Grunt

BYU Hawaii - vaccine required

Recommended Posts

Olivia Sandor was accepted to BYU-H but then denied a medical exemption for the COVID vaccine.  While there may be more to the story, how much say does the First Presidency have in these issues?

 

 

 

https://www.tpusa.com/live/shocking-byu-hawaii-is-anti-science-and-anti-student

 

 

Share this post


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

how much say does the First Presidency have in these issues?

Desert News shared the following:

Quote

Church leaders allowed each school administration to make its own decision based on local circumstances and conditions.

Probably the same vibe that area authorities get, 'decide what is best for your area' is my guess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Olivia Sandor was accepted to BYU-H but then denied a medical exemption for the COVID vaccine.  While there may be more to the story, how much say does the First Presidency have in these issues?

 

 

 

https://www.tpusa.com/live/shocking-byu-hawaii-is-anti-science-and-anti-student

 

 

The First Presidency serve as the chairman and two vice-chairs of the board of directors at BYUH.  They could overrule this, if they were aware of the situation and thought it was important enough.  

As it is, I think Admin has a strong point that with the PCC being an international tourist destination staffed by BYUH students, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.  The last thing the Church needs is a pandemic surge/outbreak that is clearly traceable back to a Church institution.

Transferring from BYUH to another CES school is not that onerous; and with regard to Sandor specifically, it appears that BYUH has science on their side—the various vaccines are functionally and qualitatively different and she does have statistically safe alternatives; she’s just snippy because Admin didn’t unquestioningly kowtow to her osteopath (who by definition does not primarily focus on the latest scientific research, particularly where synthetic medications and vaccines are concerned) and his merry band of non-doctors whom she managed to browbeat into giving her a semi-informed excuse note.  

Frankly, the drama queenery is strong with Sandor and the other would-be students cited.  I resent that they ran squealing to an advocacy group to try to humiliate a Church entity into changing its policy; and my gut is that if they weren’t being pains in the Church’s posterior over this issue—they’d find something else to gripe about.  In the event, I’m glad my tithing isn’t going to go towards the “education” of these miserable, self-entitled little maggots.  As the saying goes—“Bye, Felicia . . .”

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


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

Olivia Sandor was accepted to BYU-H but then denied a medical exemption for the COVID vaccine.  While there may be more to the story, how much say does the First Presidency have in these issues?

https://www.tpusa.com/live/shocking-byu-hawaii-is-anti-science-and-anti-student

Hysterical pearl clutching level: Over 9000!

If BYU-H wants to require vaccinations, they can. I may or may not agree with the req, but as they say, you can always go elsewhere. And for the record, a medical exemption is typically based on a whole lot more than "I don't wanna." The article is an embarrassment to those who are serious about fighting encroaching government intrusion. I look at my enemies and try not to feel disgust. All too often, I look at (those who should be) my friends and try not to feel hopeless. This article is an example of the latter.

Share this post


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

Olivia Sandor was accepted to BYU-H but then denied a medical exemption for the COVID vaccine.  While there may be more to the story, how much say does the First Presidency have in these issues?

 

 

 

https://www.tpusa.com/live/shocking-byu-hawaii-is-anti-science-and-anti-student

 

 

Zooming out to what is known: 

-Hawaii is in a very tough position when in comes to covid. They rely economically on tourism from all around the world.  So lots of opportunity for things to come in. Most of the population is also very concentrated in certain areas- the population density of Waikiki is 7x that of Tokyo. So they want people to come in, but also want to not have things go rampant.  Hence a lot of thier actions as a state  

-BYUH is a prime example of this: their students come from all around the world, in addition to general Hawaii tourism, the Polynesian Center is a huge part of BYUH’s history, culture, and students finances - if it has to shut down many students won’t be able to work and pay for school/living.  

-It’s a HORRIBLE situation to be in as a decision maker.  You want to respect individual choices, but there’s also the group to look out for.  I do get the impression it was a school-admin decision to mandate the vaccine. And they appear to be working hard to make things work for cases where a student declines. I’m not sure how the current general rules are in Hawaii. 

 

-Zooming specifically about this one student: I would like to know a fuller picture of what’s going on (if we’re going to stick out noses in her specific affairs).  The linked news article appears extemely biased in its accounting of things. Like I’m wondering: if you have an autoimmune condition severe enough that getting a vaccine has large chance of death: would you not likewise have problems with other vaccine?  What would happen if you actually did contract the full disease - is that not even more life threatening?  Would it be safest for you to do an online school rather than a densely populated international tourist attraction?  There’s so many unanswered questions here, I can’t even begin to make a call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I understand, Hawaii is being incredibly strict about COVID vaccinations, to the point that even individuals such as the person in the story are being denied exemptions that doctors in Utah or Idaho likely would have granted. I know that here in Texas she'd have pretty good odds of getting that exemption. 

The decision to deny the exemption was likely based on state requirement rather than anything to do with the college or the church. However, this hasn't stopped people on social media from going after the church like they usually do when it makes the news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I hear about Church leaders doing something wrong... one of the first things I try to apply is the Golden Rule.  I have been in leadership positions, and I have messed up plenty, but I was always trying what I thought was best what I thought the Lord would have me do.

I see no reasons why the Administrators of BYU Hawaii would be acting any differently.

When I read articles critical of various church leaders, I have to ask myself how unbiased is the article? After all I am living proof that leaders can make mistakes.  The one that is linked seems to be less about examining facts then it is about generating outrage.  Where in the article do they talk about reaching out to the other side of the story and give the leaders a chance to respond?  I see no attempt to do so.

So this article reminds me of the trend in news that someone else described as "We are going to tell you how you should feel about something... but you have to figure out if it is true."  And frankly I have no desire to let anyone pull my strings in such a manner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

When I hear about Church leaders doing something wrong... one of the first things I try to apply is the Golden Rule.  I have been in leadership positions, and I have messed up plenty, but I was always trying what I thought was best what I thought the Lord would have me do.

I see no reasons why the Administrators of BYU Hawaii would be acting any differently.

When I read articles critical of various church leaders, I have to ask myself how unbiased is the article? After all I am living proof that leaders can make mistakes.  The one that is linked seems to be less about examining facts then it is about generating outrage.  Where in the article do they talk about reaching out to the other side of the story and give the leaders a chance to respond?  I see no attempt to do so.

So this article reminds me of the trend in news that someone else described as "We are going to tell you how you should feel about something... but you have to figure out if it is true."  And frankly I have no desire to let anyone pull my strings in such a manner

This technique has been used by mass media for at least two generations (probably since forever) to manipulate the minds of the general public. I have harbored a secret fantasy that Our Side would not engage in such dishonest, anti-American actions. Sometimes the ugly truth becomes apparent. Though to be fair, I'm not sure that Charlie Kirk has ever qualified as "my side". I doubt he would so classify himself; he is no friend of the Latter-day Saint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Vort said:

This technique has been used by mass media for at least two generations (probably since forever) to manipulate the minds of the general public. I have harbored a secret fantasy that Our Side would not engage in such dishonest, anti-American actions. Sometimes the ugly truth becomes apparent. Though to be fair, I'm not sure that Charlie Kirk has ever qualified as "my side". I doubt he would so classify himself; he is no friend of the Latter-day Saint.

Maybe I’m projecting;  but I’ve had a hard time watching Charlie Kirk.  There’s a flatness—maybe even a darkness—about the guy.

Share this post


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

This technique has been used by mass media for at least two generations (probably since forever) to manipulate the minds of the general public. I have harbored a secret fantasy that Our Side would not engage in such dishonest, anti-American actions. Sometimes the ugly truth becomes apparent. Though to be fair, I'm not sure that Charlie Kirk has ever qualified as "my side". I doubt he would so classify himself; he is no friend of the Latter-day Saint.

 

37 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Maybe I’m projecting;  but I’ve had a hard time watching Charlie Kirk.  There’s a flatness—maybe even a darkness—about the guy.

So do you guys remember when Mike Lee compared Trump to Captain Moroni?

I remember when I watched this I just busted out laughing. Not because I thought it was ridiculous...but because I knew that so many people would find it ridiculous and just HATE it because they were thinking small-mindedly on the matter and have strong biases. Which was true. In other words, I laughed because it was inadvertent trolling. I don't think Mike meant to troll (he certainly does sometimes, but I don't think so this time). I think he was sincere. But boy howdy is such a statement geared to raise hackles.

Anyhow, I bring it up in regards to "sides" and who's "side" we're on.

Charlie Kirk isn't a Latter-day Saint. Ben Shapiro isn't a Latter-day Saint. Tim Pool isn't a Latter-day Saint. Jordan Petersen isn't a Latter-day Saint. Trump isn't a Latter-day Saint. Etc. And so, obviously, if that's the criteria for "sides" then none of them are "on our side". But is that the criteria? We're talking the political (and by that I mean our government, institutions, and the like) arena here, right? What "side" is "our" side in that regard? I don't believe in party-line thinking. I know you two don't either. But in general principle, what's the standard by which someone counts as "on our side"?

I knew what Senator Lee meant. I think Latter-day Saints who were thinking myopically were bound to take his comparison of Trump to Captain Moroni as a comparison of righteousness. That's obvious nonsense. And Mike Lee didn't mean that. He's not an idiot. He knows very well Trump is not righteous like Captain Moroni. What was he comparing then? Obviously, the fight for "the cause". Which cause? Well, the principles set forth in the Title of Liberty: "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children." This is what Senator Lee meant. There is (was) a man at the head of our nation fighting for "the cause" of freedom. Was it a perfect comparison? No. Few are. But the point was obvious. Do you want to sell out your rights to religion, freedom and family to someone who hates them and is actively working to destroy such, or do you want to vote for the man who's fighting tooth and nail to protect such?

So I cannot help but wonder where we quibble over "sides" based on specific foibles, personality traits, or individual points with which we disagree. Because when I consider Charlie Kirk, I think there's no doubt what cause he fights for. And there is no doubt that cause is aligned with mine and my "side". Yeah, I think he's wrong here. Private schools have the right to require vaccinations and if students don't like it, go somewhere else. It's really simple. But as an overall "side" goes...Charlie Kirk is one of the frontline warriors fighting the good fight. Of that there is little doubt in my view.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We're talking the political (and by that I mean our government, institutions, and the like) arena here, right?

Maybe you have the threads mixed up.  This thread is about a church-owned educational institution requiring a vaccine for admittance. And Kirk's article shows a strong antagonism against BYU-H.  In this context, I'd say he's not on 'my' side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dprh said:

Maybe you have the threads mixed up.  This thread is about a church-owned educational institution requiring a vaccine for admittance. And Kirk's article shows a strong antagonism against BYU-H.  In this context, I'd say he's not on 'my' side.

Maybe you misunderstand my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Yeah, I think he's wrong here. Private schools have the right to require vaccinations and if students don't like it, go somewhere else. It's really simple. 

Sorry, I must have skipped this line :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dprh said:

Sorry, I must have skipped this line :) 

When we look at this without our "sustain our (LDS) institutions" bias, it's not hard to see the argument. Imagine, if you will, that something like...say.... Amazon wouldn't sell you anything unless you proved you had a vaccination first. Replace Amazon with any private, public, or government company or institution and consider.... How do you feel about that? I, personally, dislike it very much. I don't like the idea of being forced to get a vaccine in order to interact with this or that. But.... I recognize Amazon's "right" to do such a thing. But I'd definitely complain about it.

In my humble opinion, BYU-H has little reason to "require" the vaccine. But as has been pointed out, it might be a state thing. In which case the state should be criticized instead of BYU-H. But it is, indeed, anti-science in my view. Yes, Charlie Kirk's rhetoric is a bit over the top here. But that's kind of his job and his schtick. I'm not sure it's worth getting too riled up over. I agree with the general sentiment that forcing vaccines on people isn't good. He's overstating the issues -- because we're in a war -- but I generally think, yeah. Knock it off with treating a "flu" like it's the freaking measles of smallpox or something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

So do you guys remember when Mike Lee compared Trump to Captain Moroni?

I remember when I watched this I just busted out laughing. Not because I thought it was ridiculous...but because I knew that so many people would find it ridiculous and just HATE it because they were thinking small-mindedly on the matter and have strong biases. Which was true. In other words, I laughed because it was inadvertent trolling. I don't think Mike meant to troll (he certainly does sometimes, but I don't think so this time). I think he was sincere. But boy howdy is such a statement geared to raise hackles.

Anyhow, I bring it up in regards to "sides" and who's "side" we're on.

Charlie Kirk isn't a Latter-day Saint. Ben Shapiro isn't a Latter-day Saint. Tim Pool isn't a Latter-day Saint. Jordan Petersen isn't a Latter-day Saint. Trump isn't a Latter-day Saint. Etc. And so, obviously, if that's the criteria for "sides" then none of them are "on our side". But is that the criteria? We're talking the political (and by that I mean our government, institutions, and the like) arena here, right? What "side" is "our" side in that regard? I don't believe in party-line thinking. I know you two don't either. But in general principle, what's the standard by which someone counts as "on our side"?

I knew what Senator Lee meant. I think Latter-day Saints who were thinking myopically were bound to take his comparison of Trump to Captain Moroni as a comparison of righteousness. That's obvious nonsense. And Mike Lee didn't mean that. He's not an idiot. He knows very well Trump is not righteous like Captain Moroni. What was he comparing then? Obviously, the fight for "the cause". Which cause? Well, the principles set forth in the Title of Liberty: "In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children." This is what Senator Lee meant. There is (was) a man at the head of our nation fighting for "the cause" of freedom. Was it a perfect comparison? No. Few are. But the point was obvious. Do you want to sell out your rights to religion, freedom and family to someone who hates them and is actively working to destroy such, or do you want to vote for the man who's fighting tooth and nail to protect such?

So I cannot help but wonder where we quibble over "sides" based on specific foibles, personality traits, or individual points with which we disagree. Because when I consider Charlie Kirk, I think there's no doubt what cause he fights for. And there is no doubt that cause is aligned with mine and my "side". Yeah, I think he's wrong here. Private schools have the right to require vaccinations and if students don't like it, go somewhere else. It's really simple. But as an overall "side" goes...Charlie Kirk is one of the frontline warriors fighting the good fight. Of that there is little doubt in my view.

I largely agree with this; but I keep having to remind myself how ephemeral 21st century politics really is in the grand scheme of things.

My “side” is the Kingdom of God—period.

If Kirk is willing to use his position to lie about/stir up sentiment against The Kingdom (ie, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), then he is fundamentally an enemy—or at best, an enemy-in-waiting.  He does not become Captain Moroni, or anything like, just because in the short term he is successful at getting my tax rate lowered from 31% to 29.5% or makes YouTube videos showing stupid college kids to be (surprise!) stupid college kids.

Having hung out in some conservative discussion fora, I think many Church members underestimate the degree of suspicion and contempt a lot of conservatives (especially Trumpian conservatives) have for the Church as an institution, its members as individuals, and its principles (particularly the ideals of self-discipline, sexual restraint, education, and—for lack of a better word—“thoughtfulness” or intellectual humility.)  Many of them talk about us very much the way many early-1930s-Germans talked about Jews.  They are not our friends.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


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

I largely agree with this; but I keep having to remind myself how ephemeral 21st century politics really is in the grand scheme of things.

My “side” is the Kingdom of God—period.

If Kirk is willing to use his position to lie about/stir up sentiment against The Kingdom (ie, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), then he is fundamentally an enemy—or at best, an enemy-in-waiting.  He does not become Captain Moroni, or anything like, just because in the short term he is successful at getting my tax rate lowered from 31% to 29.5% or makes YouTube videos showing stupid college kids to be (surprise!) stupid college kids.

Having hung out in some conservative discussion fora, I think many Church members underestimate the degree of suspicion and contempt a lot of conservatives (especially Trumpian conservatives) have for the Church as an institution, its members as individuals, and its principles (particularly the ideals of self-discipline, sexual restraint, education, and—for lack of a better word—“thoughtfulness” or intellectual humility.)  Many of them talk about us very much the way many early-1930s-Germans talked about Jews.  They are not our friends.  

So I guess the question, really, comes down to this for me? Would Charlie Kirk fight and die to defend my right to worship according to the dictates of my own conscience, despite what he might make of my religion?

I don't know the answer to that. But I would suspect that when push comes to shove, and the literal guns and knives war broke out, which side he'd be fighting for.

Obviously (and this is why I raised the question) where and when we call someone on "our side" is entirely subjective. Here in this forum, for example, with a few exceptions, we are all on the same side. And yet the forum is full of arguments where we all take different sides. So are we on the same side or not? Well...it's depends on what we mean. There is no political commentator with whom I will side on every issue that I know of. But it seems pretty straight-forward who is generally on what side and who is not. And, obviously, there can be exceptions per policy. I could agree on 99 of a hundred points someone makes but vehemently disagree with that 1 remaining point. Does that make us on opposite side, broadly speaking? It does on the issue. But what about in the overall war? And how do we compromise these things? Few are going to agree on 100% of the issues.

The question is how broadly do we draw the line as to sides.

In the Civil War, did certain Union factions have in-fighting? Certainly. Were some of them good, and some evil? Certainly. Did some rape and pillage? Definitely. But were they on the same side? Once again...that's subjective and depends on how broadly we define the idea.

We talk often about building bridges with certain factions, groups that are very definitely NOT on our side, but then we view those who are very much fighting for the things we believe in (thereby being "on our side" broadly speaking), and we castigate them as not on our side because the don't have our ideal church morality on every matter.

It's interesting to consider, is it not? Obviously if said actors are anxiously engaged in raping and pillaging then they are to be fought against and not treated as "on our side" despite their rhetoric. But when they are merely criticizing something (even something we might hold dear), should we be drawing the "side" line so harshly? It's worth consideration.

I'm not arguing the point, by the way. Just raising ideas that I think are worth consideration. It stems from the fact that, heretofore, I'd never considered considering Charlie Kirk as some sort of enemy or despot. So the consideration was raised by this thread and his article that, for the first time, hits close to home on an issue where I don't fully agree. (I'm not saying I haven't ever seen any weaknesses in Charlie Kirk's rhetoric or ideas before. But it's always been plain to me that he's bravely fighting on the right side.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Charlie Kirk isn't a Latter-day Saint. Ben Shapiro isn't a Latter-day Saint. Tim Pool isn't a Latter-day Saint. Jordan Petersen isn't a Latter-day Saint. Trump isn't a Latter-day Saint. Etc.Of that there is little doubt in my view.

Watching non-members do the heavy lifting in the fight for freedom makes me think of the following excuses that members might give for not doing more of the heavy lifting themselves.
From Pres. Benson:

Quote

13.63. The devil knows that if the elders of Israel should ever wake up, they could step forth and help preserve freedom and extend the gospel. Therefore the devil has concentrated, and to a large extent successfully, in neutralizing much of the priesthood. He has reduced them to sleeping giants. His arguments are clever.

Here are a few samples:

First: “We really haven’t received much instruction about freedom,” the devil says. . . .

Second: “You’re too involved in other church work,” says the devil. . . .

Third: “You want to be loved by everyone,” says the devil, “and this freedom battle is so controversial you might be accused of engaging in politics.” . . .

Fourth: “Wait until it becomes popular to do,” says the devil, “or, at least until everybody in the Church agrees on what should be done.” . . .

Fifth: “It might hurt your business or your family,” says the devil, “and besides why not let the gentiles save the country? They aren’t as busy as you are.” . . .

Sixth: “Don’t worry,” says the devil, “the Lord will protect you, and besides the world is so corrupt and heading toward destruction at such a pace that you can’t stop it, so why try.” . . .


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So I guess the question, really, comes down to this for me? Would Charlie Kirk fight and die to defend my right to worship according to the dictates of my own conscience, despite what he might make of my religion?

I appreciate and largely agree with your analysis. But I see a great deal of corruption in the political "my side", which pains me. As for Charlie Kirk, anyone who viciously misrepresents an institution associated with me or with the Restored Church merits my immediate skepticism. And anyone who engages in exactly the same kind of dishonest hyperbole as we generally see coming from CNN, MSNBC, and other "normal" leftist sites arouses both my suspicion and my gag reflex.

I do not know for sure what to do or even to think. "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" Even the very kingdom of God seems to my half-deaf ears to be giving an uncertain sound. When hatred for Trump and for the cult of personality surrounding him causes even leaders to turn their support toward the likes of Joe Freaking Biden, I honestly do not know what to make of it. Am I truly to believe that our nation (or the kingdom of God) is better off under the likes of Biden and Harris than we were under Trump and Pence? Whatever your argument against Trump's abrasive personality or lengthy list of personal defects, how can any reasonable religious conservative argue against most of the results of his presidency? As for Biden and Harris, their actions speak for them. Yet the barely disguised contempt for Trump and the personal support for Biden among at least some in the highest quorums of the Church echo in the silence of the Church's political "neutrality".

Like JAG (and you, and Needle, and many others here), "my side" is the kingdom of God. At least, that's what I believe and try to act accordingly. The Republican Party's planks are nothing even approaching the voice of God to us, but they are a far sight better than the Democrat bilge water that flows nonstop from that side of the aisle. But in the end, I'm not married to the Republican Party. I'm not a Republican, politically speaking, even though I usually vote Republican. My loyalty is not to the Republican Party, or any other party. My loyalty is to the kingdom of God. Politically, my loyalty is to the United States of America and the Constitution that is supposed to define her. Will Charlie Kirk stand strong in defense of the principles of freedom as outlined in our founding documents? If so, then he is politically on my side. If not, he is not.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:


From Pres. Benson:

 

Indeed.  But what (addressing his fifth point) what happens when the Gentiles ARE the problem?  What happens when a defensive alliance merely bolsters the position of people who themselves are planning to devour you in the decades after the current crisis is passed and their own power is assured?

As much as I love Elder Benson; I’m not sure his allegiance to the federal government of his day is any more applicable to us at this point in time, than is President Young’s open willingness to let the federal government of his day go hang.

I’ll continue to vote rightward and respond to Church calls to action.  But I think I’m pretty much over the idea that Elder Benson’s statements constitute a theological obligation for me, as a Latter-day Saint, to consider myself in perpetual hock to the guns-beer-and-bikini-babes faction that now seems to be dominating the 2021 iteration of the Republican Party.

We, the Latter-day Saints, have resources that the world knows not; power that the world knows not.  I would like to focus on qualifying myself to use that power; rather than giving my allegiance to a political has-been who has a track record of treating his supporters (from Manafort and Cohen and Pence and McConnell on down) little better than his whores.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Vort said:

But I see a great deal of corruption in the political "my side", which pains me.

Yeah, I hate it! And I hate the do-nothing attitude of the republicans.

It really does bring up some seriously difficult questions regarding compromise. A prime example is the compromise the nation's founders made with slavery. I think most on the conservative side of the aisle agree that said compromise was good, overall, in that it allowed for the establishment of an institution that could, over time, address the principles under which it was formed, specifically -- all men are created equal and have unalienable rights. And yet it is a burr in the nation's side that they allowed slavery to continue alongside said principles, essentially spitting in those principles' collective faces.

What a rough decision to have had to make for those who were adamantly against slavery at that time, but who fervently believed in the need to establish a nation built upon those principles, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the in-practice desecration of them.

Even an example so extreme as that is a very difficult moral question.

(Edit: Actually the extremity of the example is partly WHY it is so difficult. Part of my suggestion is that maybe it shouldn't be so difficult when the examples are less extreme.)

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


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

to consider myself in perpetual hock to the guns-beer-and-bikini-babes faction that now seems to be dominating the 2021 iteration of the Republican Party.

We, the Latter-day Saints, have resources that the world knows not; power that the world knows not.  I would like to focus on qualifying myself to use that power; rather than giving my allegiance to a political has-been who has a track record of treating his supporters (from Manafort and Cohen and Pence and McConnell on down) little better than his whores.

I only read Benson as: " help preserve freedom and extend the gospel ".

On a personal note...Republican, beer, bikinis, Trump aren't part of what I envision when it comes to helping preserve freedom and extending the gospel.
I see a need to fight for freedom because through it the gospel can be spread and lived to its fullest. I personally have no allegiance to a political 'person' or a 'party'. In both cases I have to take the lesser of two evils.

To their credit, the media has been doing a bang up job repeatedly drilling into our brains that conservatives = bass-ackwards Jerry Springer inbreed hill billies not even worthy of NOS Grey Poupon.
As much as I tried to fit their mold, all my cousins and sisters were already married once I got off my mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe related. Interesting either way. (Hmm. A bad word from the comments ends up on the screen at one point. Be warned.)

 

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Church and Political Activism.

  • Politics is downstream of culture.
  • The Church's culture is made up of families.
  • We do the most good in society when we spend our time and energy on raising our children to know the word of God, and have faith in and a testimony of 
    • The Atonement of Christ.
    • The Book of Mormon as the word of God.
    • The spiritual hospital that is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The Sunday School presidency recently went around to families in our ward and asked the following questions:

  • Is your family actually reading the Come Follow Me manual and doing the extra little things that it instructs us to do?
  • Is your family reading and studying the D&C and answering the questions that the manual asks?
  • Is your family reading the Book of Mormon daily?

The results were astoundingly awful.  Very few even opened CFM.  Very few read the assignment.  Almost no one was reading the BoM daily (or even close to daily).  A reasonable number were reading the scriptures "sometimes" outside of Church. 

Do we really hope to change the world through political activism if we continue to "treated lightly the things which we have received"?

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