Jump to content

alter idem

Contributor
  • Content Count

    1,049
  • Joined

Community Reputation

739 Excellent

About alter idem

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    SLC UT

Recent Profile Visitors

2,204 profile views
  1. I agree. And I don't understand this 'point man' for the church claim some make-- simply because he's spoken out on this. Was Pres. Benson the designated 'point man' on patriotism and liberty? How about on the Book of Mormon? I don't think anyone would put that idea forward, because the logical explanation is that he didn't need to be assigned this-- instead he felt strongly on these subjects and his talks reflected it. I think it's the same for Pres. Oaks--this topic is a concern for him and so he speaks about it--he is a 'watchman on the tower' and must warn us as he feels inspired to.
  2. Only if you are looking at this from your own personal perspective--a person can insist that their own 'truths' are relative, but in reality---truth exists outside of each of us. But, if you look at this question of whether or not God exists, from outside yourself, it is either true or false. Either he exists or he does not exist. We shall all find out the truth one day.
  3. I know some adults feel that when they see young women dressed immodestly, someone needs to be told, either directly to the young woman or to the parents. In my experience, this has never had a positive outcome. I agree that leaders need to teach modesty but the best course of action is to teach it to a group, never, never single out one individual--only parents should do that and if they fall down on the job, then no one else is going to be able to do it without harm being done, IMO. That always ends badly, they get their feelings hurt, they are embarrassed or offended, it has never been a positive when I've seen a youth singled out. I've seen young women stop attending because someone embarrassed them about their clothing and it is such a stupid thing because that is the exact opposite of what we want. If you want to reach them and you have a responsibility to Youth, teach modesty standards without singling out girls alone, and don't get into specifics of how long a skirt should be etc., but teach respect for oneself, and an emphasis on our value as heavenly beings given a wonderful gift of their body and for the kind of person Heavenly Father wants them to be. Point out that Heavenly Father wants us to be respectful of ourselves and how we dress can also encourage a respect from others to remember that we are Children of a Heavenly Father. Then let them govern themselves; and if they continue to dress in a manner you don't approve of, then pray for them that the spirit might teach them. That is how I think our Heavenly Father wants us to teach correct principles, by always being governed by a spirit of Charity for each other and avoid doing harm.
  4. Jesus warned us in 3 Nephi 12:22 “but I say unto you, 'That whosoever is angry with his brother shall be in danger of his judgment.” 'Without a cause' is not found in the Book of Mormon version. A warning from the Lord is something important, IMO. I think anger is an emotion which should be kept in check and not indulged.
  5. That is what I heard, that there were rumors he'd admitted it in private, but has not acknowledged it publicly.
  6. Really? If so, then he's playing word games it would seem. Body code and Emotion Code are Energy healing-- he calls his own forms of Energy Healing which he promotes, the body code or Emotion code. It's is Bradley Nelson's Emotion code that Julie Rowe became a coach of and from what she's advertised in her podcasts, she holds workshops to teach others this energy healing.
  7. Number five--I'm perplexed as to why some people want to make the girls help out with these responsibilities, why is it a problem to put this task on the young men to do this? We do consider it a priesthood duty, but even if it's not, and girls or boys can both do it, why insist that the girls have to help? Are they not getting enough opportunities to serve others? Do we feel they need to do the setting up and carry around a microphone because the young men shouldn't have to? Frankly, it sounds like a step backwards to making the 'women folk' do all the serving and waiting on others. Even in a branch that might not have young men, priesthood holders are still needed for administration of Sacrament, and no need for a microphone.
  8. The topic 27 pages ago, was about a Mission Prs. who was insisting the sisters wear sweaters and coats when around the Elders and then the op discussed Elder Oaks' talk where he suggested that women's dress or lack there of put responsibility on the woman for creating impure thoughts in men around them (this is in essence, not his exact words). First the Mission Pres. I think if this happened to my daughter, I'd contact the Mission headquarters and let them know what this Mission Pres. was doing because basically, his stricter dress standards go beyond the mark and suggest he thinks that the standard missionary dress for women set by the church is immodest. I think that would get someone's attention who is responsible for this mission pres that something is wrong or 'off'. Either he himself has problems struggling with impure thoughts, or he's got a number of Elders who have problems and this is his over compensation for how to deal with it. Either way, this mission needs to be looked into, because something is wrong, IMO. A mission Pres. should not be dictating additional requirements for what he thinks is 'modest dress' when the Church mission dept. sets these standards, unless this is in a strict Muslim country and then, likely, the Pres. would have told the Sisters to wear baggy coats and sweaters outside the Chapel as well, and the request would have been justified for the Sisters' own safety. Cinepro never said what mission this is, but I suspect that's not the case. As for Women being responsible for arousing lust in others; Demanding that LDS women cover up in order to protect the men and boys is useless. If the men can't control their thoughts around LDS women, they sure aren't going to be able to do it around the rest of the world; they'd have to be hermits, never leave the house, never go on the internet or watch tv, movies etc and that's not possible. Men and boys are naturally attracted to women (heterosexual men) and will have to take responsibility and accept that they are the only ones who can discipline their own thoughts. In fact, we each are responsible for disciplining and controlling our own thoughts, it's an excuse to try to blame others. While it's likely natural to have an initial reaction of arousal when seeing a scantily clad attractive person, it is the responsibility of the viewer to choose NOT to objectify the person and continue with thoughts of fantasy or lust. That's on them. What's on us (those who have the money to choose what we wear and how much we spend on clothes) is to be responsible for the way we dress and the messages it sends to those around us. That's both men and women and it's not just whether clothing is modest or immodest. As for whether or not women are more spiritual than men; I think both men and women can have and develop the same great spiritual capacity and the gospel of Jesus Christs expects and encourages both sexes to use and develop it spiritual gifts. I personally believe some things that often appeal to men such as sports, competition, business success, worldly pursuits, money, power etc. sometimes become a distraction that can keep good men from truly developing their spiritual natures. But, I think women can have distractions that will do the same, and I think we're seeing it more today than maybe in earlier generations. I'm reminded of what Pres. Kimball once said decades ago; https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2017/11/general-womens-session/turn-on-your-light?lang=eng I think from Pres. Kimball's prophetic words that he was emphasizing that women have a special mission in the last days and IMO, he's putting a lot of responsibility on the women of the church to help the spiritual growth--not only in themselves but in how they raise their sons, how they teach young men, and even their expectations of their husbands to help them be a spiritual force in their homes.
  9. I just finished reading the book "Educated", and saw this thread from a while ago which was resurrected. Tara's family was an example of a small subset of LDS, that some of us may or may not be familiar with. They were survivalists, they rejected Doctors and depended on Energy Healing and Homeopathic treatments. They didn't want their children indoctrinated in the public school system, they worried about women being modest (and this sometimes means promulgating a negative excessive attitude towards controlling women, similar to the FLDS) and the whole family was subservient to the father. In reading the book, I felt her father likely did struggle with mental illness and that pushed him towards extremism. Her mother though, supported her husband fully and when one of the sons was bullying the younger children, both parents refused to see or acknowledge it--instead blaming the victim who, in trying to stop the abuse, which was (as they were likely to view it) threatening the family by calling attention to it. This isn't hard to believe, it happens. But what is unique in her family (and not disputed) is that the mother's business made the family very wealthy and half the children depend on the family business for work (and they have little formal schooling to get any other kind of work) and they are very well known in their community. So, to them, Tara is airing their dirty laundry and that's a traitor/enemy to them. It's likely that in writing she embellished or even misremembered, but I have no reason to think that the memories she shared are anything but truly what she believes. If her parents and some of her siblings are upset, they can write a book to counter and tell their story and maybe make their case for why abuse in the family was ignored. There's no question that the church's teachings were sometimes interpreted and used by her father to control the whole family, and if she lost her faith in the gospel, it's not surprising. It is also sad that they chose to circle the wagons around the one sibling who was abusive and ostracized any who tried to bring it to light. But, as I said, it's not surprising, this family dynamic can mean problems of this nature, IMO. The Book was well worth reading. I hope one day, things will happen in this family that they can come to terms with mistakes that were made and heal their family bonds.
  10. I thought Elder Johnson's talk was excellent, one of my favorites from this conference. It is one I will be listening to again and again.
  11. But then, it seems that you're saying that church leaders and those of us who supported the policy don't believe in the Savior's teachings. I don't believe this issue should be used to determine who believes in the Savior's teachings and clearly we are viewing this differently. I've explained before that I saw this as a protection for the church from being sued and for a protection and recognition of parental rights and the need to protect the family from being undermined by children, minors in a household, receiving mixed messages--from church and from their parents' lifestyle, which could very well bring contention to the family. This was done with children from polygamous families--it has also been a policy that if an investigator has a husband who is against her joining the church, they don't baptize her, or children who's parents don't want them to be baptized, are not baptized. You've decided to perceive this as an example of not following the Savior's teachings and I believe you are wrong, since I do my best to try to follow his teachings and I supported the 2015 policy. I support rescinding it too.
  12. Except that it didn't cause conflict, inflict pain or anger in a lot of families--even those with gay family members(such as my own). It caused conflict for some because they disagreed with the decision. It caused conflict for others because they saw how upset some people were over it--and we saw how the press ginned up that conflict with the way this was reported and then it was used to promote people publicly resigning their church memberships to keep the controversy in the news. This was IMO, done to do damage to the church and make leaders look cruel and homophobic, and IMO, it worked to some extent, which is why the policy was later rescinded. There was no reason to leave it in place, when it was so misunderstood and misrepresented, that's obvious. Surprising that you say it was 'popular among the orthodox to whistle as people resigned membership and proclaim 'the wagon train moves forward toward Zion with or without you', since I never heard a whistle or a statement like that from any members, orthodox or otherwise. Maybe it was done at a bonfire made of baptismal, priesthood or temple sealing certificates--I don't know and maybe I missed that. But, what I experienced, was that I sat in church meetings and simply kept my mouth shut when a handful of times, this was brought up, and people expressed unhappiness over it, because it was clearly an emotionally charged subject and trying to discuss it rationally was not going to work, rather it would bring contention to the class. I'm pretty sure we didn't sing 'who's on the Lord's side' either, but that's because in my ward we only sing a handful of hymns--the top 10 play list--usually 'I believe in Christ' or 'Because I have been Given much'.
  13. But we have a problem, because I had the exact opposite response that you had. I felt that it was done to protect the church and to protect the rights of the parents of those children who did not share their religious beliefs. I did not feel that Christ disapproved of the policy. I was surprised at the many people who were upset with it when I was not. So, who was wrong? Those who were upset with the 2015 policy or those who agreed with it? It depends on who's side you share. I think it can be hard to set aside our own political, social and emotional positions if they are not in line with the churches. I think that's what happened. I think that if I want to have the spiritual strength and faith of Nephi or Samuel or Joshua, I would pray to reconcile myself to the decision of my leaders and so that's the example I try to follow.
  14. That's the case I was thinking about. I agree, I recall that the women felt dismissed and Snuffer wanted it to just go away. As was said earlier, and I agree, I think he didn't want to deal with these kinds of problems and felt that he had to get involved because it had to do with his scripture project, because the man was involved in that. Likely he didn't want the man's problems to taint his very important project, so he minimized it. IMO. I don't know what came of it, though. I don't know if the people who felt dismissed just let it go, or if the man was ever dealt with, what happened.
×
×
  • Create New...