficulties with it during Conference.
I thought it may have been that everything they were streaming was trying to be in 4K and didn't want to stream in anything less? Or at least extremely high Def?
That takes a LOT of bandwidth and/or processing power.
I've noticed that both BYU TV and the church's streaming stuff seem to be having difficulties recently with the internet, or at least the internet in my area. When I watch their videos via Youtube or other resources they do just fine.
It may be area focused??? Company we get our data or streaming from?
I've had some problems similar to the First Post as well in the past two to three months. It also seems to eat up a lot of energy...not sure what is causing it, so I'm not good at giving a solution.
-
Algorithm.
That's my guess. I haven't been getting a lot of these as suggestions.
-
On 11/30/2023 at 9:40 AM, The Folk Prophet said:
Give me Angel Studios over Daily Wire 6 days a week and twice on Sundays.
I've heard of Angel Studios!
I didn't know Daily Wire made movies until this thread.
I'd probably vote more for Angel Studios than Daily Wire from what I've read here and that trailer above.
-
On 11/29/2023 at 7:27 AM, laronius said:
I still can't understand how Lucifer and all of his followers thought they actually had a chance at winning the war in heaven. So clearly there are things about the state of our premortal existence we just don't know. But I do think the law of opposition, in order to foster agency, was alive and well over there all throughout our journey from intelligences to spirit beings. So I guess it's possible that there were others who had previously rebelled. But that goes back to my first point.
Satan mentor: "Hey Lucifer, if you rebel against God there is great honor within your grasp. I can show you how"
Lucifer: "But you failed in your rebellion and so did ever other Satan in eternity."
Satan mentor: "Urrr, ummm, nevermind that. I'm sure you'll be different."
Lucifer: "Okay, sounds good."
Nothing I say in this post is doctrine...most of it is just posting on how it may have been.
When Lucifer first tried to gain power it was not through an act of war, but an attempt at deception. His deception was to try to fool his father and everyone else. The idea was that the plan as put forth didn't need to happen, that if he were given the power to do so, he could save everyone instead. The hidden purpose of this was to gain the ultimate power and glory for himself to rule over everyone else.
The Lord and our Father saw through this plan. First, the adversaries plan, in effect would prevent everyone else from attaining celestial glory. It would not be possible under his plan. He could save people from outer darkness, but his plan precluded the ability to give them everything. The plan of salvation does not promise to give everyone exaltation, only that it is POSSIBLE. It also saves almost everyone from outer darkness as well, just not 100% as Lucifer promised. The fact that the adversaries plan prevents us from being joint heirs is a massive flaw in the plan.
Secondly, it was obvious that because of how he positioned himself, Lucifer would be the only one to gain that type of power that our Father has, and in essence be able to try to fight him on a much greater level once his deception was revealed. His plan was not to actually save anyone, but to get power enough to overthrow his father and then rule over everything else.
His deception was revealed and then the war began. It is a war for our souls and as such, it is whether the children of our Father will choose to follow the Adversary or our Father and his Son. We are given our free agency to choose.
The Adversary knows that with the power that he has been granted, even though it is immense, he cannot overthrow our Father. There is no way for him to win in the end. He fights, because it has already been decided. If he cannot win, he will take as many of us as it is possible and if he cannot drag us down with him, he will try to do all he can to diminish what we can accomplish, or barring that, make our lives as miserable as possible.
It's like the Japanese at the end of World War 2. They knew they had no chance of winning at that point. Why didn't they surrender? Because it was not in their nature to do so at that point. They would rather DIE than surrender. In fact, even as the Emperor decided to surrender, there were the generals that tried to assassinate him to prevent that, because they would rather die than accept surrender.
The adversary knows he has lost...but he is still going to do what damage he can to the rest of his family because that is his nature.
-
On 12/1/2023 at 9:48 AM, NeuroTypical said:
I'm mostly in agreement with @Traveler's post. I'd rewrite the last sentence to say: "sometime in the future; this era and time of COVID will be understood as a time when
1- Nations used a deadly pandemic as an excuse to engage in excessive overreach, and
2- Various cultural forces took advantage of the situation to push for radical and usually harmful change.I don't know what the picture will look like for #1, but for #2, it'll be something like this:
On #1 - I don't think so.
Considering it's mostly Americans (who think America is the ONLY nation in the world) who complained as loudly as they did and fought against masks, vaccines, and quarantines as strongly, I expect it will turn out very differently in history (at least long term).
IF America's reach declines (as most empires do) or the Second Coming happens and people around the world are taken more seriously, those who dislike science and try to spread their own (by claiming that only the US exists and that every other nation and their scientists are wrong, or flat out ignore that the other nations even exist and how they were handlng the pandemic or the suggestions internationally were going as well as the studies internationally) ideologies will probably have their own voice diminished as well...I expect a very different story will emerge.
1. Vaccines actually work. That those who were vaccinated or survived the initial Covid hit (and yes, MILLIONS died from Covid, which many Americans still try to ignore...but mostly the far right) did create a mass immunization which helped reduce the effects of later strains of Covid (thus far) showing that yes...science actually is correct.
2. If America declines and Asia comes to predominence, Showing that the Asian method of wearing masks when sick actually are a better idea than the Far Right's strategy in the US of not wearing masks...AND that those who don't wear masks were irresponsible individuals that (if justice is in heaven) may want to be worried about a final judgement where the deaths of others caused by flagrant disregard may be a considering factor . (and yes, masks are STILL something used in Asia in many nations, especially when one is sick. This isn't a matter of whether one wears it when they have Covid, but when one is sick in general. Some also wear it due to pollution and other effects in the air).
3. IF the lawsuit is successful, all it will do is probably make it so if something like this ever happens again, Texas gets no vaccines and companies refuse to do business with Texas. Texas is large, but they aren't so large that they outnumber all the other nations of the world. Other nations will pursue science, even if Texas does not. Sort of reminds one of North Africa in the 17th and later centuries. They had been part of a very advanced civilization and at the forefront of science at one point, but due to political and social ridiculous attitudes they rejected many of these and then got colonized by those who actually had a greater advancement in science then they did.
4. As politically, this site normally aligns to the FAR right (and ironically, the LDS church does NOT. In fact, though there is a greater percentage of Conservative members in Utah, I think a recent study showed that it was nearly 50/50 for Conservative/Liberal outside of Utah/Idaho/Arizona...with women being around a 25/75 Conservative/Liberal when under the age of 25 outside of Utah...meaning politically I don't think this site actually represents what members of the church feel in general) I expect this post to be taken VERY poorly overall.
-
On Helaman 6...
It seems at times that both parties in the United States are rather corrupt. They both have things which really are disagreeable with the gospel of our Lord if one sits down and thinks about it. In some ways, one could say...the game is rigged. No matter which way you choose, you lose.
But, that's not just the United States these days. I see commentary from others in other nations which reflect similar feelings about their governments and the choices presented to them.
At the end of Chapter 6 the gadiantons (and their secret combinations, or secret cabals) gain power over the government.
In some ways, it sometimes feels as if there are conspiring minds in our society which control the levers of power, and thus it doesn't matter which side wins...they still control the outcome.
I wonder if today we have gadiantons (or their equivalent...of course) controlling the parties and groups that run for our elections?
LDS Opinion on Appropriate Missionary Behavior
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
There is something I tell individuals (not that it helps, but I try) in situations similar to these. Sometimes you need to have a testimony of the gospel, but not necessarily the church. What I mean, is the church in this would mean the leaders and individuals who are in it. Leaders and individuals are flawed and still human. The gospel is our path to exaltation.
I have heard someone say, for a church that teaches all about eternal families, it's not that family focused. Many wards, instead of trying to involve families try to EXCLUDE families. Thus, instead of inviting all father's to come with sons on camps, and mothers to come with daughters to camps, they try to exclude parents from their children. Instead of allowing parents to be involved with the children's religious education at church, they exclude them. They send parents one way, and try to send kids another.
In today's society (this is even more true in the East, meaning parts of Asia), organizations that do NOT explicitly have instructions to include parents when having youth organizations are inherently mistrusted. This is a problem that is also occurring in the public school system in the United States in some areas (and why parents are having real troubles with public education at times). Some parents choose to take children out of school because of things such as this.
In an ideal world we would have it explicitly stated in the Handbook of instructions that parents can be involved with their children in church in all situations. This would also help safeguard the church against lawsuits to a greater degree than it has now (though it may also open it up to lawsuits as well, but probably to a LESSER degree than it is open to them in it's current handling of youth and children. I expect in one or two decades the church is going to have a situation similar to what the BSA just went though with abuses and lawsuits en masse).
When I was a church leader I invited parents to be involved with whatever their children were doing regardless of calling. I am no longer a leader, but I have seen a similar openness in our area currently (at least for now).
It can be difficult when a ward or stake is not as open to allowing parents to oversee their children. I would say to stand firm and make it known that your children are YOUR children, not theirs. Be strict and stand your ground.
I know it is hard, but I would invite you to go and attend church again. Even if it is only for sacrament, renewing our covenants is a special and important part of our lives. When you stop attending the church, even if your own testimony is strong, it can lead your children down other paths. The church is a vessel that carries the covenants of salvation and exaltation. Many of us hope that our children will go to the Celestial Kingdom with us and their families will also be there (and so on and so forth). This is made possible through the covenants that are only available through the Church itself. This is the reason to attend and to inspire our children to at least obtain these covenants.
That said, be firm and stick with your children. If you need to attend their classes, attend their classes and activities. Remind those in charge that it is YOUR children, not theirs, and YOU are there to make sure abuses do NOT occur. That they have done NOTHING to build your trust in them, and until they do, and you trust them, you will KEEP on sticking with your children. If you cannot attend youth classes and activities, then at least go to sacrament.
I know it can be hard in today's church at times. I am an imperfect individual and I know there are those who probably have serious problems with me as well. When I was a Church leader there were probably those who disliked things I did. That is okay. I know I am imperfect and they shouldn't follow me. They should follow the Lord and his gospel. That's what it's all about in the end I think, following the Lord and keeping his commandments.