NightSG

Worth a read

Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well, all I got out of it was...

There's always something people can complain about the Church when one wants to.

 

Yes, the Lord will force no one to heaven. Lots of opportunities to take an off ramp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Wealthy men in prestigious positions, yes.  Simple fact of life

Then, were I in your situation, I'd make myself a desirable man. Simple fact of life.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Yes, the Lord will force no one to heaven. Lots of opportunities to take an off ramp

That's the thing about the gift of Free Will.  We can never control what other people do... we can only control how we react to them.  And that's the thing... that's always how we get into trouble.  When we would rather control what other people do instead of controlling how we react to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

That's the thing about the gift of Free Will.  We can never control what other people do... we can only control how we react to them.  And that's the thing... that's always how we get into trouble.  When we would rather control what other people do instead of controlling how we react to them.

Sounds familar :D

Quote

... the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principles of righteousness.

That they may be conferred upon us, it is true; but when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man.

D&C 121

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Wealthy men in prestigious positions, yes.  Simple fact of life.

 

Well, I hate to pigeon-hole people I don't know... but this statement may be the reason you're still single.  You have such a... ah... funny?... opinion of women.  Anyway, it's a low opinion and it's hard to find a mate when you think so little of them.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Well, I hate to pigeon-hole people I don't know... but this statement may be the reason you're still single.  You have such a... ah... funny?... opinion of women.  Anyway, it's a low opinion and you can't find a mate when you think so little of them.

Not quite sure I agree with this. I certainly disagree with NightSG's pessimism and cynicism, but not with the observation that, in general, women prefer men who are successful and accomplished. Attribute that to whatever you want, but it's hard to see how the observation is anything other than fact. We have had many widowed General Authorities who remained unmarried for the balance of their lives (most recently, Elder Scott and President Monson), but I think it's obvious to any observer that a widowed General Authority will have ample opportunity to remarry, should he desire to do so. And I'm not even sure this betrays a negative opinion of women, any more than the observation that a beautiful and intelligent woman can always find a man if she wants one means that all men are pigs. It's an acknowledgement of the reality of human nature.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NightSG said:

While it usually does have the immediate desired result of getting said troubled single to shut up and go away,

This is far from the intent.

You may infer it, but they did not imply it in the least.

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, NightSG said:

LDS students are just expected to spend every spare moment in Scripture study, apparently, since even the YSA branch hasn't tried to get a singles Home Evening going, much less anything for the rest of the week.

Why do they need the church to create / maintain / approve a formal program?  If you really want to get together, why not just get together?  I know it's hard to see this when you're in the thick of it, but the solution is to stop waiting for other people to give you a formal solution and make your own.  A bunch of single people want to get together on a Monday night? Do it!

12 hours ago, NightSG said:

Uhh...then what's religion for?

Might as well say the same about alcoholism, porn addiction, or any other behavior.

Shall we force people to socialize?  You know that won't work.  And while religion is to try to bring out the best in people, it can't be done by force or anger.  The solution is to live your religion, gladly, fully, regardless of what anyone else does.  If you do, you will be more likely to find friends, and whether you find friends or not, you will be happy.

12 hours ago, NightSG said:

I did that, and was told in no uncertain terms that the singles seating was back in the overflow on the metal chairs, not up front in the comfy pews where we might actually hear anything being said from the stand.  (And no, the building wasn't full enough to actually need the overflow that day.)

I would have simply thanked them for their concern and if I felt it was needed, explained that prophets and apostles have often requested and encouraged people to sit up front, and so I was going to obey the counsel of prophets and apostles.  I mean what are they going to do in consequence?  If I truly felt like there was unrighteous dominion going on here, I would record it, and send it up the chain as many times as needed to get an appropriate response.

12 hours ago, NightSG said:

If I go back, I'll handle it the same way I do locally, (sit wherever I want to sit and show them that I'm better at giving dirty looks than any of them) but I figured it being the first time that I'd follow their rules and see how it went.  "How it went" was so badly that I felt compelled to drive to the next stake immediately afterward and take the Sacrament again in a more welcoming ward where I could feel the Spirit.

Dirty looks aren't going to invite the Spirit.  If the Spirit isn't present, that's a whole 'nother problem*, and no one who isn't there can decide what to do about that, beyond what Lehi has already said. *But whether I feel the Spirit is up to me, not up to those around me (though they can help or make it harder).

11 hours ago, NightSG said:

Once you've heard it a few hundred times, it might as well be the far more honest "I don't care, so I'm going to parrot the same old line to you so that I can pretend I did something."  ...

Not being able to do anything more about it is not the same as not caring; and no one else can do anything about another's marital state.  Basically, what I'm saying here is that the individual and the Lord must solve the individual's problems.  Sometimes others can help, but if others are really so lax in their duties as to ignore and refuse to aid them personally, then it's time to turn to the Lord.

It may have taken me longer than 33 years for some things, but eventually I learned that in all but a few formal cases, I don't need anyone except the Lord to give me permission, or a program, or anything else.  (Yes, for some things, like the temple, or a calling, I need the Lord's representative to be involved, but those things are few compared to all the rest, and once you start thinking this way, fewer than you previously thought.)

That said, for generations past, far too much time was probably spent on "oh how great the ideal will be when you get old enough" and too little time was spent on conversion to the Lord and spiritual self-reliance, but that's changing more and more of late, and I see no reason for anyone to wait for a mortal teacher before learning these lessons...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or maybe we should go back to the tried and tested method of arranged marriage.

Parents usually have clearer heads than the two parties involve anyway, so there'd be fewer disillusioned spouses and the weight of the community to keep couples together.

It is always a joy to hear Tevia ask Golda, My father and my mother said we'd learn to love each other, so I'm asking, "Do you love me?"

Her answer is gem:

Quote

Tevia: Golda, do you love me?
Golda: Do I what?
Tevia: Do you love me?
Golda: Do I love you?
Tevia: Well?
Golda: With our daughter's getting married and this trouble in the town, you're upset, you're worn out, go inside, go lie down--maybe it's indigestion.
Tevia: A-h-h, no! Golda, I am asking you a question. Do you love me?
Golda: You're a fool.
Tevia: I know, but do you love me?
Golda: Do I love you?
Tevia: Well?
Golda: For 25 years, I've washed your clothes, cooked your meals, cleaned your house, given you children, milked your cow, after 25 years why talk about love right now?
Tevia: Golda, the first time I met you was on our wedding day. I was scared.
Golda: I was shy.
Tevia: I was nervous.
Golda: So was I.
Tevia: But my father and my mother said we'd learn to love each other. And now, I am asking--Golda, do you love me?
Golda: I'm your wife!
Tevia: I know! But do you love me?
Golda: Do I love him?
Tevia: Well?
Golda: For 25 years, I've lived with him, fought with him, starved with him, 25 years my bed is his, if that's not love, what is?
Tevia: Then you love me!
Golda: I suppose I do.
Tevia: And I suppose I love you too!
Tevia/Golda: It doesn't change a thing, but even so--after 25 years, it's nice to know.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, NightSG said:

Yeah, try that one around here.  The only place "where the potential mates are" is maybe once a month at the chapel.  Since the bowling alley closed down, the only "hangouts" within 60 miles are bars.

It is interesting that nearly every other faith has some sort of student auxiliary near the university, (even the 5 Jews in town...though that's more just because one of them lives close to the campus) and non-students are generally welcome there when activities are going on. For the Baptist one down the street from me, that's at least 4-5 nights a week until 10PM or later.  LDS students are just expected to spend every spare moment in Scripture study, apparently, since even the YSA branch hasn't tried to get a singles Home Evening going, much less anything for the rest of the week.

Why can't you set up a FHE group?

I mean, either the base of LDS singles is there, or it isn't.  If it's there, you're just as capable of orchestrating activities that will fill the social void as the Church is.  If it's not there--well, the Church can't, Ahasuerus-like, line up all the chaste young virgins of the Kingdom for our convenience in selecting a mate, if the chaste young virgins just aren't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zil said:

Why do they need the church to create / maintain / approve a formal program?  If you really want to get together, why not just get together?  I know it's hard to see this when you're in the thick of it, but the solution is to stop waiting for other people to give you a formal solution and make your own.  A bunch of single people want to get together on a Monday night? Do it!

A few of us did that for a while.  Attendance dropped off when we lost almost all the YSAs over summer break at the university, then the one who was hosting it moved away and it died out for lack of participation.  As I understand it, that's what happened with the one that was meeting at the stake center too.  This is what I mean by the approach First Methodist too with their singles, and the way Addiction Recovery used to work; even if it was down to just the couple in charge, they played checkers together and kept the doors unlocked in case someone showed up.

Quote

Shall we force people to socialize?  You know that won't work.

Please tell that to the Arlington (TX) singles committee.  Or at least tell them to stop getting ideas for how to do it out of the Primary manuals.

Quote

Dirty looks aren't going to invite the Spirit.  If the Spirit isn't present, that's a whole 'nother problem*, and no one who isn't there can decide what to do about that, beyond what Lehi has already said. *But whether I feel the Spirit is up to me, not up to those around me (though they can help or make it harder).

There's a reason we hold our services in chapels instead of strip clubs.  Making it harder to feel the Spirit is never going to benefit anyone.

Quote

Not being able to do anything more about it is not the same as not caring; and no one else can do anything about another's marital state.  Basically, what I'm saying here is that the individual and the Lord must solve the individual's problems.  Sometimes others can help, but if others are really so lax in their duties as to ignore and refuse to aid them personally, then it's time to turn to the Lord.

I'm not saying that every member needs to take a lesson from Samwise Gamgee ("I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you.") and apply it every time another stumbles, but we do have that little thing about bearing one another's burdens that they may be light.  Cutting someone off when they're seeking another's understanding, or accusing them of whining isn't going to lighten their burden at all.

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Why can't you set up a FHE group?

The remaining active SAs could meet in a phone booth and still have room to bring an investigator.  What we tried was a joint SA/YSA activity, but could never get the YSA rep to really commit to anything.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

Or maybe we should go back to the tried and tested method of arranged marriage.

Parents usually have clearer heads than the two parties involve anyway, so there'd be fewer disillusioned spouses and the weight of the community to keep couples together.

It is always a joy to hear Tevia ask Golda, My father and my mother said we'd learn to love each other, so I'm asking, "Do you love me?"

Her answer is gem.

Lehi

I'm obligated to like this, given my old signature (guess I'll have to bring it back).

Edited by mordorbund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NightSG said:

The remaining active SAs could meet in a phone booth and still have room to bring an investigator.  What we tried was a joint SA/YSA activity, but could never get the YSA rep to really commit to anything.  

It takes a YSA rep for you to call four or five people and invite them over to your place for an FHE?

NightSG, I want to be sympathetic; but the vibe I keep getting is that you're putting the church in an impossible situation here.  If they don't set anything up--they're wrong.  If they do set something up, but it caters to 18-year-old-singles rather than thirty-something-year-old singles--they're wrong.  If they set something up for thirtysomethings and the eighteen-year-olds don't show up--the Church is still wrong.  If the activity was set up by an ENTJ personality type, but I prefer it cater more to an ESTP personality type--well, the Church is, yet again, wrong.

You clearly know what you want to see implemented.  So, implement it!

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I'm obligated to like this, given my old signature (guess I'll have to bring it back).

Can't find the sig feature. For the curious, you can see it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20160125050501/http://lds.net/forums/topic/58623-is-it-possiblecommonnormal-for-church-members-to-have-a-tree-of-life-vision/#entry851482

For the lazy, it was the following:

Quote

"This is why we need arranged marriages." - mordorbund

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It takes a YSA rep for you to call four or five people and invite them over to your place for an FHE?

I don't have access to the YSA list, and as SA rep, I wasn't comfortable bypassing the YSA rep to get a joint activity together.

Quote

NightSG, I want to be sympathetic; but the vibe I keep getting is that you're putting the church in an impossible situation here.

The guy in charge is the source of miracles.  Not making impossible situations a Church specialty is wasting a valuable resource. :P

Quote

If they don't set anything up--they're wrong.  If they do set something up, but it caters to 18-year-old-singles rather than thirty-something-year-old singles--they're wrong.  If they set something up for thirtysomethings and the eighteen-year-olds don't show up--the Church is still wrong.

Why would it need to be set up specifically for either group?  We all have the same issue; no family (or no local family in the case of the students) to have FHE with.  Having it at the Church's building would eliminate the issue of hosts moving, going on vacation or whatever and keeps the location consistent so nobody's ever in the awkward situation of showing up at the wrong place and assuming it's been canceled, but then it runs into the same old problem of getting someone there with the keys if a few times that person notices it's just me and maybe one other.  (We have enough trouble getting the building unlocked for GC sessions.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I don't have access to the YSA list, and as SA rep, I wasn't comfortable bypassing the YSA rep to get a joint activity together.

NightSG, I say this in the spirit of gentle ribbing and with true brotherly affection (insofar as that's possible on the internet), so please don't interpret this more harshly than I intend, but . . .

Oh, for crying out loud!!!!!!

You have the right, as a person, to orchestrate social gatherings and even "family home evenings", without getting approval from the ward or stake bureaucracy.

You want me to believe you don't have the phone number for even two or three friends who could get together-and then encourage them to call one or two of their own friends, to make a group?

If you're going to keep sitting there and say "can't, can't, can't", then don't complain when other people in the Church take the exact. same. attitude.

It's about being the change you seek, and all that stuff.  :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

You want me to believe you don't have the phone number for even two or three friends who could get together-and then encourage them to call one or two of their own friends, to make a group?

I have the number of (hold on, let me count) (better double check my count in case I got distracted) one of our current YSAs.  She's one that doesn't fit in with the rest of the group, (27 year old non-trad student doesn't fit in with a group where a single 23 year old is considered an old maid, imagine that) and doesn't have a way to get in touch with any of them other than to grab them in the hall on Sunday.  She has tried inviting them that way, but none came.  Since the whole problem is a lack of local family, it's not like I can call their parents to find them either.

As for trying to get our inactive SAs to show up, most of them now know my phone number and that of the one other regularly active SA, and have added those to their list of "don't answer" numbers along with the new bishop's number.  They don't answer the phone or door for the missionaries either, (I spent a couple of evenings last year hiding in various peoples' bushes while the missionaries knocked, hoping to trick them into a conversation that way.) so that's off the table too.  At least according to my HT companion, forming a SWAT team to forcibly raid their houses is against Church policy. (He won't even consider that for the family on our list that has done the "turn off the lights and hide" thing to us for the last year and a half.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, NightSG said:

A few of us did that for a while.  Attendance dropped off when we lost almost all the YSAs over summer break at the university, then the one who was hosting it moved away and it died out for lack of participation.  As I understand it, that's what happened with the one that was meeting at the stake center too.  This is what I mean by the approach First Methodist too with their singles, and the way Addiction Recovery used to work; even if it was down to just the couple in charge, they played checkers together and kept the doors unlocked in case someone showed up.

Again, why can't you just do it?  The answer appears to be "lack of participation".  You don't need the church to open its doors* unless the group is larger than will fit in someone's house.  If the Methodists keep their door open just in case anyone shows up, why can't the single adults do the same (with their personal doors, figuratively)?  No one but the participants can overcome "lack of participation".  And if one or two other people want more people to participate, then I'm sorry for the one or two people, but you can only do what you can do.

*Where I am, the church doors are open every night of the week except Monday after the cleaning work is done.

22 minutes ago, NightSG said:

Please tell that to the Arlington (TX) singles committee.  Or at least tell them to stop getting ideas for how to do it out of the Primary manuals.

Again, why wait for someone else to do what you can do?

23 minutes ago, NightSG said:

I'm not saying that every member needs to take a lesson from Samwise Gamgee ("I can't carry it for you, but I can carry you.") and apply it every time another stumbles, but we do have that little thing about bearing one another's burdens that they may be light.  Cutting someone off when they're seeking another's understanding, or accusing them of whining isn't going to lighten their burden at all.

I completely agree, but if your leaders and fellow members are truly not doing their duty, then turn to the Lord, He always keeps His promises.

Frankly, this was the whole reason I had problems at 30-something.  I believed something external to myself was needed to solve the problem.  I now know I was wrong (well, except that I needed the Lord).  I knew the truth, believed, went to church, etc. but I was so focused on my lack of a husband that I couldn't see that I was focused on the wrong thing (the lack), to the point of failing to do almost all of the things that would have made me happy with or without a husband (hobbies, interests, learning, more serious devotion, etc.).  Now I've now been there, done that, and am a widow, and I can tell you, a spouse isn't going to make an unhappy person happy; doing things which make you happy makes you happy. (If you're really lucky, a spouse can help you learn that lesson, but you have to choose to learn it, and if you don't learn it, you and the spouse are going through hard times eventually - if you're lucky, you'll come out better, but it'll be easier if you learn to be independently happy first.  If you're unlucky, well, you have misery to the power of 2+.) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Vort said:

Not quite sure I agree with this. I certainly disagree with NightSG's pessimism and cynicism, but not with the observation that, in general, women prefer men who are successful and accomplished. Attribute that to whatever you want, but it's hard to see how the observation is anything other than fact. We have had many widowed General Authorities who remained unmarried for the balance of their lives (most recently, Elder Scott and President Monson), but I think it's obvious to any observer that a widowed General Authority will have ample opportunity to remarry, should he desire to do so. And I'm not even sure this betrays a negative opinion of women, any more than the observation that a beautiful and intelligent woman can always find a man if she wants one means that all men are pigs. It's an acknowledgement of the reality of human nature.

But then, it's not their worthiness to be GA that NightSG is pointing to... He is specifically pointing to their WEALTHY status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

But then, it's not their worthiness to be GA that NightSG is pointing to... He is specifically pointing to their WEALTHY status.

But then, I imagine that those specific women would not have chosen them had they been merely wealthy.

"Desirability" in a man is not the same thing for all women, although there are trends. While "desirability" among women is not the same thing for all men, either, there are trends.

If anyone wants a spouse, the thing to do is spot those trends, and become a desirable man/woman. Simple fact of life.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

But then, I imagine that those specific women would not have chosen them had they been merely wealthy.

Lehi

Well, NightSG seems to believe they would not have chosen them had they been merely "worthy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well, NightSG seems to believe they would not have chosen them had they been merely "worthy".

The issue is that these men are not "wealthy". Some are, not all. Some are very wealthy, some are just middle class. All are worthy. So, let's see: what's the real common denominator?

And, we should ask if the women were worthy, too? Not being their bishop, I can't answer the question, but methinks it unlikely the answer is no, they are merely pretty.

So, we revert to the previous question: what constitutes desirability? And, once we discover that, we can figure out how to be that person.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The issue is that these men are not "wealthy". Some are, not all. Some are very wealthy, some are just middle class. All are worthy. So, let's see: what's the real common denominator?

And, we should ask if the women were worthy, too? Not being their bishop, I can't answer the question, but methinks it unlikely the answer is no, they are merely pretty.

So, we revert to the previosu quesiotn: what constitutes desirability? And, once we discover that, we can figure out hwo to be that person.

Lehi

Well... NightSG seems to think it's because they're Wealthy.  And that's why I said what I said.  To think GAs find it easy to remarry because they're wealthy indicates one's view of women, and not necessarily one's view of GA's.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

"Desirability" in a man is not the same thing for all women, although there are trends.

Wealth and influence is an extremely strong trend.  Or do you think Donald Trump has landed three trophy wives on his natural charm?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now