LDS culture problem

[prisonchaplain]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Regarding the OP, didn't JS say:

“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

We have a similar phrase in the Assemblies of God, among us ministers. We often remind each other, "You know this is a 'cooperative fellowship,' right?" It can be humorous because the fellowship is great as long as the cooperation is there. Yes, we've all learned the correct principles. BUT, when those principles are not followed, self governance quickly turns into church governance, and rightly so. I've seen the psychological protocols that are followed by the Christian therapists we use, when a minister has a moral failure, for example. It's sound and correct, but give me 'cooperative fellowship,' or 'correct principles' any day.

[zil]

5 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Regarding the OP, didn't JS say:

“I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves.”

In my non-LDS opinion, applying this statement with what @Sweety Dis talking about, wouldn't it be fair to say that each member governs their own behaviour and allows other members to do the same.

Yeah, and the conflict was that the OP didn't / doesn't seem to be only about letting people govern themselves, but also seems to be suggesting that we shouldn't teach correct principles, indeed, that things which are clearly taught by GAs are (according to the OP) incorrect (or only for "youth", but adults grow out of those principles somehow).  The latter is what so many of us object to.  I don't recall any of the regulars here suggesting we ought to be engaging in unrighteous judgment or condemnation of others.

[zil]

3 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Here's the whole statement:

Explain your double negative to me, so it makes sense.

M.

To rephrase:

Quote

It's not that we expect children to refrain from sexual activity and adults to engage in it; it's that we expect all to refrain from sexual activity except within the bonds of marriage.

He's applying emphasis regarding the "multiply and replenish the earth" teaching - that we don't have different rules for children vs. adults - there's one rule - no sex outside of marriage (regardless of whether you're a child or adult).  Seemed perfectly clear to me - then and now.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, zil said:

To rephrase:

He's applying emphasis regarding the "multiply and replenish the earth" teaching - that we don't have different rules for children vs. adults - there's one rule - no sex outside of marriage (regardless of whether you're a child or adult).  Seemed perfectly clear to me - then and now.

It's no use, zil.  She's dead set on conscientiously misunderstanding things.  It's a fundamental trait that makes up Maureen.  No amount of explanation will clarify it.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

It's no use, zil.  She's dead set on conscientiously misunderstanding things.  It's a fundamental trait that makes up Maureen.  No amount of explanation will clarify it.

It does seem that way at times.  But, it was a simple enough rephrasing.  If that's not good enough, I'm content to let it stand.

[Maureen]

4 minutes ago, zil said:

Yeah, and the conflict was that the OP didn't / doesn't seem to be only about letting people govern themselves, but also seems to be suggesting that we shouldn't teach correct principles, indeed, that things which are clearly taught by GAs are (according to the OP) incorrect (or only for "youth", but adults grow out of those principles somehow).  The latter is what so many of us object to.  I don't recall any of the regulars here suggesting we ought to be engaging in unrighteous judgment or condemnation of others.

I disagree with your interpretation of what the OP was saying. IMO, he was saying that other members have no reason to chastise other members about adhering to/or not adhering to principles that do not affect a person's salvation. If "free agency" is still a true principle, then maybe that should be the subject of the next Sacrament meeting.

M. 

[zil]

Just now, Maureen said:

I disagree with your interpretation of what the OP was saying.

Then maybe you ought to read the rest of the thread where it's perfectly clear - as far as he's concerned, the GAs only ever taught that YM should not go to R-rated movies (demonstrably false).  Blah blah blah.  The thread already beat this poor horse to death.

[Maureen]

22 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

It's no use, zil.  She's dead set on conscientiously misunderstanding things.  It's a fundamental trait that makes up Maureen.  No amount of explanation will clarify it.

And this also seems typically with those who can't explain themselves, they make their comment about the person wanting the explanation and therefore avoid the subject altogether.

ETA: I noticed you edited your original post in response to my initial post. I still don't see it.

M.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Maureen

[estradling75]

2 minutes ago, Maureen said:

I disagree with your interpretation of what the OP was saying. IMO, he was saying that other members have no reason to chastise other members about adhering to/or not adhering to principles that do not affect a person's salvation. If "free agency" is still a true principle, then maybe that should be the subject of the next Sacrament meeting.

M. 

As typical a one sided argument.  Those that wish to disobey should have there "Free agency" respected and unchallenged.  But anyone who wished to talk about obeying the commandments and councils need to shut up, sit down, and have their "Free Agency" revoked. 

[person0]

There is no such thing as "Free Agency".  Our agency was bought with a price.  We would not have agency at all if it weren't for the atonement of Jesus Christ.  We have the ability to choose, this is our agency, but the consequence of our choices is not ours to decide.

[Maureen]

10 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

As typical a one sided argument.  Those that wish to disobey should have there "Free agency" respected and unchallenged.  But anyone who wished to talk about obeying the commandments and councils need to shut up, sit down, and have their "Free Agency" revoked. 

Are you saying that you don't believe in your principle of "free agency" anymore. Free agency usually means being free to choose and accepting the consequences of that choice. You don't agree with that? Person A chooses to drink Coke and lives with the effects of doing that (possibly weight gain and bad teeth) and Person B chooses not to drink Coke and lives with the effects of doing that (possibly better weight and teeth). Should Person B preach to Person A about their choice, or should he/she just leave them to their consequences. Person B can provide Person A with valuable information about drinking Coke but does he have the stewardship to threaten his salvation about such a petty thing.

M.

Edited July 26, 2017 by Maureen

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Are you saying that you don't believe in your principle of "free agency" anymore. Free agency usually means being free to choose and accepting the consequences of that choice. You don't agree with that? Person A chooses to drink Coke and lives with the effects of doing that (possibly weight gain and bad teeth) and Person B chooses not to drink Coke and lives with the effects of doing that (possibly better weight and teeth). Should Person B preach to Person A about their choice, or should he/she just leave them to their consequences. Person B can provide Person A with valuable information about drinking Coke but does he have the stewardship to threaten his salvation about such a petty thing.

M.

I am saying that your "Moral Agency" does not vanish is a puff of smoke just because I tell you what you are about to do is a sin and threatens your salvation.  My words do not magically compel you to obey me.  The best they do (assuming I judged righteously) is leave you without and excuse when you stand before God and have to explain to him why you saw fit to disobey him.

The fact that you (and others like you) seem to think that telling some one that they are doing is wrong, is some how worse then that person doing something wrong is utterly insane.

[eddified]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Let the record show...

My brothers-in-law all had a thing for Weinhard's rootbeer.  I'd never heard of it. But I knew that IBC was a pretty good brand.  So, I set up a taste test.  Seven men (two of whom never tasted Weinhard's before.  We tried Weinhard's, A&W, IBC, Mug, and some store brand.  Just to throw some mix into it, we also had creme soda.

Weinhard's came out the winner, but it may have been biased since Weinhard's has such a distinctive flavor and scent that you can't miss it.

The store brand was actually second place.  It really was a good brand.

A&W vs. IBC was a tie.  All of us agreed that they were identical.  None of us could tell them apart -- once they were both refrigerated.  The first trial was with an un-refrigerated A&W.  that was definitely worse.  NEVER DRINK UNREFRIGERATED ROOT BEER!  The second trial, they were good and refrigerated.

Mug came out last.  But everyone agreed it wasn't terrible.

The creme soda was outright rejected by everyone but me.  I happen to like creme soda.  But everyone else said it tasted like gym socks.  I don't know how they would know it tasted like gym socks.  But that's what they said.

Have you guys tried Cock'n Bull ginger beer? My bro-in-law swore by it so I tried it. It's very strong and I enjoyed it thoroughly. 

[Maureen]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I am saying that your "Moral Agency" does not vanish is a puff of smoke just because I tell you what you are about to do is a sin and threatens your salvation.  My words do not magically compel you to obey me.  The best they do (assuming I judged righteously) is leave you without and excuse when you stand before God and have to explain to him why you saw fit to disobey him.

The fact that you (and others like you) seem to think that telling some one that they are doing is wrong, is some how worse then that person doing something wrong is utterly insane.

Sure, if someone is committing adultery, I can see telling them that the path they're on will lead to misery and sadness; but it's not the same if you're condemning someone for wearing 2 pairs of earrings. One is morally wrong, while the other one is not.

M.

[eddified]

1 hour ago, zil said:

   +     Hmm

If there is one thing I've learned about this forum, it's that I must spell everything correctly. The alternative is to suffer through a merry-making post from @zil. 

[eddified]

This thread has become quite the meandering thread! We've touched on all kinds of fun topics. From Cow Potions to Pizza, Missionaries to Root Beer, and prisons to guns. We've got it all! This is the place to be!

[estradling75]

4 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Sure, if someone is committing adultery, I can see telling them that the path they're on will lead to misery and sadness; but it's not the same if you're condemning someone for wearing 2 pairs of earrings. One is morally wrong, while the other one is not.

M.

How does me telling you that wearing 2 pairs of earrings is wrong rob you of your moral agency?  Please explain this though process in detail.

[Maureen]

2 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

How does me telling you that wearing 2 pairs of earrings is wrong rob you of your moral agency?  Please explain this though process in detail.

I never said it did. I was mostly focusing on the last sentence of your post.

M.

[estradling75]

Just now, Maureen said:

I never said it did. I was mostly focusing on the last sentence of your post.

M.

That is your problem.  Cherry picking what you think you can make an issue out of and completely ignoring any context anything else.  You can't have a discussion doing that all you do is reinforce the idea that you are only here to cause problems.

 

[anatess2]

18 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Sure, if someone is committing adultery, I can see telling them that the path they're on will lead to misery and sadness; but it's not the same if you're condemning someone for wearing 2 pairs of earrings. One is morally wrong, while the other one is not.

M.

13 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

How does me telling you that wearing 2 pairs of earrings is wrong rob you of your moral agency?  Please explain this though process in detail.

I'd also like to add the question... how does telling/teaching/advising someone against 2 pairs of earrings, and adultery for that matter, a condemnation of someone?

Just a note in case Maureen skipped that discussion on this thread - we do agree that unrighteous judgment is wrong and should be avoided.  That was not the issue.  The issue was in teaching... and most especially, in the development of a culture that coincides with the GA's counsel.

Edited July 26, 2017 by anatess2

[Maureen]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

That is your problem.  Cherry picking what you think you can make an issue out of and completely ignoring any context anything else.  You can't have a discussion doing that all you do is reinforce the idea that you are only here to cause problems.

 

Perfect example of choice. I can choose to reply to whatever I wish, the same as you. I'm sure you cherry pick what you wish to reply to also. I'm sure all posters cherry pick what they wish to reply to; it's after all our choice.

M.

[anatess2]

16 minutes ago, eddified said:

Have you guys tried Cock'n Bull ginger beer? My bro-in-law swore by it so I tried it. It's very strong and I enjoyed it thoroughly. 

I love ginger beer!  But I've never had a Cock'n Bull one because I've never seen that one in stores.  I get Reeds all the time.

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Perfect example of choice. I can choose to reply to whatever I wish, the same as you. I'm sure you cherry pick what you wish to reply to also. I'm sure all posters cherry pick what they wish to reply to; it's after all our choice.

M.

I see what you're saying here but you're missing the point... maybe dilberately I don't know... the point was, you cherry pick things to take them out of context.  You know, like how Fake News is created.  I'm not saying you're doing this.  I'm simply trying to tell you your answer does not address estradling's point.

[estradling75]

Just now, Maureen said:

Perfect example of choice. I can choose to reply to whatever I wish, the same as you. I'm sure you cherry pick what you wish to reply to also. I'm sure all posters cherry pick what they wish to reply to; it's after all our choice.

M.

Indeed... your agency means your can indeed cherry pick.  Once you have made that choice you don't get to control or dictate how others respond.  For example you do not get to control me asking this question. 

Do you really want to discuss this, or are you just trying to stir things up?

 

[Guest MormonGator]

27 minutes ago, Maureen said:

Sure, if someone is committing adultery, I can see telling them that the path they're on will lead to misery and sadness; but it's not the same if you're condemning someone for wearing 2 pairs of earrings.

Wearing two pairs of earrings is on par with murder. Everyone knows that. 

Edited July 26, 2017 by MormonGator