Jump to content

rongo

Contributor
  • Content count

    4,581
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,272 Excellent

3 Followers

About rongo

  • Rank
    Brings Forth Plants
  • Birthday 07/19/1975

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Baseball, basketball, football (especially college); LDS Church history; the Gospel; reading

Recent Profile Visitors

3,141 profile views
  1. Do you and your wife talk with your son (really talk, not just surface level) about things in general? It doesn't sound like it from your description. While not "pushing" it on him (and I agree with everyone who has said it has to be his choice --- and an actual choice on his part), it would be best (or even good or better) if you were able to have a talk with him where he frankly shares his feelings (or feels able to share). Where such a climate doesn't exist (regardless of why and who's fault it is), it is frustrating for both sides and there is a lot of feeling of being judged and criticized simply by virtue of the situation. We had a convert in our ward who complained loudly and often about people pressuring him about his mission, when in fact, no one ever brought it up. He heaped the pressure on himself and projected that onto everyone else (we were all on eggshells about it because of how he was). I think this is common when boys don't go, and often, when people complain of the pressure they feel from others about their mission, what they really are saying is that they feel guilty or bad about not going. Absolutely not. I have hammered for years on this point --- that warnings and blessings in patriarchal blessings are conditional, and can be voluntarily forfeited or avoided by our choices. We are all free to fully embrace or reject them, and people do.
  2. I think their case is such a mess now, it's kind of a desperation move --- like when hockey or soccer teams pull defenders up to try to score a goal. At this point, they can't really damage their case much more (well, maybe they can), but it's "high risk, high reward" like in the hockey or soccer scenario. I would never have guessed that --- you're such an urbane, classy, and stand-up guy now! Seriously. A lot of it has to do with "venue," and leader roulette. Some areas you probably would have been, others not. I had a member of a previous ward who left his wife and three kids for his 19 year-old cousin, and his stake president (when the wife tried to pursue church discipline) didn't believe in formal discipline of any kind --- no matter what. So, he wasn't even disfellowshipped. It all depends. Your mockery stage was when you were working for the COB? Wow! You dodged a bullet, there! Depending on your perspective. As I said, my limited interactions with you reveal you to be nothing if not classy. We all go through stages in our development, and many of us have been more mocking than we are now. Not all of us podcast and gain followings, either, though. It can be, but it isn't always. It depends. And it is to some extent in the eye of the beholder.
  3. I think you're largely correct. It isn't a major concern, but then it is (due to family complications, and also the finality of walking off the cliff). He mocks the Church (that's all the RFM podcasts are, really, is picking various things to mock), but I think a part of him would be sad and wistful to finally make a stark break like a resignation or an apostasy excommunication. There are a lot of people in that boat --- they're "out" of the Church, for all intents and purposes, but in no hurry to finalize it formally. Podcasters are kind of fast-tracking themselves at breakneck speed. I don't think Bill Reel (consig's partner in crime) is far behind. As obviously smart as consiglieri is, I think he stepped on some rakes with this Denson interview --- and I think he knows it. Instead of the back-slapping and accolades he knew he would get in advance from predictable quarters, he also has tangibly contributed to further hurting Denson's case. And, he has exposed his own motives more starkly than he would like to have, I think.
  4. Consiglieri (whoever he is) has shared stories about his friend in the SP who was tasked with feeling him out on assignment from the SP re: apostasy and apostate activities (I think most reasonable people would agree RFM has crossed that line over the last several months or so. Maybe the last year). Consig's narrative style --- dating back to his stories about his shocking escapades as a maverick gospel doctrine teacher, up to his lunches with his SP counselor friend and his interview with both of them --- is such that I'm certain that the people he narrates about would disagree strongly both with his description of them and "how it went" (think: his friend wink/nudging him, "get a load of that guy!" style about the stake president's naivete and manner). As I read him, I think he is very nervous about the inevitable point where he is called to account for his RFM activities, and this is complicated by his daughter's return from her mission the last year, and his frank admission that she pushed back against his know-it-all apostasy (he had previously portrayed her as a butt-kicking maverick and iconoclast on her mission. I was surprised at the frankness of that. In short, what I was saying (apparently not very clearly) was that I sense some anxiety on his part that the bear that he keeps poking is going to eventually, finally turn on him. Even though he can't resist continuing to poke the bear.
  5. Including creeping anxiety that his stake president and SP counselor friend might start turning up the heat a little more. That's the trajectory. I'm just surprised how long it takes in other locations for the inevitable to happen.
  6. Even in light of her bragging (and laughing )about being a good liar, and in light of her previous false accusations and scams? I think this whole thing is increasingly a mirror that simply shows how we are disposed towards the Church, rather than our own sober impartiality on the "merits." And I include myself and other TBMs in this, too. It's not just the critics. We're pretty polarized.
  7. I understand that, but I think his actions and words are such that it is nigh impossible to wave away the mind-reading on grounds of "you've got him all wrong." While many who hate the Church delight in what little he is able to leak, I think most of them find him kind of embarrassing, too. But, you can't have the one side of the coin without the other, I guess. Yes, others' mileage varies . . .
  8. In all this back and forth, it is pretty hard to argue against McKnight's actual words and actions, though, isn't it? Without imparting labels such as callous, malicious, etc., at some point, it really doesn't matter if his motives are (to him) altruistic, does it? I think smac was simply pointing out the (pretty hard to argue against) ramifications of his words and actions, even if he insists that we've got it all wrong, and even if those who know him well insist that we're misreading him. I don't think his own words and actions leave much wiggle room there. That he "friendly fired" on McKenna Denson is aside from all of this (and I also don't think that he intended to hurt her or her case. It seems to me that he had no clue what the long and short-term effects of his blathering and meddling in this matter were going to have).
  9. rongo

    Question on Sealing Cancellations

    My wife's friend from high school's (who served as a missionary in the Virgin Islands with my grandparents. Small world!) father died of brain cancer. According to him, he was a wonderful father. The mother remarried a man (who was in my wife's bishopric when we were married. A nice guy), and told the kids that she never loved their father, and was seeking a cancellation of sealing from him. The kids were very upset about this, with lingering resentment to their mother to this day. The request was denied, but the sealing clearance was approved, so she is sealed to both.
  10. rongo

    Question on Sealing Cancellations

    Letters from people affected are always included in the application. This allows people to vent or tell things that need to be said, and in my experience, heartfelt, articulate, well-written letters from spouses, parents, and children are the key (along with the bishop and stake president letters) to the application being approved. One application resulted in a letter stating that more time was needed, but that the First Presidency was so moved by the family letters that what would normally be five more years would be granted in one year, if all continued on the same trajectory. The letters make a huge difference.
  11. rongo

    Question on Sealing Cancellations

    As bluebell noted, exceptions to policy can be granted by the Firs Presidency. I am personally aware of three such, where women were granted permission to be sealed to more than one living man. I'm a small sample size, though --- it is very uncommon. I also had a brother who wanted his sealings to two previous wives cancelled so he could be sealed to his third wife, a convert. The convert was extremely bothered that he was sealed to two other living women. Why the first one wasn't cancelled, as per policy, in order to be sealed to the second, is beyond me. But it really existed.
  12. It's been a real eye-opener to me driving into Phoenix for summer supplemental construction work. Billboards for dispensaries have proliferated. Here are two that come to mind: Dispensary name and logo, with a marijuana leaf and the caption: "Let the good times roll!" Dispensary name and logo, and: "No medical marijuana card? No problem! Our alternative medicine staff can get you one in minutes!" There's also one for the "weedapp," so you don't have to drive far for it.
  13. I'm not arguing from strictly biology. Merely pointing out that untampered with biology supports God's default setting. Yes, some biological tampering is permissible within heterosexual couples (fertility treatments, for example), but even then the couple is within their legal and lawful rights (from a gospel perspective). In the end, biology is a tangent to my argument in support of the doctrines and principles in the Proclamation.
  14. No, I think that would be an abomination. I think that is the sort of technological meddling that is in direct opposition to the doctrines and principles of the Proclamation. Gay marriage is similar. Just because the state now recognizes it does not make it "legal and lawful" within the Church. Similarly, if we are ever able to make ova from sperm or vice versa or use human cloning to enable gay parents to make children from both of their DNA, I think this is an absolute abomination. So, no, simply being enabled by modern tech to do it does not clear my hurdle. I believe, along with the Church, that gender and gender roles are divinely appointed and stem from individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. Man's attempts to override this are an abomination.
  15. Yeah, people often leave the rails when there are home study groups outside of the family and outside of priesthood oversight. Charismatic figures gain followings, and off you go . . . They do fill an obvious need in making things more interesting and exciting, which is part of their appeal.
×