LDS culture problem

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Sweety D said:

I agree with you on It would be more productive to say. You are correct. I worded things very strongly. I still stand by my statements, but they could have been softer. Just hard to see people jeopardize their eternal salvation on such trivial things like being judging on drinking Coke. Obviously people that take such serious offence to such a small thing have their own problems, but over time it wears them down and they leave.

I draw a line between Coke drinking and the other stuff.

I understand bikinis and R rated movies being frowned upon.  They can lead to chastity problems and pornography problems.  I think we would do well to avoid such things.

But Coke?  I see no religious problem with Coke whatsoever.  It is not wrong to drink caffeine and it does not clearly lead to other word of wisdom problems.

Perhaps the attitude is an early holdover from the 1900s when Coke actually contained cocaine?  Either way I suspect this one is truly cultural rather than religious.

If I heard a talk condemning bikinis or r rated movies, I would say "amen!"  But if I heard a talk condemning coke and was pressed about it, I might say "hey stop adding to the gospel!"

Edited July 25, 2017 by DoctorLemon

[pam]

4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Just to be clear...I didn't take "liberal" to be in reference to politics, but morality. Of course I can't speak to what others meant. But when and if I'm talking about liberal Mormons I'm not talking about those who voted for Clinton or the like. I'm talking about those who, you know...watch R-rated movies and wear bikinis.

There were several references to politics.  Let's move on.

[estradling75]

 

The older I get the more I realize that when I stand before the Judgement Bar of Christ and he is asking me why I did (or didn't do) certain things.. that any attempt to excuse myself by saying that other people were mean or judgemental or whatever... is simply not going to fly.

The whole point of this life is to test me an see if I will follow him always.  Other people being mean or judgemental is not an aberration of the test of mortally, but rather a integral part of it.

[The Folk Prophet]

16 minutes ago, eddified said:

So, @The Folk Prophet I'd like to see some examples of what righteous judgement might look like when the person doing the righteous judgement is not in a leadership position in the church. I'm totally on board with the reasoning that we should judge righteous judgement - it's right out of the Book of Mormon and of course I agree with it in principle. But what does it mean to do that, for a person like me not in a leadership position in the church? I ask because I think I fall perhaps too far on the side of "live and let live". I don't say anything when someone decides to disobey commandment X, Y or Z. I think I'm one of the least judgemental people around. And I see that as a potential problem. The BoM counsels that I should be judging righteous judgement and I'm worried that I'm not doing it. So how do I do it?

Judgment, itself, is a view, nothing more or less. It doesn't require one to speak or act at all. It's simply a choice of perception. If I go to a ward water-skiing party and one of the sisters is wearing a skimpy bikini and I determine it is inappropriate then I have judged. Saying something or acting somehow upon it is another thing entirely...but it is not the judgment itself. I would NEVER say something to some lady in my ward about her wardrobe and its modesty. Never. Are you kidding me? How inappropriate can you get? If I were a woman and friendly with her and moved by the Spirit or something I suppose I might. But even then...probably not. If I were her youth leader not only would I likely say something but I'd send her home from said activity, etc. But none of these things are "judgment". They are acting upon the judgment.

The simple fact of the matter is that not judging is an impossibility. We cannot not judge. If we determine we don't have a problem with something it is as much a judgment as determining we do have a problem with it. I believe this is why Joseph Smith corrected the bible verse in Matthew to read "Judge not unrighteously", instead of just "judge not".

Anyhow, to answer your question per my view: judging righteously is about consideration as to what is best according to God and the well-being of our fellow men and ourselves. This is only truly possible through the aid of the Holy Spirit.

Edited July 25, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But none of these things are "judgment". They are acting upon the judgment.

So, is that like having SSA and acting upon SSA?

[Sweety D]

12 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I draw a line between Coke drinking and the other stuff.

I understand bikinis and R rated movies being frowned upon.  They can lead to chastity problems and pornography problems.  I think we would do well to avoid such things.

But Coke?  I see no religious problem with Coke whatsoever.  It is not wrong to drink caffeine and it does not clearly lead to other word of wisdom problems.

Perhaps the attitude is an early holdover from the 1900s when Coke actually contained cocaine?  Either way I suspect this one is truly cultural rather than religious.

If I heard a talk condemning bikinis or r rated movies, I would say "amen!"  But if I heard a talk condemning coke and was pressed about it, I might say "hey stop adding to the gospel!"

I appreciate your thoughts and honestly on this. And I must admit the last line made me laugh. 

I guess my point was these are all trivial things. The examples I gave in the first post was just to show that people judge others on things that are trivial. Coke, may be the most trivial of them all. Especially because in Aug 2012 the church released an official statement about caffeine, saying it's' not in the WoW. These small things people argue over and pass judgment over are so small in the grand scheme of things. And to add to my point, I was trying to explain they are not evens sins. 

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, is that like having SSA and acting upon SSA?

Not sure if you're seriously asking or not...but I'll pretend you are....

 

No. For that to be the case you'd have to be able to accept this as true:

6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The simple fact of the matter is that not judging [having SSA] is an impossibility. We cannot not judge [have SSA]. 

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not sure if you're seriously asking or not...but I'll pretend you are....

That's a good question.  And I'm not sure if I can answer yes or no.

I simply noted the similarity in patterns of words and just couldn't resist saying it.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That's a good question.  And I'm not sure if I can answer yes or no.

I simply noted the similarity in patterns of words and just couldn't resist saying it.

I'd think a better relational idea is that of not being able to stand still in the gospel.

[Sweety D]

1 hour ago, Backroads said:

@Sweety D, in your position you should have some power, in line with some inspiration, to control what's being said over the pulpit.

Unfortunately Bishops don't have the ability to prevent people from speaking, until after they have spoken the words that are questionable. I can't very well ask each person "what will you say?" before they speak. Nor would I ever want that done to me. 

It's one of every Bishops worst nightmares, to have to tell someone to not say certain things during testimony meeting. The spirit is heavily relied on for this. I for one would never interrupt someone for saying anything about caffeine over the pulpit, even though I disagree with it being said. Nor would I discuss it with them after the meeting. There is potential for this to cause more harm than good. Especially because I realize it came from a good place, but that doesn't mean the comments didn't offend someone else. However, if this became a reoccurring theme for someone, to discuss caffeine (for example) over and over again, I would probably find a kind and light hearted way to hint towards not doing that. 

I'm sure we all saw the video of the young girl that was "coming out" as a lesbian in sacrament meeting. The Bishop intervened. This Bishop had no way to control what was being said before she said it. Tough situation for sure. On one hand the girl is pouring her heart out (even if you disagree with her position which I bet most people on the forum do), and on the other hand the Bishop is instructed to not let this sort of thing happen. But it can only be dealt with AFTER the words are spoken.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Snigmorder said:

What if I called it nakedness and pornography?

Also confusing.

Pornography is a display or an act intended to stimulate erotic feelings.  You can hardly qualify bikini-clad people at the beach intending to stimulate erotic feelings.  This is an instance where the erotic feelings is solely the responsibility of the observer and not the bikini wearer (unless of course you have a bikini-clad woman at the beach giving somebody a lap dance or something).  This is the same as a beach volleyball tournament or a track race.

The word is immodest.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Edited July 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Sweety D said:

I agree with you on It would be more productive to say. You are correct. I worded things very strongly. I still stand by my statements, but they could have been softer. Just hard to see people jeopardize their eternal salvation on such trivial things like being judging on drinking Coke. Obviously people that take such serious offence to such a small thing have their own problems, but over time it wears them down and they leave.

Maybe I'm just an obstinate person: but if someone is going to give me guff at me for my choice of drink (not violating the WoW), then I'm going to promptly ignore them and keep ignoring them.  I'm not going to let such a sinner stand between me and Christ.  

[Sweety D]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

Maybe I'm just an obstinate person: but if someone is going to give me guff at me for my choice of drink (not violating the WoW), then I'm going to promptly ignore them and keep ignoring them.  I'm not going to let such a sinner stand between me and Christ.  

And you are right to do this. Great attitude and I applaud you. Unfortunately some people are not so strong and can't easily ignore others.  

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Maybe I'm just an obstinate person: but if someone is going to give me guff at me for my choice of drink (not violating the WoW), then I'm going to promptly ignore them and keep ignoring them.  I'm not going to let such a sinner stand between me and Christ.  

The sad truth in life is that you need this skill. You  can't stop people from saying things to you, and you have to accept that they don't have the decency or manners to shut up-but you can at least ignore them. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Of course assuming that every time you feel offended it's because others are lacking decency and manners rather than that you might be a thin-skinned millennial snowflake is, perhaps, an entirely different problem -- one that I would contend is a much greater problem in the current cultural atmosphere than that of others judging others. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, Sweety D said:

And you are right to do this. Great attitude and I applaud you. Unfortunately some people are not so strong and can't easily ignore others.  

Some people need to be around screaming toddlers -- it quickly levels up your ignoring skills

[anatess2]

33 minutes ago, Sweety D said:

And you are right to do this. Great attitude and I applaud you. Unfortunately some people are not so strong and can't easily ignore others.  

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.

I agree, unrighteous judgment can discourage people whose faith have not taken root yet.

My only problem really with your OP is not the unrighteous judgment.  That is a pitfall we are to avoid as stated clearly in the gospel - many times over.  The problem I saw was in your reprimand on unrighteous judgment, you did not just rebuke unrighteous judgment.  Rather, you excused behavior contrary to the counsels of the prophets and thew out righteous judgment with it.  This is where it becomes problematic and this is where it becomes contrary to the development of faith.

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.  Nonetheless, watching R-rated movies STILL could lead you farther from Christ.  That doesn't change.  So, saying, "Refrain from unrighteous judgment" is completely alright.  Saying, "The counsel to avoid R-rated movies is wrong." is completely not alright.  Trying to change a culture from a culture who avoids R-rated movies to a culture who have no problem with R-rated movies is, therefore, not a good thing... especially for a Bishop who holds the keys as the Judge of Israel.

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

 

 

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by anatess2

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Sweety D said:

Unfortunately some people are not so strong and can't easily ignore others.  

But isn't that what "enduring to the end is all about"?  Being strong enough to handle the difficulties of life as well as enduring stupid people?

Edited July 25, 2017 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

But isn't that what "enduring to the end is all about"?  Being strong enough to handle the difficulties of life as well as stupid people?

I'm reticent to acquiesce so easily that someone who gives a talk in sacrament meeting and states that we shouldn't wear bikinis or watch R-rated movies qualifies as "stupid people" who must be endured.

[Guest]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm reticent to acquiesce so easily that someone who gives a talk in sacrament meeting and states that we shouldn't wear bikinis or watch R-rated movies qualifies as "stupid people" who must be endured.

When did I say that?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

When did I say that?

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.

[person0]

17 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

The problem I saw was in your reprimand on unrighteous judgment, you did not just rebuke unrighteous judgment.  Rather, you excused behavior contrary to the counsels of the prophets.  This is where it becomes problematic and this is where it becomes contrary to the development of faith.

I agree, and I like what you said here.  I honestly (no offense intended), based only on the OP, thought that Sweety D was a 20 something, millennial, female, with liberal tendencies.  When I saw the post about being a bishop I was like:

Edited July 25, 2017 by person0

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

I honestly (no offense intended), based only on the OP, thought that Sweety D was a 20 something, millennial, female, with liberal tendencies.  When I saw the post about being a bishop I was like:

To be fair... he presides over a ward in California.  So...

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

To be fair... he presides over a ward in California.  So...

Wait. What happened to this being a Utah problem?

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, person0 said:

I honestly (no offense intended), based only on the OP, thought that Sweety D was a 20 something, millennial, female, with liberal tendencies

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 and your husband is an idiot." Yeah, no offense. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by MormonGator