JohnsonJones
-
Posts
4337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by JohnsonJones
-
-
On 9/29/2024 at 8:13 PM, mordorbund said:
You're crossing the bishop's ecclesiastical role with the youth leader role. Walk through this hypothetical with me. A young man tells his scout master, who also happens to be his pastor, that he needs to meet with him in order to earn his religious emblem. The scout master says, why don't you meet with me this Sunday before services. When Sunday arrives the young man meets one-on-one behind closed doors where the pastor determines if he's living the religion's moral standards. Will the pastor get removed from his scouting position? I dare say he won't.
Yes, he will. That's where you made the mistakes.
On the 1/3 numbers...
I'm saying she is not understanding the number or PURPOSEFULLY DECEIVING people. Look, it's NO mystery the numbers. LDS scouts during the time of the problems didn't number 1/3 of the units. In fact, considering the number of LDS members and the young men at that time...it would have literally been impossible.
Even with 16 million members the LDS church only had 800,000 scouts...and THAT's when they had 1/3 of the scouting units. This is in the 2010s after many of the other units left over BSA allowing gay scouts to be in units (which, ironically the LDS church had been allowing, against scouting rules...for decades).
At the time of the lawsuit the LDS church accepted the number because, as I said, after 2013 they had around 1/3 of the scouts. This should NOT be a hard thing to understand and is actually quite clear from the documents as well. In the 1960s to the 1980s...they did not. This is just numbers. It's not that hard to comprehend or understand.
Anyways, I wrote a much longer post in response, but I realize you don't really understand the rules in scouts or the protections they use. You don't understand the numbers from the lawsuit or the numbers which have been recorded of organizations and the numbers of scouts in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s in relation to how many LDS scouts there were said to be.
Ignoring such things really isn't making a conversation in good faith and ignores what I was saying originally, which was that the LDS program currently is not that good of a program for the youth. I've had the unfortunate experience of seeing it firsthand affecting my grandkids.
I see no one actually trying to address the REAL problems in this thread. That's actually indicative of one of the problems as well.
I know one reason the program was designed was so that it could incorporate Scouting and other youth programs under one umbrella. In this fashion a youth could pick which one was best suited to them and under the same umbrella and same group, youth could all be part of a robust program under the Church's youth program. That's not how it turned out though. Members are so against other youth programs that it really hasn't succeeded in general in this capacity. There's too little direction and without direction the program gives power to those who have it, and disempowers those who do not.
I'm having to deal with the results of this program with my grandkids. In light of the thread...then I'd say it's not going well for some of them. I don't see an overabundance of support or help in this regards either. If you feel that scouts was a terrible program...well...great. That still doesn't change the focus of my problems...and that's something you've done VERY LITTLE at actually addressing.
Instead of taking into account what I've seen personally and seen done to my grandkids, you've tried to gloss over things saying they could never happen or does not happen in the church...
I pray that others do not have to undergo what is happening with some of my grandkids, but I have an unfortunate feeling that I am not alone in this and my family is not the only ones experiencing this stuff.
As I said, I can console myself in the words of the Prophet and what he has said about our time and what is coming. I can only imagine that he is trying to prepare us for what is coming (and it is possible that the church will NOT be what we can depend on in the future, but as he has said, it will be upon our reliance on the spirit which will determine whether we are counted among the wheat or the tares) and think that this is all part of something bigger coming on the horizon. All of it, the bigger focus on home study, the focus on studying more as families could be preparing for something in the future that will make it so that we can't depend on the programs of the church like we used to and the youth program in it's present condition is only the beginning.
-
Perfection is what we should seek to achieve. It is what we should strive to be.
I heard once about a way that we CAN be perfect. We may not be perfect in everything yet, but we can be perfect in somethings.
We can be perfect in studying the scriptures every day. We can be perfect in reading the Book of Mormon everyday. We can be perfect in saying our Nightly Prayers. We can be perfect in saying our Daily Prayers.
As we strive to be perfect on one thing and accomplish it, then we move onto the next thing to perfect and work on that. In this way, even if we do not become perfect in this life, we can get closer to being perfect as a whole as we become perfect in small steps towards that whole.
-
21 hours ago, Carborendum said:
That's not what the study says. They considered everyone who attended about once or twice a year, all the way to 100% attenders.
The study itself says they gathered the information from Cell Phone data....not the Church attendance rolls.
21 hours ago, Carborendum said:No, not at all.
That's only if you make assumptions without looking into the why.
I see this data as validating a system of beliefs that encourages people to give up bad, self-destructive habits and become law-abiding, productive, contributing members of society with good habits like work ethic, no drugs or alcohol, honesty, generosity, frugality, etc. If we foster these traits in people, they will naturally bring themselves out of poverty.
Is that so? What data have you seen on the rolls about the percentages of those who are in poverty vs. those who are not. It would appear, from the Cell phone data ) that the demographics of the church is normally very similar to that of the area in which the congregation meets. Thus, the demographics of Provo, for example, would have around a 25% poverty rate (24.9% as per this site data usa provo ).
21 hours ago, Carborendum said:This is completely different than having a society which shuns the poor. Instead, we welcome them, so we can help them to pull themselves out of poverty as well. And apparently, we're pretty good at it. I've seen it in people throughout my life.
As a Scholar I would ask how you come to your conclusions? (aka, approaching this as a reader/researcher rather than a member of the church).
Do we welcome them? What part about the Church makes you feel we welcome them more than other religions or organizations? The Catholics have soup kitchens open to everyone, hospitals that are non-profit, and charities which are open with their financials to show how much money is or is not going to actually help the poor. They do no require people to be members to receive charity, even those who are on it for a LONG TERM charity basis, for example going on years.
There are other Church's which have soup kitchens and clothing giveaways. The Salvation army is not necessarily what I would consider great...but they do have open charity (though at times they truly try to force those they help to join their religion). They do not require a tithe or offering from those they help, or that the people are even members.
Are we really doing better than that in our churches and wards?
We may be, we may not be, but I wouldn't exactly say we welcome the poor. Most truly poor I've seen that go into the church and don't have enough for nice clothes have had several things that could happen to them. Some one comes up and offers to buy them nicer clothes so they can go to church. Some find this insulting. Some tell them they are welcome but imply they should wear white shirts for men and dresses or comparable for women. There are variations on this as well. In general, we don't really welcome those who come in street clothes. WE give excuses of why they should dress nicely, but we really don't welcome those who come poorly dressed as one would put it in the US.
I'd say it's questionable on HOW welcoming of the poor we really are. We are welcoming, we WANT everyone to come, but when we boil down on HOW are actions would be perceived, how welcoming are we?
I can't define that question for you, you obviously feel you are welcoming to the poor, but if so...why don't the impoverished of Texas come rushing to your church's doors?
In general, people will tend to go where they feel more welcome, and avoid places they do not feel welcome. That's human nature.
If a Church or location has a lower percentage of the poor attending it, and another Church or location has a higher percentage of their poor attending...what conclusions should we take on that about which is more welcoming to the poor?
21 hours ago, Carborendum said:So, why is it a bad thing to help bring people out of poverty?
It's not. The study doesn't SAY the church brings people out of poverty though as far as I can tell. You are trying to imply it (the study) does, but it does not.
21 hours ago, Carborendum said:The conclusion you failed to make from the data is that when we have "low income diversity" that also means we don't have nearly as many ultra-wealthy either. I wonder why you failed to notice that.
From those going to the church, I would imagine that is a reasonable assumption. It doesn't really say that either, but I don't see that as a problem. It DOES indicate that it appeals to a certain subsection of the population in general in regards to wealth and means.
21 hours ago, Carborendum said:We bring people out of poverty. And it is rare for us to have ultra-wealthy members of our ward. This sounds an awful lot like (or at least as close as we're going to get this side of the Millennium):
But this is a bad thing in your eyes?
Of course, if that were TRUE (which is NOT supported by the paper from what I can see) it isn't.
I was giving you what historically this type of stuff means. I know it's an uncomfortable thing to state, but as the phrase goes, those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.
If we read the Book of Mormon and believe in it, then this should not be unexpected. It follows the exact pattern from which we see in the Scriptures themselves.
21 hours ago, Carborendum said:If you really believe that being wealthy is a sign of corruption, then you have to believe the following:
The Church is corrupt.
The GAs are all corrupt.
The fact that I have a well-paying job makes me corrupt.
Doctors/lawyers who have to work 60+ hr weeks are all corrupt.
The businessman who hardly sleeps at all for two or three years with bare minimum income to get his business going is corrupt.
The janitor who had low wages all his life, but was so frugal that he put all his excess into an IRA and retired as a multi-millionaire is corrupt. Yes, this happened. It made the news.I think you are assuming a lot of things here that neither I nor the article stated.
It DOES appear to be repeating something that is noted to happen in history. Interestingly enough, this pattern is ALSO noted to occur in the Book of Mormon. This does not necessarily mean the church nor the General Authorities are corrupt.
Only you would know if you are corrupt.
I'd say in general, you may be surprised at how many Doctors and Lawyers are corrupt depending on your definition of what being corrupt is. I have known quite a few Lawyers, and though some of them are excellent examples of being a good and honest person, I've also known some that as time passes have had hard times in keeping fidelity and loyalty to a spouse. Long working hours, stress, and other factors wear on you and for some, they find they are spending more time with someone in the office which they develop feelings for. It is an unfortunate reality that I've seen time and time again. I have heard doctors also have a similar experience. Thus, you have those that are really good and honest individuals, and those who develop somewhat of a different type of complex and personality. Highly stressful jobs do weird things to people sometimes. You have both ends of the spectrum represented. One is not necessarily a good person just because they are a lawyer or a doctor.
I think the same could apply to businessmen. The adage goes that there are NO good billionaires. They all had to do things that you or I would not in order to make that money. I'd imagine the less rich you get, the less likely you are to be corrupt in your business dealings, as it is probably easier to get ahead if you cheat, then if you play it honest.
I do not know the janitor, I do not know why you bring him up, but I would hope he is not corrupt.
In the end, I know people get defensive about the Church when the perceive someone has noted something they feel is not praising it. I get it.
I also know that this working paper was probably brought up because you felt it was putting the Church in a good light. In relation to WHAT you stated and the study appears to note, historically one can look at other churches and religions as well as nations, cultures, and other areas to see certain patterns and trends. NOTING that something has a certain pattern and is appearing to follow that pattern is not necessarily terrible. It CAN help avert following a similar path that other organizations have followed if one addresses those concerns soon enough.
It's NOT really a religious paper though. It's not something made to praise or build up the church. It is at least trying to be scholarly, and as such, there are aspects of that which may show good things and bad things in regards to what it is studying. This paper is JUST a study though. You cannot base things off of one study. More study and research has to be done before anything concrete can be stated or said.
One CAN be alarmed at things though, and as I said, IF (can I emphasis this any bigger...IF ) there is an alarming trend that the Church could be headed down (and it is NOT to be unexpected if we are feel the Book of Mormon is a type and shadow of what is too come with the Second Coming).
As per the Book of Mormon, if we follow that pattern, then there WILL be many who grow in riches and pride and there will be a separation that occurs between the wheat and the tares. There will be those that will attempt to harm and kill the apostles and prophets as well as the Saints. It probably will be as President Nelson has warned, if it becomes like what the Book of Mormon became like before the coming of the Lord to this continent, only by the guidance of the Spirit will we actually be able to withstand what is coming.
-
So, just doing a little bit of research on this group.
1. It appears that they were hardcore against Vaccine mandates on the surface, and against ANYTHING to protect against Covid, against developing a Vaccine for Covid and were among those claiming Covid was just a common cold (at the time when the hospitals were absolutely getting crushed by those suffering from it and bodies were having to be put in refrigeration trucks because the morgues were full).
2. They organized a similar gathering for people against helping Ukraine and against anything with the US being involved with helping other nations.
3. They claim to work for liberals, independants, and conservatives, but almost all of the names I recognize on their line ups are those who are conservative and often considered part of the Far Right. (and no, Robert F. Kennedy, despite having been a democrat has not exactly been espousing a ton of liberal viewpoints over the past year. Some of his more candid statements have actually been seen as pretty opposite of those recently).
4. They have movies which they exhibit an extremely anti-vaccination stance. It is focused on being against Covid Vaccination, but also has an extreme stance against vaccinations in general.
5. Their prior marches and organizational rallys do not seem to actually have made much of a political difference except to put some more money into a few people's pockets.
To me, this seems like a Far Right group that is trying to portray itself as being for everyone. I'm not so certain it is. it also doesn't seem to be that much of an effective group except to enrich a few people who are trying to get others to help fund it.
There's not much else about it, but the same people have organized at least two other rallys and things like this previously, which is where I get some of my information above from.
Because there isn't that much about them other than that, I don't know what to think about them. I do not know exactly why or what with them, except it seems that someone is making a decent bit of money off of it.
-
On 9/24/2024 at 12:29 PM, Simon Daum said:
I think Amulek answers that question in verse 40, where he states that what will save people is to believe in Jesus. And so yes, people will not die in their sins, unless they believe in Jesus. It is the wicked that will not be saved, at least spiritual death. And we find similar things in the Bible, where Jesus states that no unrightous person can enter Gods kingdom.
It has to be MORE than just belief.
The devil and his dark angels all believe in Jesus but none of them will be saved.
Even if they DID believe and claim that he would save them, it wouldn't work.
There is more. I tend to agree with @Traveler response above in that it is the covenants we have and the ordinances associated and our obedience through them that help purify us and allow the atonement to effectively save us and bring us to exaltation.
It's not just a belief, it's the actions we take that show that belief. As James puts it, you may state you believe, but he will show you his faith through his actions. If one truly is a follower of the lord, it will be manifested in HOW they act and how they do things.
A great part of that is making the covenants (aka...the covenant path) between you and the Lord.
-
-
There are things we covenant not to share. Those things I feel are items that we probably should not talk about explicitly in any form or place except when told to directly by the Lord.
However, there are many things about the Temple and in the temple that have no such restrictions. I feel, especially if you are doing it in the role of a patriarch of your family, that such a discussion could be beneficial.
However, although the Celestial room is an appropriate place to do such things in one way, it could also be an inappropriate place. It depends on how large your family group is and how much discussion there will be.
If I were to do something like this I would probably talk to the Temple President. I would see if they would be okay to let me have a family discussion about such things and where they might wish to allow us to have it.
This way you do not disturb others who may be meditating or praying in the Temple (unless, of course, your family were the only ones present) and have an area specifically set apart by the Temple President for the discussion.
This also allows you to have an uninterrupted discussion with your family in an area where you can discuss it as much as you wish amongst yourselves, while at the same time not interfering with others experiences who have come to the temple to worship.
-
9 hours ago, zil2 said:
My understanding is that at least part of how they decide to add a temple is the usage of the nearest existing temple(s). I don't know how far in advance the temples in central Utah are booked, but many of the northern Utah temples can be booked up days in advance (apparently, especially for baptisms and confirmations).
9 hours ago, SilentOne said:But population density is also much higher in Northern Utah.
I...do not know. I have no idea how much they are booked. I have children in Utah. They have a temple being built close to them. I think they did mention about a LOT of temple work going on and it being crowded, now that you mentioned it. I suppose that would make sense.
I was looking more at distances and travel time (which is why I would have thought the temples being built in places like Russia would be built, as it's not due to the number of Members in some of those locations) for some of the places (such as the South, in comparison to locations in Utah). I would imagine (no evidence of this whatsoever) that you would have higher participation from those when a temple is an hour away vs. those who have to travel 3 or 4 hours (or in Texas 6-12 hours) and that may also be a factor.
It is such a blessing to have a temple closer than an hour away. I suppose that those who live near it realize that and are going much more often.
-
On 9/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, mordorbund said:
From what I can tell, this is the primary difference in the two organizations preventative steps. I’m not sure how substantial it is. I certainly don’t think it’s significant enough to warrant the extensive praise you heap on the BSA (but that’s just a difference of opinion).
Do you know who else has two-deep leadership? As long as we’re misrepresenting requirements, the Church calls for two “responsible adults”. The BSA does not require responsible leaders.
For what it’s worth, I specifically posted the link so you would see that the Church requires two-deep leadership. Please stop saying it doesn’t.
You will be disqualified as a leader if you do not practice two deep leadership in the Scouts. It is NOT a recommendation. It IS(a recommendation for the Church. If it were not, No Bishopric or Stake Presidency could interview a youth in a one on one setting behind closed doors. I know this occurs quite regularly in the church.
Or are you saying, in accordance with the Boy Scout policy the Church would immediately excommunicate the Bishoprics and Stake Presidencies that do this, consider it an abuse situation which disqualifies them from membership and ever being part of the organization today?
I don't see that in the policies your posted.
I have unfortunately seen people merely accused (two in the past two years) of this with no evidence. They were promptly kicked out of Scouting and their membership revoked.
It's such a big deal that there are those that have decided that this is too much of a hassle to deal with due to how drastic it is and how little it takes for it to occur.
On 9/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, mordorbund said:Do you know what it means to be a mandatory reporter? That is a legal term for people who may be charged with a misdemeanor if they keep their mouth shut. The State determines that, not the organization. Now, the organization can require someone to report abuse, but the worst they can do is kick out the person who failed to report.
It’s good that the BSA tells its leaders to report abuse when they see it. Do you know who else does? “If you learn of abuse, you should immediately contact legal authorities”
Though I posted the section that you posted as the guidelines...if we go by what this is, it's a toothless tiger. It IS something that says it should happen, but ramifications occur if one does NOT report it as the guidelines say? Do they get kicked out of the church, face church punishment? What happens?
There is no real guidance in this. It's more of a thing up to the local Bishop...and normally that means nothing will happen if they do NOT do this unless the authorities actually charge them with a crime.
This is less likely to occur with Church youth leaders (to be charged) as they are not considered Mandatory Reporters last time I checked.
On 9/21/2024 at 9:17 AM, mordorbund said:@NeuroTypical may be able to shed some light on the annotations on Church records. NT, if someone is known to have an abusive past would that show up in the records? Also would other criminal charges (such as fraud) make it there?
Yay!!!
I didn’t know about this BSA requirement. It looks like the differences between what the Church requires and what BSA requires is BSA has more frequent training and separate tenting for large age differences.
As you note though, “the two deep leadership (meaning you ALWAYS should have another witness of what is happening, and hopefully at least one sane adult is there) and background checks, it does a LOT to curb situations where bad things could occur.” And the Church has this or something similar in place. So the Church does a LOT to curb bad situations where bad things can occur. As needed the two differences can be tweaked.
Funny you should say that. An analysis of the BSA’s P-Files shows that The Church of Jesus Christ has a rate of abuse far below average when compared to other religions in Scouting.
So would I, but because there are evil people in this world it’s good to know the Church has instituted safeguards to protect children and youth.
Your source is FairLDS...
AND it's a bad article. She uses and twists numbers which aren't really relevant (for example, her extrapolating that 30% of the units from when the majority of the abuse cases are coming from were LDS, that 30% is mostly from RECENT numbers, not from when the cases are from), she argues that background checks are not useful, and that the church helpline was a better thing to call (for an example of two teenagers involved in what could be abuse...YOU SHOULD CALL and REPORT...not ask the church helpline first whether this is something to report or not or what to do) in some of her examples. (and maybe this is why, after being released from church leadership a few years ago, I'm no longer in the Bishoprics and Stake Leadership...due to my views on this...or it could just be that I'm just [autocorrect] old).
Even with college students...stuff she is arguing is a good thing would get me to lose my job.
On the statistics themselves...
Number vary depending on the source, and statistics are easy to bend. Part of the problem is that the church has previously dissuaded members from reporting abuse, and when it was reported via church leadership (which, ironically, fairlds tries to argue about). They were instructed to call a church helpline instead of the authorities. It has been seen that this actually has hidden the numbers of those abused. Numbers vary in what we've seen, but fairlds DID state one thing...this isn't really public information outside of the fact that possibly up to 7,800 people who were LDS (or connected in some way with the Church) were part of the Lawsuit. It really doesn't go into detail on HOW that connection is, whether it was because they were part of an LDS troop, or were just LDS, or any other thing. In addition, we don't see the NON-LDS who were members of LDS troops and their numbers of how many there are.
Interestingly enough, one attorney stated that 15-20% of the cases were actually from the Church...
Victim's attorney feels LDS churches 250 million settlement is inadequate
QuoteKosnoff says he estimates 15-20 percent of all victims were Scouts under church-sponsored troops. The church, he says, had an outsized influence in scouting – a connection spanning a century that infused Boy Scouts of America with a culture that kept accusations of sex abuse quiet.
---------------------------
Kosnoff says more than 70,000 chartering organizations are implicated in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the only way to be free of legal liability is through a “substantial contribution.”
---------------------------
and
Eric Hawkins, a spokesman for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, wrote this in an emailed statement:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints condemns abuse of any kind. We express our love and concern for those who have experienced abuse through Scouting or any other circumstance. This has been a prolonged process that included—as one of many interested parties—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as a former sponsoring organization. This contribution will provide opportunities to alleviate the suffering of those who have experienced abuse.”
A majority of these cases are from the 60s, 70s, and 80s.
How many Church members were boy scouts during that time. FairLDS takes the number from recent units (after a massive drop off of scouting units in the early and mid 2010s).
During the time most of the abuse cases are coming from (but not all, unfortunately, abuse continues to this day) Scouts numbered from 4.5 to 4.7 million each year in Scouts in the 60s and 70s, and to a drop of 3.5 million in the 80s.
Members were no where close to being 1.3 million scouts each year during that time period. Even when the LDS church was pulling out of Scouts their numbers were LESS than 800,000.
So, her supposition on where the church's paying for the amount is correct, but her supposition of the percentage of LDS who were boy scouts in relation to how many scout s there were total during that time is an absolute fallacy on her part in FairLDS.
It was around 400K LDS scouts when the church left (~20% at the time), but it HAD been higher just prior to that. After many units left during the early 2000s and to the great exodus in 2010-2013, the LDS church probably had about 1/3 of the scouts in Scouting at that point with (as I said, somewhere between 600K and 800K scouts out of something like 2.5 million Boy Scouts).
These are different numbers than they were during the HEYDAY of when the abuse cases were occurring and then were part of the big case against the scouts recently.
NOW...the biggest irony. You can see the fruits of the way people think from HOW they now approach scouts in the Church. To most, the morals of the scouts mean nothing, from what I've seen. They are too willing to ignore these things, and even their own leaders in regards to scouts. The Church did not condemn scouts itself, and ironically the YOUTH program today is one that the church leaders have expressed can work with any youth goals set in anything from scouting to sports to other pursuits. Yet, I see members who actually DO condemn scouting for various reasons.
Anyways, this is not really what I was trying to point out originally.
The original point which I have been led away from, is that the current program for the Youth is NOT that good of a program and lacks in many areas from what I've seen over the past few years. It has very little guidance of exactly HOW the program is to be run, what is to be done with it, and HOW it is actually failing the youth (grandchildren, who are of the age of these programs in the Church) in MY family in a very horrendous and horrible way. I wouldn't say it empowers the bullies unless I have actually SEEN this occurring to family members (and not just one ward, multiple wards that are spread out across the US, so this is not just a ONE WARD problem). You can say...hey...we disagree, or hey, we hate you for seeing this, but nothing you do or say can extinguish the evidence and harm that has been done to my family due to the actions people have done via this program.
I cannot say that the prior program was entirely successful, but of the older grand children that went through that program I've had a greater number strong with the church. Currently, with the grandchildren in the new program, I have almost 50% of them struggling with testimonies and several of them not even going to church now due to experiences they have had AT church.
As someone who WANTS them to go to church and love the gospel, this is particularly hard.
I would WANT the church to have a better program. This is NOTHING against the gospel, or the things that we know are true. I love the gospel, and believe it or not, I love the church. However, I DO wish that there was a better program that could lead our youth to be better than the one that is currently in place.
I feel if our aim is to serve young people in bringing them closer to Christ and encouraging them to remain in the Church, then we need a more robust program to help teach them the principles of the Lord. I know today we say parents are supposed to be doing this, and this is true, but it is still discouraging to see grandchildren falling away or seeing how it is starting with them. However, as a grandparent, I still feel the church itself could do more to help as well.
I'd done all I could asa a Parent, how could my children still leave the church
This article seems to show me that my family is not the only one experiencing hardships in this area...and I sympathize with the things that it says. I just...I feel things were better when the Church actually had what I viewed as a stronger and more robust system in place for the youth, the system that my own children went through. On a brighter thought, we have at least two grandkids that DID go through this program that look to be getting ready to go on missions, but I have half a dozen that aren't really going to church or are not attending regularly as well at this point.
So, how's it going? With me, probably pretty decently right now. With the younger generation...they need prayers.
-
16 hours ago, Carborendum said:
3. For Muslims, Buddhists, and LDS, the more frequent attenders tend to be wealthier. For all other faiths, the reverse is true.
4. In any given congregation, LDS have the least income variation.e sincere. We're not the hypocrites that athiests accuse us of being.
from what I understand in the cell phone data, congregation also is in relation to those who are attending frequently...
With that in mind....I see the above two statements...
You probably don't understand why, but from a historian viewpoint...this is actually EXTREMELY concerning. In fact, I'd be REALLY alarmed by what this means, if what you stated is the truth.
Church's which have the wealthier as the ones attending as opposed to those who are poorer...that has had bad ramifications on how that church is in past history.
For how we view a modern fair and just society (and modern morality is something that could be considered wrong on this as well, so disagreements with that could very well mean you disagree with what I am saying right here...which is valid), when you have an organization that is top heavy with the wealth, it indicates that is who they are catering too. When an organization is catering and run by the wealthy, it normally creates injustice and inequality overall.
This isn't just religion, but any society. Religion in the past points to this as well as a common theme across nations, cultures, and peoples.
I like the rest of what you said was in the report, but this one part makes me extremely uncomfortable in its implications.
It looks like we are not alone though...it seems Muslims may have the same problem. In the US I wouldn't say their closest adherents and the surrounding culture is exactly fair and just at this point...so it actually makes a bit of sense. Buddhist may as well, but Buddhists...well...their religion is so extremely different than ours I would have to ask is this Buddhist in general or specific to certain sects...do certain groups off set it...is it universal...etc.
-
13 hours ago, Carborendum said:
We will have no Captain Moroni. What we need is a William Phips.
Preferably without the Salem Witch Trials I hope???
-
it is getting closer. I hadn't thought of how close it was. It's just around the corner.
For temples, I'd be happy if they just finish building the ones they've announced. Some of those announced years ago haven't even been built yet.
That said...
Georgia could probably use another Temple. The one that is in Atlanta is beautiful and beloved...it also serves 17 stakes and is the only temple in Georgia currently.
Another good location would be central Utah somewhere. It's ironic how many temples they have in Northern Utah and yet, a dearth of them where a higher percentage (if I recall the stats correctly) of the population is LDS.
Mississippi could use a temple, though there are not as many members there as other locations, the temples can be a decent drive away.
Western Texas could possibly use one. They have people that are many, many hours away from a temple in Western Texas.
-
On 9/18/2024 at 3:24 PM, mirkwood said:
Cell phones are next.
I believe the reason they were using pagers was due to a fear of using cell phones.
Israel would probably prefer them to use cell phones. The rumor is that Israel can intercept any cell phone communications, hence why Pagers were being used instead of cell phones.
-
That's kind of hilarious.
Having a speech at 7 AM in the morning simply makes people not want to protest?
Must not be much of protestors.
In the 60s, those protestors would camp out the night before in anticipation of doing whatever it was they were going to do or protest!
-
I know in historical research I run across texts that are not in English. The further they are from being in the same branch (languages derive from other languages, almost like you see a tree with various branches going out, except not all the branches combine into the same trunk in our world) the harder it is to translate back with the right context as grammar and organization of the words will be different. Add to this that sometimes there are words in one language that have no translatable relation to words in another and it can become a very large hodge podge.
It's possible.
-
19 hours ago, Carborendum said:
I think what I'm hearing (even if it wasn't directly in answer to my original question) is that there is a standard sequence of events. And we do everything we can to abide by that sequence.
But there will be times (like when a dispensation is just opening and authority hasn't been given to man yet) where exceptions by necessity are applied. Interestingly, the formal phase would be, "They are given special dispensation."
So, back to the touching of Joseph's eyes. This speaks to why the phrase in D&C 84:21-22 applying to Joseph Smith.
I've offered another explanation for how Joseph was able to see the Father in the face of these verses (i.e. referring to the endowment and seeing the face of God at judgment). And I still consider it valid. But it may be that there are multiple ways to read this passage. And I'm wondering if there was some sort of ordinance performed by "touching his eyes that he might see" the face of God.
Frankly, I do not know. He doesn't reference any particular ordinance (then again, it may be too holy to share as well). We don't have references to ordinances for others who saw a glorified being either (such as Moses, or Paul). I don't know, but maybe others have better knowledge in this.
-
On 9/17/2024 at 12:26 PM, Ironhold said:
Between the Open License fiasco and the Pinkerton incident, a lot of folks are done with WOTC until such time as the entire roster is turned over.
There are plenty of alternatives that people can turn to for fantasy and adventure gaming, such as Paizo and Steve Jackson Games. Folks are taking their money there and into the indie scene accordingly.
If it were up to me, I'd introduce 7th Edition, a hybridization consisting of the better elements of 2nd edition and 3rd edition. I'd also de-canonize anything having to do with wheelchairs or other "trendy" but illogical concepts.
I did a quick google on the Open License Fiasco you mentioned as I do not know what that was exactly. A Washington Post article popped up about it.
It sounds sort of like Linux, except, for a game? rather than an OS.
Ironically, it had this nugget in it (referring to your wheelchair statement above)
QuoteThe OGL’s magic wasn’t just about money. According to designer, writer and disability consultant Sara Thompson, it made space for dialogue between WotC and the community, allowing designers to essentially offer playable critiques of problems such as D&D’s heritage of racial stereotypes, using D&D’s own mechanics. Take Thompson’s own Combat Wheelchair add-on, a set of rules for using wheelchairs as adventuring equipment that “allows disabled people to be empowered and see themselves as a hero in the story, because D&D didn’t allow for that.”
I'm not sure why this was such a big deal though. If I created a recipe, or I bought the rights to a recipe, I'd want to be reimbursed for it. It seems that WotC was wanting to get money for the rights they owned? It looked like it would be for the game going forward (was not clear if it was also for things in the past, but I assume it was not, as there are various laws in place that should prevent them from backwards renegotiating a contract without the other parties consent already utilized in good faith).
Why would anyone be upset with a company trying to get money for their things they had rights to? The 1.1 OGL seemed generous and allowed small creators to make quite a bit of money before even owing royalties.
There is probably more to this story than I understand.
-
On 9/17/2024 at 1:23 PM, mordorbund said:
AS per your link
Quote10.8.1
Safeguarding Youth
When adults are interacting with youth in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present. It may be necessary for quorums to meet together to make this possible.
All adults who work with youth must complete the children and youth protection training within one month of being sustained (ProtectingChildren.ChurchofJesusChrist.org). They repeat the training every three years thereafter.
For scouts, currently, you need to take a Youth Protection class every two years as mandated by national, or every year as mandated by some councils (as opposed to the every 3 years from the church).
In addition, it has a test at the end where you need to pass with at least an 80% (so no stating that you didn't know any better if anything DOES happen).
In addition, there is NO one on one contact between leaders and youth. There always must be another trained leader (in youth protection. No one can be alone with a youth. (this is called two deep leadership).
In addition, Any suspicion of abuse by a leader or adults must be reported and every leader is a mandatory reporter.
In addition, ALL youth leaders must pass a background check prior to being allowed to even be around scouts or youth. If you cannot pass it, you cannot be a leader.
No youth of opposite genders can camp together or be in the same tent (which is the same as the Church).
No youth greater than two years age differences can share the same tent (it is estimated that over 25% of abuse comes from an older youth on younger youth...this tries to curb this though it also is not perfect).
Is it perfect? No, it is not. However, the two deep leadership (meaning you ALWAYS should have another witness of what is happening, and hopefully at least one sane adult is there) and background checks, it does a LOT to curb situations where bad things could occur.
This is what I mean by the scouts having more protocols now to protect the youth the the official protocols in the LDS church currently (meaning it could change tomorrow).
Because of these, I expect less lawsuits in the future on these issues against the Scouts than arise against the Church in the long run.
I would prefer NOTHING bad happens in any of the organizations, but unfortunately there are bad people out there that will try to exploit any organization for their own personal evils.
Hopefully I can just avoid all of that these days at my age. I'm already over the age of retirement by a good bit, and I'm finally thinking of actually retiring for good. I'm too old to be dealing with the entire student and research balance issues and everything else with the university politics at this point.
I don't know, maybe I'll retire to some place like Dixie Utah and be among all the other old people Saints that live there!
-
14 hours ago, zil2 said:
Sorry, three of us are not enough. I'm well aware that forums are less popular - likely because parents buy their kids cell phones and the kids think everything worth doing has an app. Probably something to do with crappy American education, too, but... 28 "guests" have been here in the past 3 minutes. 83 in the past 10 minutes. Sure, some are bots, some are just viewing search results, but I have to believe there's some percentage of those who might sign up and stay if:
- The mobile template had the user menu so that folks could sign in, sign up, manage user stuff like notifications, etc.
- If we weren't so quick to call people trolls / or so brutal when folks post something we don't like
When a newbie signs up for a fountain pen forum, or the reddit sub, and introduces themselves, they basically get love-bombed. It sucks that members of Christ's Church are being out-Christianed by a bunch of fountain pen users (especially the ones on reddit).
I need to be a better person.
-
I understand that they are coming out with a new version or something soon. I've seen mixed feelings on it from the few who have talked about it.
I get the idea that some of the things in this new version would not be things people on this forum may like, but I could also be mistaken.
Do you like the new version of this game?
-
13 hours ago, mirkwood said:
I boy scouted both in and out of the church and with a mix of nonmembers into the church troop. What I said stands.
I'm sorry that you were part of units that didn't adhere to the standards of advancement.
At least they HAVE those requirements (which apparently none of the troops actually adhered to...a way to have their troop not be registered the next annual year if it was found they were not adhering to the advancement requirements).
Even today, these are requirements, for example, straight out of the 2019 requirements for scouting you have this requirement to become different ranks...
Edit: Need to put a source for the requirements below
2019 Scouts BSA requirements pdf
Scout
Quote1b. Explain what Scout spirit is. Describe some ways you have shown Scout spirit by practicing the Scout Oath, Scout Law, Scout motto, and Scout slogan.
Tenderfoot
Quote9. Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived four different points of the Scout Law in your everyday life.
Second Class
Quote10. Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived four different points of the Scout Law (not to include those used for Tenderfoot requirement 9) in your everyday life.
First Class
Quote11. Demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived four different points of the Scout Law (different from those points used for previous ranks) in your everyday life.
Star
Quote2. As a First Class Scout, demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life
Life
Quote2. As a Star Scout, demonstrate Scout spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God and how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life.
Eagle
Quote2. As a Life Scout, demonstrate Scout Spirit by living the Scout Oath and Scout Law. Tell how you have done your duty to God, how you have lived the Scout Oath and Scout Law in your everyday life, and how your understanding of the Scout Oath and Scout Law will guide your life in the future. List on your Eagle Scout Rank Application the names of individuals who know you personally and would be willing to provide a recom-mendation on your behalf, including parents/guardians, religious (if not affiliated with an organized religion, then the parent or guardian provides this reference), educational, employer (if employed), and two other references.
I can ATTEST that these are REQUIREMENTS and have been ever since I was a scout. These are NOT new requirements. These are JUST as important as any other requirement (such as earning merit badges or hours of service or your Eagle Project). They were NOT to be waived.
You are in Utah though...as far as I have seen on these forums. There HAS been a terrible reputation among some scouts about "Mormon Eagles" and "Mormon Scouts" where it was said they weren't truly scouts and were not truly earning their Eagle Requirements. Some said it was because parents did the work, but some said they simply did not hold scouts to actually do the requirements.
As per what YOU are saying...it sounds like this may actually be TRUE? (Note, not in my experience, the requirements WERE fully held, even in LDS units, but perhaps units in Utah in general, not just LDS units, don't actually require the boys to do all the requirements to advance???).
THAT would be a shame. I have a HARD time believing the Church would condone running the program which excluded the morality and personal growth of the boy, when such things were actually written and built into the very fabric of the program itself.
If THAT is what you are saying I am rather floored. It's a shame.
However, that does NOT change what the program is written as and HOW it is still written as. Whether or not you were PART of units that actually ADHERED to how the program should have been run and HOW it should have been done does not change what and HOW the program was and is written.
Just like, as an officer, you have the state and local laws you enforce. Whether or not people choose to follow the law does not CHANGE the law. Just because someone chooses to drive with a High Alcohol content in their blood stream that is far above the legal limit does not change that the law states certain things.
In Boy Scouts, the requirements to advance normally mean a Bully will have to change how they act and behave in order to conform to the Scout Law. Just like when someone chooses not to FOLLOW the written words and rules, does not CHANGE what those rules are.
And that is one major difference between what the Church programs WERE and what they are now under the PISS/SIPS program. This is the current program
The requirements are more to make goals under the Physical, Intellectual, Spiritual, and Social fields. It has suggestions of what you can make as a goal, but no other real requirements. There is no standard in this book that says...You MUST be kind, YOU MUST be friendly.
Making goals is also done at a quorum and/or the class level (for young women). This is where i have seen it fall apart. Those who are introverts and are more reclusive are the ones who don't get heard, while those who are boisterous, and loud, are heard more than others. This does NOT empower the humble or meek. It empowers those who are liked and can push their way.
As I said, this has had a BAD effect on some of my grandchildren. When you see your grandchildren being outcast or harmed by a program...it does NOT endear you to it.
In scouts, even if there were those who didn't do the program correctly, there WERE written standards on advancement and written ways on HOW it should be done.
I understand from you that there were units in Utah that did NOT adhere to the Scouting program and empowered bullies, which I am sad to hear about. At least, that program HAS safeguards in it to prevent this from happening written into it's rules and regulations on HOW these troops and packs are to be run. This is not something I've seen in the current LDS program...and I've seen it's affects on various families...specifically...some that are related to me.
Edit: I am also adding a link below to the PDF version of the booklet children and youth receive for the current program of the church. THERE ARE good things about the program, the ideas and intentions are good for example, it has good suggestions...however, it's too loose in how it's is structured and too little structure is given in how it is to be done to actually be a great youth program...OBVIOUSLY in my opinion. It is far too open in trying to accept whatever the youth chooses, rather than having more rigid requirements to guide them into having goals which would have some absolute adherence to commandments or other areas of moral and spiritual growth. (once again, if I need say it, In my opinion).
If this were a non-LDS or religious program and was for a general program of growth and goal setting, I'd say it has some very good ideas and things with it. As one that is supposed to be what guides our youth today to teach them morality and spiritual growth in their everyday lives...though they have goals in that arena and suggestions/recommendations...there is very little in regards to requirements for them to actually work towards that adherence to our specific and unique beliefs.
-
I think it depends and what the current teachings are.
Teachings change.
For example, it used to be that the REASON baptisms for the dead HAD to be performed by a Melchizedek Priesthood holder in the temple was that this was any ordinance that was done for the dead HAD to be done under the authority of the Higher Priesthood. It was NOT the same ordinance as Baptism, as it was an ordinance by proxy and for the dead. Hence, all ordinances for the dead HAD to be performed under the authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Obviously, with how things are done now, we changed that teaching and no longer act upon it as such or do things as such.
In that way, I think it would depend on who you talked to and how you referenced in how you saw the answer to your question. There are some that feel that Mary was sealed in a marriage before the birth of our Lord, and thus probably before other ordinances were done (as it was during the time of the Jews with the Lower Order of Priesthood rather than the higher order). Others would vehemently argue against that notion and that idea.
John the Baptist supposedly had some ordinances done out of the order that we would see them done today. Some ordinances are no longer performed (one of the biggest changes was due to the fulfillment of prophecy, rather than the doing away of them or the ordinances, they were replaced with a higher order of how things were to be done. This was with the atonement of our Lord and the subsequent changes in the ordinances done in relation to sacrifice and the shedding of blood).
I think it depends on the time and what is the current situation.
-
-
On 9/12/2024 at 3:56 PM, laronius said:
In addition to what's already been said, if someone is worthy of exaltation but simply lacks the marriage/sealing ordinance either because they did not have the opportunity in this life or because their spouse did not keep their covenants, the general understanding is that person, in the next life but prior to the resurrection, will be allowed to be sealed to a worthy companion. No blessing will be withheld from those worthy of that blessing.
With men, it was taught in the church that they would not actually GET the opportunity to be sealed in the next life, at least previously, where as Women probably would.
The REASONING for this was the same as those who would receive exaltation or a place the Celestial Kingdom. Those who HAD the opportunity in this life to be sealed in the temple but chose to do otherwise would not get that blessing. In order to GET the blessing, one would have received the blessing or opportunity with all their heart if given the opportunity. They would have pursued it with that oneness of intent.
As it was seen that men were the ones who took the initiative (when I was younger), then it was THEIR choice whether to even pursue the objective of getting married, and if they pursued it with that objective of getting married, but chose NOT to get sealed in the temple, but otherwise be married, without that zealous pursuit of being sealed...then that was upon them. THEY had already MADE their choice.
For (what some may consider misogynistic today) it was seen that woman did not have these opportunities and as such, as long as this was what they desired or wanted, they would be given the opportunity to have this desire fulfilled.
It has been relaxed today in that men also are seen as able to have this blessing (at least by some members), but it SHOULD be understood (as I think this teaching still stands) that unless one would have EMBRACED the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life if given the opportunity, that they will not receive all the blessings inherent with it afterwards. This applies to all the gospel blessings, including celestial marriage.
This is a GREAT blessing in that many who did not have the opportunity to hear or receive the gospel in this life, but who would have embraced it with all their heart, will be able to obtain all these blessings. On the otherhand, it can be a great condemnation to those who had the opportunity to received these blessings in this life, but turned it down for whatever reason, or decided that they would chose something other than what was suggested by the gospel.
For example, if you have a son that could have pursued dating worthy LDS girls, but chose to date another who they felt was far more attractive, exciting, and fun to be with...and then marries that girl rather than an LDS girl...we don't know their fate exactly. However, we know that they had the opportunity to TRY to shoot for an eternal marriage and chose another path. It is up to the LORD to decide what happens in eternity, but I would imagine that the one who tried to date only LDS girls with the hope of eventually having a celestial marriage and did all they could to ensure that blessing will have a far better standing in that regard, even if they didn't eventually GET that marriage, than the one who did get married but chose to pursue the non-member and not to have a temple sealing in this life. Even if both were temple worthy and worthy members equally in the church in all other ways in this life.
The War in Israel may be at it's end.
in Current Events
Posted
Well, the good news from Israel is that supposedly they had no deaths or severe injuries from this.
It is yet to be seen how Israel will respond.