• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

amykeim's Achievements


Member (2/4)



  1. I understand what you're saying, but I think if someone in person professes to believe in Christ's teachings of kindness and respect toward others — or, to use Christ's example, they claim to refrain from calling their brother a fool — but then is belligerent online, that's hypocrisy. They're claiming to believe one thing, but living another. The argument MG was making, as I understood it, wasn't that someone is maybe a little less kind online than they are in person — something that doesn't necessarily constitute hypocrisy; the argument is that they are a totally different person online than they are in person. Claiming to be one way, then acting in a totally different manner in another setting, is hypocrisy. (To be fair, we're all hypocrites in our own way; we profess to believe in Christ's teachings, but we sin.)
  2. What I took from Mormon Gator's original comment is that you should be the same everywhere you go — be the same person online that you are in real life. I think anonymity in some regards allows us to be our true selves — to voice our true opinions — because we're not worried about how others will perceive us, or for any lashback we might receive. I have the most respect for people who are exactly the same person online that they are in real life; who are genuine in ALL aspects of their lives, whether that's on the internet or in person... I think that's the point MG was making.
  3. I'm with you 100%. I think what people do behind the safety of their computer screens is the real tell of who they are. Anyone can be nice to someone's face, but not everyone is nice when they have the security of anonymity — and that's where I think our true intent and nature shine.
  4. You said earlier, "Goal post moved. The article implied we don't know enough. I maintain we do, and that further study is not requisite or even that useful." Based on that statement, especially the point I italicized, I think my assessment that it is essentially saying, "My own viewpoint is enough, and it's not important for me to learn about anyone else's" seems fair. However, I'm genuinely sorry if you felt it wasn't justified or that it misrepresented your intent.
  5. I don't mind if people disagree with me. The entire basis of my article is that I enjoy learning from people who don't agree with me. I was joking about your "Whoop dee doo" comment, although I suppose I do think the phrase isn't the most respectful when it's used in connection with a point someone is trying to make. In any case, you all are stating and defending your points of view and that is okay and encouraged, so why it uncalled for when I try to defend myself and the way I think? It seems like something of a double standard: when I make a comment in defense of my thoughts and ideas, I'm told to refer back to the definition of a discussion list, but when you defend your comments and way of thinking, it's okay. Plus, if you'll notice, I actually wasn't even defending my own comment — although I did try to explain why I think the way I think. I was defending someone ELSE's comment that was being dissected. Anyway, in response to your comments: 1. Obviously learning about other religions isn't the central focus of Preach My Gospel, but I didn't say it was. I said it was something it discusses, so therefore it must have some merit and importance. Preach My Gospel includes an entire list of reformers and information about them that are said to be used "only when necessary" — but you can't use them if you don't know them. Similarly, in Chapter 7, there's a study idea that reads: "Think about the cultural and religious background of the people you teach. Identify an aspect of their background that might lead them to misunderstand the doctrines of the gospel. Plan ways to teach these doctrines clearly." You need to know about their religious background and cultural identity to be able to help them clearly understand the gospel. So, like @Midwest LDS explained, I do think knowing about other religions is a valuable missionary tool. 2. Here’s the institute course. In suggested readings, you’ll see articles from the Ensign, albeit from the 70’s, that discuss what other religions believe. So perhaps you’re right; “article after article” may not have been the most apt way to phrase that. But there are more modern articles about tolerance and love for all religions, and respecting others’ beliefs.
  6. I think you should try to see the message they were getting at — that knowing basics about other religions enables us to be a better missionary, something Preach My Gospel talks about — rather than doing everything you can to tear them apart. If it wasn't important to know about other religions, it wouldn't talk about it in Preach My Gospel. There wouldn't be entire courses devoted to it at BYU. There wouldn't be an institute class on it. There wouldn't be article after article in the Ensign about other faiths and the basic tenants they teach. The Church wouldn't focus so much on interfaith involvement. If we want other people to learn about our religion, the least we can do it be respectful and learn about theirs and why it's important to them. It's basic courtesy. ALSO, I never said we COULDN'T love people properly if we don't learn about their faith, as you said in an earlier comment. I said that it increases our love and respect for them, which I know from personal experience. Haven't you ever met someone of another religion and found the more you learned about their beliefs, the more you admired their devotion to their faith? Plus, I think the good/better/best would be to try to see other people's point of views rather than simply saying, "My own view is enough. It's not important that I learn about or consider someone else's." If there are enough hours in the day to write on this forum, there are enough hours in the day to spend a little time learning about other people who are different than you and what they believe.
  7. I always love when people read the articles that I worked on and say "Whoop dee doo." 😍
  8. Haha, I see you throwing shade at me! I used that word twice: first, applying it toward how Breakfast at Tiffany’s, the Beatles, and the Good Place have essentially been labeled as morally repugnant (which fits into the definition of condemnation, since they’re being strongly disapproved); second, when I felt that Elisha was being judged harshly (again, strong disapproval or condemnation) for leaving church one Sunday because she was so anxious. I think it fit in both places I used it, Daniel Tiger, but I’m sorry if I’m being too sensitive.
  9. She said she was so anxious, she had to get out of church, then sat at home organizing gummy bears and listening to the same Beatles song on loop for two hours — something was obviously very, very wrong. Please do not condemn her for not being in church when something was obviously going very wrong in her brain.
  10. Have you read “Like a Broken Vessel”? Not everyone has clinical anxiety and depression, but some — like Elisha — actually have chemical imbalances that cannot just be fixed by sheer willpower. And anxiety IS classified as a disorder, especially depending on what type of anxiety you have — there are panic disorders, generalized anxiety disorders, etc. Also, Elisha is a beautiful, wonderful person, and it makes me sad that instead of sympathizing with the struggles she faces and applauding her for turning to God in her moments of darkness, people want to focus on how her struggles with anxiety may stem from her own poor choices regarding what music she listens to or television she watches. Of course what we watch, listen to, and allow into our homes and lives affects us — but I think the things the author mentions aren’t worthy of the condemnation people on this post have issued and I think it’s a huge stretch to say that they are the root of her anxiety.
  11. Elisha, the primary author of this post, talks about struggling with anxiety since she was a very, very little girl — during a time when she probably watched "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood" rather than "Breakfast at Tiffany's," when "The Good Place" wasn't out, and when her music choices probably consisted mainly of primary songs. I don't think her lack of morality — or associating with people or things that are morally repugnant — was an issue at that point. She also talks about experiencing deep, debilitating anxiety on her mission, a time when you're completely separated from "Babylon." Similarly, she said nothing about the Church needing to reorient itself; instead, she focused on how Heavenly Father has helped her through her trials. Anxiety is a real, genuine brain disorder that needs to be treated through therapy and sometimes medicine — rather than pointing the finger at all the things you think she's doing wrong by associating herself with "bad" things, perhaps we could consider that she has a real, psychological problem that needs addressing and that simply changing what she watches on the television isn't going to fix the problem.
  12. Okay, sorry, I should honestly leave this thread alone because it's fine for people to have their own opinions and perspectives about things I write, but I do think this is misinterpreting the article and taking that quote somewhat out of context. This is written for an everyday member of the Church; obviously, if someone is in your stewardship and you feel prompted to ask this question, that's a completely different matter and you should always follow the Spirit. I'm not sending this article out as a statement to bishops and Relief Society presidents throughout the world; rather, I'm saying — as I mentioned previously — that we should think twice before we ask people such personal questions. Likewise, I'm not suggesting to members, "You should choose to take offense when people ask you sensitive questions! Get your pitchforks and torches ASAP!" but I am trying to promote sensitivity toward an issue that is difficult for many people for a variety of reasons. I don't think there's anything wrong with saying, "Hey, let's be more sensitive and aware of others." I think people (in general, not you specifically, because I think you approached this in a tactful, respectful way) are quick to point the finger and say, "YOU'RE TAKING OFFENSE, YOU SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE!" without doing some introspection and saying, "Is there something I can learn from this? Is there a way that I can be more sensitive to others?" Yes, people should strive to not be offended, but people should also strive to not BE an offender.
  13. I would like to say, for the record, it literally never crossed my mind that this article was saying, “It’s okay to not have kids” or “It’s okay to postpone kids until you’re more financially settled.” I think the Lord has commanded us to have children and that having children even when we don’t feel ready, but feel that it’s what the Lord wants for us, shows great faith. On a personal note, I have a lot of health issues that have put me in a position where I don’t think I could take care of a child right now—I felt that was important to include in the article because it serves as an example of a situation that someone might not see on the surface. My goal with this article was to say that it’s not anyone’s business why you do or don’t have kids yet; it wasn’t to advocate not having (or even postponing) children—although truthfully, I think if someone is choosing to do so, it’s also not really my business and that’s not something they need to reveal to me. But really, my intent was to say, “Hey, this aspect of a marriage is really personal and questions about it shouldn’t be tossed around in casual conversation—especially because we never know the background of a couple’s situation and why they do or do not have children.”
  14. If the Church gave tattoos a green light, I would get this entire thing tattooed on my forehead. (It’d have to be really small print, but... #worthit) I also find it interesting when people assign motives to an author’s writing. I say a lot of prayers — a lot — before I write anything. I seek to know what Heavenly Father would like me to say. But no matter what I write, it makes someone mad, and that’s fine. I’ve had to learn to not let it hurt my feelings. And while I certainly make mistakes, it does disappoint me when people who say I’M looking to be offended seem to be looking to find offense themselves. They come out, guns blazing, ready to attack one piece of an article without reading the entire thing and trying to get a sense of the message it conveys. So thanks for understanding that I was trying to bring awareness to a sensitive issue and say, “Hey, even though you’re not trying to hurt someone by asking this question, it can cause pain. Just wanted you to know because I know you’re trying to help others and this is how you can do so.” It’s not meant to be an attack on anyone; instead, it’s supposed to help us all be more sensitive to others stations in life and to live in more harmony. Basically I’m trying to say that you are a gem, MormonGator. A scaly, green gem. 💚
  15. "Horrible" is what I was going for — thank you ❤️