amykeim

I work with young people on a regular basis and it is amazing to me how many girls see themselves as worthless due to weight related issues. Some of them aren't even overweight but apparently they are according to Instagram.

My reasons for feeling worthless are different, but premise behind this article resonates with me.  Thank you!

I respect the way you opened yourself up on this, @amykeim.  Thanks.

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.

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.)

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.

I think responding "whoop dee doo" is somewhat rude. Maybe she was just poking fun at that and not trying to "keep you quiet" haha

I don't think the article is saying that it is "requisite". It's an observation that we may not be as familiar with other religions as some other groups. I also think it's easy to understand that understanding others beliefs can help us to find common ground and develop meaningful relationships with others. 

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.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

As for Amy's column that heads this thread, I guess I don't really see her point. We're not about to start teaching a World Religion class in place of gospel doctrine class. Latter-day Saints tend to know less than others about other religions? Whoop dee doo. How well we live our own religion concerns me a lot more than how well we understand other religions.

This article is a stretch. I'm unconvinced. Sorry Amy -- I'm going to continue knowing the exact amount about other religions as I do now, which is very little. You're argument that it matters does not persuade. I've got more important things to learn in my limited time. And I don't buy for a second that I can't love them properly if I don't know trivia about their dogma.

There you go, ruining my morning with your facts. I'm never going to get that flying carpet I keep asking for😉.

This is another of these articles where, after reading it, I say to myself, "Self, that was a pretty good article, and I mostly agreed with it, but I wouldn't have put it that way."
One of my Muslim friend's articles of faith was that Allah could do anything. Literally anything. He was I Dream of Jeannie God. You name it, he can do it. In contrast, our scriptures leave no doubt that there are things God cannot do. Not merely chooses not to do, but cannot do, like save people in their sins. My Muslim friend would undoubtedly have said that God can save whomever he wants, including infidels, but that for the most part, he chooses not to. Allah could save the sinful people into a wonderful paradise if he chose to do so.
But orthodox Latter-day Saints simply do not believe such things. God is indeed limited, not by a deficiency of power or of knowledge, but by our agency and by the simple meaning of words. Thus, God CANNOT "save" a sinful, unrepentant man, because the term "salvation" implies sinlessness—it's sin we are being saved from.
Far from being a deficiency in God's power, it's just a word game: God "can't" create a rock so big that he "can't" lift it, because if he did, it would mean there's a rock too big for an All-Powerful God to lift. So either God is deficient in lifting power of sufficiently huge rocks, or else God is deficient in his ability to create such sufficiently huge rocks.
Baloney. This is no longer a discussion of God's abilities, but of how we choose to define and parse words. There are plenty of meaningless "things" that God can't "do". One of those "things" might be "do something for someone that he can do for himself but refuses to do." One non-existent thing that God for sure cannot do is give us a blessing from heaven without our having fulfilled the divine law attached to that blessing.
Bottom line: God isn't I Dream of Jeannie. We would do well to come to grips with that simple fact.

(Not God)

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.

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.

All discussion is condemnation. Apparently.

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.

Pretty sure Jesus Christ was suffering from anxiety in Gethsemane.  So it even occurs in Gods.
As we overcome challenges and become educated, strengthened both physically and spiritually our fortitude to resist anxiety increases.  
But there is always more out there.
We have to recognize that we have to co-exist with anxiety and have faith that we can overcome situations with personal strength and providence. 
Heavenly Father sent Michael to strengthen Jesus Christ while in Gethsemane.  
God is aware of our anxiety.

This is a completely fair point, and perhaps because of mortal weakness this is something that those who need to adjust the most are the least likely to do. It seems to be that there are legitimate snowflakes running around being offended at everything and legitimate bullies out there bringing everyone down. There might not be much hope for these. As for those of us who don't go around looking to be offended or trying to be obnoxious jerks there is hope that we can all do better at finding middle ground and recognizing that the person asking us questions we'd prefer they didn't means no ill intent and also perhaps those who go around prying into people's personal lives can also learn to better recognize when a relationship is deep enough to go to such places.

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. 

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.