LDS culture problem

[anatess2]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Wait. What happened to this being a Utah problem?

Apparently, there are Utah problems in California.  I'm unsure whether there are Utah problems in Utah.

I'm currently in "Little Utah", Colorado.  There are no Utah problems here.  Well, except... the Gospel Principles class teacher told me I can't talk anymore because I have to give other people a chance to talk.  Eeek. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let me rephrase for clarity:

I'm concerned that by allowing for the idea as proposed by @Sweety D that some people aren't strong, which he defined in the OP as those who are driven away from the church by people wrongly judging them for wearing bikinis and watching R-rated movies, you accidentally imply that you are allowing that such an idea is valid.

My post was in the context of my conversation with Sweety where I agreed that people need to stop judging unrighteously (i.e. making sneering remarks harsh criticisms over the violations in question).  I was not talking about giving a prophetic quote during a sacrament talk.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Calling others who disagree with us "thin skinned" or "snowflakes" is sometimes our way of trying to excuse obnoxious behavior on our parts. "Hey your values are all garbage and your generation is idiotic. What? You don't like be told that? Oh, you snowflake. Ha ha ha. I laugh at you." 

I get it bro, I agree that some people are too sensitive and thin skinned-but I see this all the time. It's like saying "No offense but your kids are ugly and stupid." Yeah, no offense. 

Of course calling someone who gets offended because they hear a lesson in church that teaches them to not wear bikinis thin-skinned is none-of-the-above, but actually quite apropos.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, person0 said:

When I saw the post about being a bishop I was like:

I really don't understand this.  What does his being a bishop have to do with this thread?  We're not telling him what to do or not do with the administration of his ward.  We're debating two things:

1. These specific items of Church standards.
2. The "Church culture" of judging harshly. (whether that exists and to what degree).

The fact that he is a bishop only comes into play when sharing his experience with people in his ward.  It doesn't change the discussion or the principles of this debate at all.

I'm certain there are several others who are currently or have been in the past.  They could equally share experiences to add to the discussion.  And it wouldn't make one difference whether they were bishops or not, other than the sharing of those specific experiences and their effect on the discussion.

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

It's like saying "No offense but your kids are ugly and stupid and your husband is an idiot." Yeah, no offense. 

Bless their hearts...

[anatess2]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I really don't understand this.  What does his being a bishop have to do with this thread?  We're not telling him what to do or not do with the administration of his ward.  We're debating two things:

1. These specific items of Church standards.
2. The "Church culture" of judging harshly. (whether that exists and to what degree).

The fact that he is a bishop only comes into play when sharing his experience with people in his ward.  It doesn't change the discussion or the principles of this debate at all.

I'm certain there are several others who are currently or have been in the past.  They could equally share experiences to add to the discussion.  And it wouldn't make one difference whether they were bishops or not, other than the sharing of those specific experiences and their effect on the discussion.

You are right, Carb.  Thank you.  I've been feeling a bit weird.

[Guest MormonGator]

7 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Bless their hearts...

I see it all the time. People complain about millennials, liberals, basically anyone who isn't exactly like they are yet the moment you say something about their favorite band, they fall apart. Their college team-they fall apart. Asking simple questions about their religion-they fall apart. In reality, we all have sensitive topics and we are all thin skinned about something. It's hardly a millennial or :: gasp :: a "liberal" thing. 

And for the record, I'm a Gen Xer. Very proud of that too. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by MormonGator

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm certain there are several others who are currently or have been in the past.

   How did you find out I'm in the past? That's supposed to be a secret! 

[Vort]

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I really don't understand this.  What does his being a bishop have to do with this thread?

Nothing, really. He probably should not have brought it up, and certainly not as any way to try to establish his (wrong) opinion.

[person0]

9 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Calling others who disagree with us "thin skinned" or "snowflakes" is sometimes our way of trying to excuse obnoxious behavior on our parts. "Hey your values are all garbage and your generation is idiotic. What? You don't like be told that? Oh, you snowflake. Ha ha ha. I laugh at you." 

I get it bro, I agree that some people are too sensitive and thin skinned-but I see this all the time. I'm going to say something nasty, and if you dare to respond to me I'll just call you a snowflake. 

It's like saying "No offense but your kids are ugly and stupid." Yeah, no offense. 

I've got no issue with what you're saying there, except in this case what I said wasn't actually mean.  There are many people (even members of the church) who would self identify as 20 something millennial females with liberal tendencies.  I did not use the word snowflake at all, although I suppose some people do take the term millennial as a negative even though it is a generational term.  The reason I wrote 'no offense' is mostly because of the accidental incorrect gender identification.

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

I really don't understand this.  What does his being a bishop have to do with this thread?

It has to do with the fact that I originally thought that he was a she, and that's pretty much it.  It also surprised me to see a male priesthood holder who felt it was worthwhile to argue in favor of R rated movies, bikinis, and who cared so much about peoples righteous indignation about caffeine.  I would have been equally surprised just if he said he was a faithful active priesthood holder.

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I see it all the time. People complain about millennials, liberals, basically anyone who isn't exactly like they are yet the moment you say something about their favorite band, they fall apart. Their college team-they fall apart. Asking simple questions about their religion-they fall apart. In reality, we all have sensitive topics and we are all thin skinned about something. It's hardly a millennial thing. 

And for the record, I'm a Gen Xer. Very proud of that too. 

But, of course, when it comes to snowflake-ism, the inherent cure is in their developing thick-skins to just such things as the declaration that they are thin-skinned millennial snowflakes. It's hardly useful to cowtow to the safe-space mentality as a cure to the cry-baby epidemic going on out there. In other words, only someone who takes offense at being called a thin-skinned is.

Edited July 25, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[omegaseamaster75]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I really don't understand this.  What does his being a bishop have to do with this thread?  We're not telling him what to do or not do with the administration of his ward.  We're debating two things:

1. These specific items of Church standards.
2. The "Church culture" of judging harshly. (whether that exists and to what degree).

The fact that he is a bishop only comes into play when sharing his experience with people in his ward.  It doesn't change the discussion or the principles of this debate at all.

I'm certain there are several others who are currently or have been in the past.  They could equally share experiences to add to the discussion.  And it wouldn't make one difference whether they were bishops or not, other than the sharing of those specific experiences and their effect on the discussion.

I love the fact that he dropped that he is a Bishop.

The stunned silence is amazing.  

I happen to agree 100% with Bishop Sweety D.  Members are very "judgy" this may not be intentional but unless you grew up in the culture it can be difficult to understand.

When we look at why members leave the church or are less active the reasons are typically small and on an eternal scale meaningless. "so so and so looked at me funny", "Brother whoisit borrowed my truck and didn't fill it up", "I don't feel good/clean enough to come to church", "The young women's president is mean to me", " Brother whatsit gave me a judgy look", "i feel judged when I come to church", my personal favorite "brother john kicked me out of the band" true story and he came back to church the day after brother john moved out of the ward.

I see it as we discuss how to get more people out to church every week in bishopric meeting.  There is something wrong with how we are presenting our message if we can't get these individuals to come back and return to activity.  

99% of the people on this forum are going to go to church no matter what. We believe and want to follow the commandments small petty things skim off our backs because our testimonies are firmly planted on bedrock, but in the real world of membership we are the minority and most members are very, very insecure in their testimonies and can be washed away by a rogue wave or the high tide.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

I've got no issue with what you're saying there, except in this case what I said wasn't actually mean.  There are many people (even members of the church) who would self identify as 20 something millennial females with liberal tendencies.  I did not use the word snowflake at all, although I suppose some people do take the term millennial as a negative even though it is a generational term.  The reason I wrote 'no offense' is mostly because of the accidental incorrect gender identification.

 

Didn't offend me, it was just a general response really. 

[Sweety D]

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

With all due respect, Bishop Sweety... I really am uncomfortable giving counsel to a bishop, but hey, this is the internet.  No keys necessary.  Right?  So, I'm just going to talk to you like you're a regular guy on the internet and spew out more of my 2 cents.

Right, I love the feedback! I admit that even I am hiding behind internet anonymity. 

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Rather, you excused behavior contrary to the counsels of the prophets and thew out righteous judgment with it. 

I guess I am making 2 points. 1, less judging. 2, I don't think many of these examples I've raised are even counsel.

I keep referring to drinking Coke, admittedly because it's the easiest one to discuss. Everyone pretty much agrees that caffeine in the literal sense is not against the word of wisdom. Chocolate, medicine .. you get it. But it's wise to avoid because it's unhealthy. I can assure you that no one will be left out of the Celestial Kingdom because they had a chocolate bar (caffeine), or drank Coke. Taking me back to my point, judging on people that are not even doing things wrong. 

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Let's just stick to the example of R-rated movies to make things simple.  People CAN righteously judge people who watch R-rated movies as walking farther from Christ.  As a Bishop - you have the keys to actually be this Judge in your ward.  The Young Men and Young Women Presidencies, the EQ Presidencies, the RS Presidencies, the Father of the household - they all have these keys and authority to make a righteous judgment and issue a rebuke.  But yes, not everybody in the Church has these keys and therefore, they should refrain from giving rebuke to people who are not within their authority. 

I'm sorry but I have to correct you on Keys. 

Having a calling means having responsibilities; holding keys means presiding over and directing the work of the priesthood. For instance, a ward Young Men president works under the direction of the bishop, who holds keys over the ward, but the Young Men president’s responsibilities do not include presiding over the priesthood, so he does not receive keys. The keys to direct the work of the Aaronic Priesthood in the ward belong to the bishop, the teachers quorum president, and the deacons quorum president.

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Nonetheless, watching R-rated movies STILL could lead you farther from Christ.  That doesn't change. 

I am not saying people should or should not watch R-rated movies. Nonetheless, I also don't feel we can pass judgment on exactly what type of movies can draw someone further from Christ. Especially by using some arbitrary and flawed rating system. I am saying don't judge others for doing something that you personally disagree with, Especially when it's so trivial. 

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, saying, "Refrain from unrighteous judgment" is completely alright.  Saying, "The counsel to avoid R-rated movies is wrong." is completely not alright. 

I never said those words. 

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

That's just my 2 cents.  I have no authority nor keys over you nor your ward, nor anybody else besides my children really...

Appreciate your 2 cents, it was worth a whole dollar!

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I love the fact that he dropped that he is a Bishop.

The stunned silence is amazing.  

I happen to agree 100% with Bishop Sweety D.  Members are very "judgy" this may not be intentional but unless you grew up in the culture it can be difficult to understand.

When we look at why members leave the church or are less active the reasons are typically small and on an eternal scale meaningless. "so so and so looked at me funny", "Brother whoisit borrowed my truck and didn't fill it up", "I don't feel good/clean enough to come to church", "The young women's president is mean to me", " Brother whatsit gave me a judgy look", "i feel judged when I come to church", my personal favorite "brother john kicked me out of the band" true story and he came back to church the day after brother john moved out of the ward.

I see it as we discuss how to get more people out to church every week in bishopric meeting.  There is something wrong with how we are presenting our message if we can't get these individuals to come back and return to activity.  

99% of the people on this forum are going to go to church no matter what. We believe and want to follow the commandments small petty things skim off our backs because our testimonies are firmly planted on bedrock, but in the real world of membership we are the minority and most members are very, very insecure in their testimonies and can be washed away by a rogue wave or the high tide.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/matt/7.24-27?lang=eng#23

[Snigmorder]

11 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Their college team-they fall apart.

Florida Gators are mediocre.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Snigmorder said:

Florida Gators are mediocre.

That's it. Them fighting words. I'm never talking to you again. IGNORE. 

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, Sweety D said:

I can assure you that no one will be left out of the Celestial Kingdom because they had a chocolate bar (caffeine), or drank Coke.

No, you cannot. You have no authority to assure us of any such thing.

On the contrary, a person who came to know by the Spirit that such things were deleterious and should be avoided, yet who rebelled against that revelatory knowledge to satisfy his own desires, would indeed be risking his eternal salvation by eating a chocolate bar or drinking Coke. I'm amazed that you would not (1) realize and (2) acknowledge this most obvious fact.

[Sweety D]

23 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I really don't understand this.  What does his being a bishop have to do with this thread?  We're not telling him what to do or not do with the administration of his ward.  We're debating two things:

1. These specific items of Church standards.
2. The "Church culture" of judging harshly. (whether that exists and to what degree).

The fact that he is a bishop only comes into play when sharing his experience with people in his ward.  It doesn't change the discussion or the principles of this debate at all.

I'm certain there are several others who are currently or have been in the past.  They could equally share experiences to add to the discussion.  And it wouldn't make one difference whether they were bishops or not, other than the sharing of those specific experiences and their effect on the discussion.

You are right. I only mentioned this because someone said I was wrong about so many people being offended and being judged. I was explaining that I talk to these people all the time. That it's a real problem. One's position in the church does not change the validity, other than Prophet Seer and Revelator. 

[omegaseamaster75]

Just now, Vort said:

No, you cannot. You have no authority to assure us of any such thing.

On the contrary, a person who came to know by the Spirit that such things were deleterious and should be avoided, yet who rebelled against that revelatory knowledge to satisfy his own desires, would indeed be risking his eternal salvation by eating a chocolate bar or drinking Coke. I'm amazed that you would not (1) realize and (2) acknowledge this most obvious fact.

IF and that's a capitalized IF the spirit would manifest to an individual that such a small and petty thing would exclude him from celestial glory that yes they should avoid those things. I think that my new favorite Bishop is speak in generalities here.

[Vort]

Just now, omegaseamaster75 said:

IF and that's a capitalized IF the spirit would manifest to an individual that such a small and petty thing would exclude him from celestial glory that yes they should avoid those things. I think that my new favorite Bishop is speak in generalities here.

Your new favorite bishop gave an assurance that he has neither the authority nor the knowledge to give.

[Sweety D]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

No, you cannot. You have no authority to assure us of any such thing.

On the contrary, a person who came to know by the Spirit that such things were deleterious and should be avoided, yet who rebelled against that revelatory knowledge to satisfy his own desires, would indeed be risking his eternal salvation by eating a chocolate bar or drinking Coke. I'm amazed that you would not (1) realize and (2) acknowledge this most obvious fact.

I've yet to respond to you because it's seems you are looking for an argument, maybe I'm wrong. Just feels this way. I thought it was clear that this was a tongue n' cheek comment. Though, I do think it's true "that no one will be left out of the Celestial Kingdom because they had a chocolate bar (caffeine), or drank Coke." .. you are correct, I cannot assure you of this. 

Let's all take a deep breath and smile. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Sweety D said:

]Let's all take a deep breath and smile. 

Wise words bud. Well said. 

Oh, and @Snigmorder?

[Fether]

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Wise words bud. Well said. 

Oh, and @Snigmorder?

No body cares about baseball 

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Fether

[Vort]

Just now, Sweety D said:

I thought it was clear that this was a tongue n' cheek comment.

Wasn't at all clear, at least not to me. When you identify yourself as a bishop, as if that fact lends weight to your opinions, then proceed to "assure" us that Actions X and Y cannot possibly put us at risk of our exaltation...well, I think you should be able to see how that's problematic.

I am not looking for an argument. I am looking for reasoned discussion. Declaring "truth" by fiat and implying that one's leadership calling makes him somehow fit to make such claims doesn't qualify as reasoned discussion. In my opinion, such things are vastly more dangerous than Latter-day Saints making the judgment that caffeinated soda pop and/or R-rated movies should be avoided.