clbent04

You must be great at dinner parties.

Why are you so sensitive to me referencing you to Brett Farve coming out of retirement? Chillax, hombre

My biggest issue with the phrase is it all too often lends itself to the human tendency of group think. Is it good that someone develops their testimony in the true gospel of Jesus Christ. Yes. But does it have to be done with that phrase? No. Speaking from experience, until I was 23 and received spiritual knowledge of the gospel, I too fell victim to using that phrase baselessly. Did I feel sincere when I said it? Yes, because leaders in the Church had previously told me all I needed to experience in order to say something like that was to have had positive experiences in the Church. And of course I had positive experiences. I grew up in the Church. It was positive for me to be around friends and family on a Sunday just as it was positive for me to be around them any other day of the week. But I didn't have a personal foundation of truthfulness of the gospel. Did I enjoy feeling accepted by a group of fellow members whenever I said "I know this Church is true" in a testimony? Yes. Did I maybe say that specific phrase with slightest motives of wanting to be accepted as a young man within the LDS Church over the sole motive of proclaiming the gospel for God's glory? Yes. Speaking from personal experience of having grown up in the Church, I feel strongly that group think should be avoided with those kind of phrases. Could members use that phrase sincerely and mean every word of it with the sole motive of proclaiming the gospel for God's glory? Of course, but all too often that specific phrase lends itself to mindless, baseless group think. How am I to know when someone uses that phrase one way versus another? I can't. I can only speak from personal experience of having grown up in the Church as well as accounts from friends and acquaintances who are affiliated with the Church. The Spirit is able to testify to me much more effectively when I'm listening to someone proclaim the truthfulness of the gospel in their own unique, mindful way. And yes, I've felt the Spirit when that phrase "I know this Church is true" has been used, but I've also not felt the Spirit many times when it has.

What’s funny is how this went up all the way to a General Authority. I have no doubt the online missionaries deserved to be banned. Do online missionaries still use Third Hour to proselyte?

I would've never guessed this. Can you please post the link to that post? Lol

What a tease

Brett Favre himself in the flesh... or did someone hack your account to resurrect you?

Before getting to a worldwide following, can we just somehow agree to get ahead of the mindless repetition of "I know this Church is true"? I just don't know if I could cope with that on a worldwide level.

I see a lot of banned members on this site. That doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is that a good percentage of the banned members have been on this site for years, have made thousands of posts, and had a respectable reputation and amount of likes prior to getting banned. I would think a vast majority of banned members would be newly formed accounts looking to sabotage the Church right off the bat, and maybe that is the case, it's just surprising to me the number of established, banned accounts I've come across. I'm assuming pretty much most members who get banned from this site end up attacking the Church in one way or another. Is that correct or is there another common issue for which members get banned? I've never understood why people attack the LDS Church. I can understand if they had an unpleasant experience with a member and they need to vent about that person, but why attack the faith? Just take your business somewhere else if the LDS Church isn't doing it for you. Does anyone think they have a valid reason to attack the LDS faith? I'm trying to play devil's advocate here to think of a good reason since it seems to be common for people to attack the Church. Maybe if I had a family member who died in the Mountain Meadow Massacre? I might take issue with that given the disputed involvement of Church leadership, although even then I probably would side with the opinion of Church apologists that Brigham Young had no involvement. Maybe if I was black and denied the Priesthood prior to 1978? I don't know. But all the modern reasons the Church is attacked seem so frivolous to me. Does anyone think they have a valid reason to attack the LDS Church? Why does it occur so often? The general rhetoric I hear from members in the Church as to why the Church is attacked by ex-members is that these people are disgruntled about not being able to conform to Church teachings, but I have a hard time accepting that as the reason since it seems too petty to take issue with. Like I said, just keep your peace and take your business elsewhere, right? Why attack an organization that's transparent as possible as to what it represents from the get go? That's like rooting for a football team and then all of a sudden hating that team because you no longer like football... Just forget football and start watching basketball, dude.

All good points, but considering your last point here, I think it would be a very small percentage of good-hearted people who would fall into the category of settling for an okay plan over God's perfect plan. Most people who are faithful members of religions outside the LDS Church aren't thinking, "boy, that Mormon Church has too many standards, I'm just gonna settle on being a faithful adherent to Church XYZ." Most are doing the best they can with the knowledge they have of how they're supposed to live their lives. It's not so much a matter of willingly embracing something substandard to God's plan. They believe what they believe and have different life experiences than members of the LDS Church. I think anyone who lives an honorable life and is a seeker of good would naturally follow the higher light when they are presented with it. For most in this life who are good hearted and not members of the Church, the larger percentage of them will fall into the category of never having an fair opportunity to recognize and embrace the gospel. I believe very few in the category of the good hearted will willingly turn away from submitting to God's plan and instead say, "You know, that's a nice plan, and now that I know it's true without a shadow of doubt, I still prefer my religious ideologies I came across on Earth with the extremely limited visibility I had to the intricacies of God's plan."

I agree there is a religious tendency to do just this. But if the rest of the world didn't believe anything and the only religious followers were the current 16 million Mormons, this world would be worse off. If we can't have ideal for now, we should accept good over the absence of no good at all. Not appreciating the good other churches offer is along the same lines of the general belief across many religions that if you're not a member of a particular church, you and the rest of the world are doomed to hell. That's an incredibly closed-minded view to embrace, a view I consider to be entirely ridiculous. It amazes me that people who claim to believe in a just and merciful God can make that claim with a straight face as they write the rest of the world off to hell. I think such an asinine view would have members of other faiths flock to the LDS Church in droves for the much more merciful position the LDS Church takes on the salvation of others who aren't members of the Church, but apparently the world at large is ignorant and not very pensive around this particular belief. With all the woke movements going around, the next PR campaign for the Church should be #AllSoulsMatter.

I agree with this, but at the same time, the thought of a world full of faithful Latter-day Saints gives me anxiety probably because imagining Church culture at a worldwide level seems like a twilight zone I would never want to enter. But I would also agree that the world would be a better place if everyone was adherent and faithful to any religion that promotes good. We are so far away from achieving that kind of unity with any religion that I won't even try to speculate at how much good one religion would bring over another with worldwide faithfulness. Yes, good point, and I'd say not just Christian organizations, but any organization that promotes good.

Mankind is prone to seek the divine. Thousands of religions have been created to try to explain life. But what if Mormonism was the only religion ever founded? Would the world be better off only having 16 million Mormons and the rest of the world population not believing in anything else? Do other religions make this world a better place? Or do the religious divisions we have created amongst ourselves create more of a negative impact than positive? Is it better for the world to believe in something rather than nothing at all if they don’t have the LDS Church in their lives?

I’m relating it to the notion that a good percentage of the impoverished black communities in America buy in to the idea that their only way out of the ghetto is by sports or a career in rap, and they simply spend more time practicing and playing ball than others based on limited options. Similar to what @Fether was suggesting earlier. Not my favorite theory, but it makes more sense to me than the superior genetics argument.

@Anddenex I'll spare you having to watch the whole video and give you the cliff notes - no scientific evidence that black people have superior physical genetics, Ted talk researcher concludes Africans have the fastest running times due to the higher physical activity and conditioning that comes with it from living in Africa.

I was going to counter with some Keanu Reeves, but he further discredits my position:

I appreciate your personal experience, but the genetics argument doesn’t make sense to me. Science has never proven that one race is physically stronger or has a greater ability to develop things things like dexterity, agility, and quickness. Do you think a lot of these black players just spent more time honing their craft? Do white players dominant the NHL because they’re genetically superior to everyone else when it comes to hockey? Think of professional body builders and competitive strongmen. I believe most to be white but have notably seen representation with most races aside from Asian and Middle Eastern. From how I see it, anyone who starts lifting weights gets stronger.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), one of the "Big 4" accounting firms, took on an initiative several months ago to have a set percentage of black people on its executive leadership team/partner level. They are either creating new positions or giving the old ones to black professionals and actively looking for qualified black candidates. And not only on a leadership level. They're making big $ investments (rumored around $1 billion) to expand company headcount by specifically recruiting blacks and latinos at the staff levels. This is probably the most extreme example I've seen in the business world of a CEO trying to amend the wrongs of the world especially when flying in the face of the nature of capitalism which made a company like PwC what it is today.

To me it's not so much a problem either but rather a prime example of how cultural influences affect our way of thinking. I'm convinced that white American basketball players have trouble competing on the collegiate and pro levels largely because of false cultural beliefs giving credit to theories like black players being naturally physically superior to white players.

Valid point, although this has changed noticeably over the last 20 years. A growing percentage of pro basketball players today come from wealthy families and had a pro basketball father to show them the way. This includes Devin Booker, Kobe Bryant, Jae Crowder, Stephen & Seth Curry, Bol Bol, Patrick Ewing Jr., Tim Hardaway Jr., Kevin Love, Gary Payton II, Klay Thompson, Jalen Rose...

But when you know that most American high school basketball players are white, something is happening along the progression to the NBA when so many white American players fizzle out. If America is 76 percent white, and white Americans account for over 60 percent of the high school basketball players, you'd think there'd be a bigger representation in the NBA. Isiah Thomas once said of Larry Bird's stardom in basketball: "If Bird Was Black, He'd Be Just Another Good Player." This sums up the bias that many in pro basketball believe to be true.

It's meant to be taken at face value, but I'm also questioning the soundness of American politics trying to rectify select issues involving racial disparity. Yes, the NFL player population is 70 percent black, MLB -- 60 percent white, NHL -- 90 percent white...

You could have answered that it’s a cultural issue. And really it is. The lack of white American superstars in the NBA is due to the false but popular stereotype that white players simply don’t have what it takes. How should we rectify the lack of white American players in the NBA? Should the NBA commission mandate a set percentage white Americans in the NBA and reform the draft process? If America is looking for equity for all, should all disparities including these be addressed?

Yes, thanks, just edited.

Ah yes, reparations would be what I was going for. Thank you