Jump to content

HappyJackWagon

Contributor
  • Content count

    4,711
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,563 Excellent

3 Followers

About HappyJackWagon

  • Rank
    6 foot 5. Actually 6 ' 8" with his afro

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,171 profile views
  1. Thanks. So how do you explain the snarkiness by other posters towards five solas for simply suggesting that it is concerning if the church cannot sustain itself locally?
  2. Sometimes I'm surprised by the rudeness on this board. This is one of those times. Five Solas stated that it is concerning that the church in the UK cannot sustain itself and is met by rude accusations. It is laughable that you state that the church seems to be unsustainable locally in "most of the rest of the world" as some kind of defense. I think that only makes five Solas point. It should be concerning when the church cannot be sustained locally in well-developed areas. It may be understandable in newly organized or developing areas like Africa, but to act like it's no big deal that Europe is struggling to support itself is sipping on the Kool-Aid. People are citing the secularization of Europe as a way to brush the problem away, but even if that is true, it still shows the weakness. Is anyone aware of financial #'s for other churches in the UK? I'd be curious, for example, to see whether or not the catholic church is bailing out the UK diocese
  3. The problem is that failing to be explicit in telling him to stop can easily be interpreted in different ways. Saying they don't condone it while not asking him to stop could easily be seen as a CYA move. A kind of see no evil approach. "Just get me results but don't tell me how you do it" kind of mentality. This exists in many industries. It allows the institution plausible deniability should the tactics become known but also benefits the organization with ill-gotten gains. Sadly, this isn't an uncommon approach in leadership.
  4. I sure don't have any problem with anyone reading what is written on a public forum. It would be silly to be upset by that. However, it seems just as silly to suggest that gaining access to private groups using false identities & using social engineering techniques of using false ID's to build fake relationships with others so that you can gain access to your target, is not spying. Obviously these tactics are not illegal, but something doesn't have to be illegal to be distasteful. I know personally of one very specific example on a closed group geared towards people experiencing faith transitions, where an individual gained access to the group using a false identity which was in violation of both group and FB rules. This individual then used access to that group to befriend others in the group. He monitored what was said in the group & took screen shots. He then used personal profiles to determine where people lived so he could determine which ward they belonged to. He then sent information (including screenshots of comments) to ecclesiastical leaders in an effort to try to instigate disciplinary actions. Now, I don't know if he was an employee of the church. In fact, I'm fairly certain this person was doing it on his own. Was his behavior proper? Or was his spying a breach of trust and were his actions distasteful and unethical? To me, it doesn't make a difference if the church had put him up to it. I view it as a scumbag move whether the church was involved or not. I find it unfortunate that some would choose to defend behavior from the church that they would otherwise reject.
  5. Meanwhile, at the Long Beach Public Library...

    I think I gave my response back on page one. My response may not be perfect but I think it is proper. Essentially, the event is not my cup of tea so I wouldn't be likely to participate but it is not my place to judge the individuals who do. Labeling them, accusing them, pointing my finger from the G&S building would be inappropriate.
  6. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    I don't have the reference but the story is fairly well known. I believe it's in Prince's book, David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism A member noticed David O McKay eating rum cake and acted shocked. They pointed out to him that there was rum because maybe he wasn't aware. His response was something like "We are not supposed to drink alcohol but the WoW doesn't say anything about eating it". I totally butchered that but you get the gist
  7. Meanwhile, at the Long Beach Public Library...

    I agree. This kind of activity wouldn't be something that attracts my family's participation but I see stories like this as a dog whistle to the ultra conservative and religious for a target of their disdain. What purpose does a story like this serve other than to provide a subject of ridicule and judgment so some people will feel better about themselves. Some won't like the way she looks or acts or the parents that would take their children to this. People can be offended and outraged by the evil of the world. I see nothing positive in any of that.
  8. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    Here is the full Letter: Also from FAIR Note Footnote 135: For those interested in reading the full FAIR article see https://www.fairmormon.org/conference/august-2000/up-in-smoke-a-response-to-the-tanners-criticism-of-the-word-of-wisdom#en135 Edit to Add: I no longer have access to a current leadership handbook and I might have overstated that decaf is specifically mentioned there but, I have provided David O. McKay's position as given through his personal secretary on this subject, and that is good enough for me, Although I do not drink decaf coffee, I have no problem with anyone who decides to do so and would certainly not prevent them from receiving a TR. Thanks. I'd never seen this letter. Very interesting. I don't have access to handbook 1 anymore either, but I do not recall anything about decaf being ok. I think it's an issue of leadership roulette, with the majority of leaders rejecting the idea that decaf coffee is ok, but that's just my guess. I don't know that this letter could be used as a clear statement of official LDS policy on decaf coffee but it seems clear that in 1965 with Pres. McKay, they didn't seem to think it was a problem. Interesting, indeed. What is the source for that letter? Where can it be found?
  9. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    CFR- Please provide a statement and/or link from the handbook that states individuals who drink decaffeinated coffee should still receive a recommend.
  10. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    So much Ughhh with these responses.
  11. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    Did I call for more discipline or did I simply point out the inconsistency of the application of WoW principles? That's all I'm trying to say. I don't want anyone disciplined, or held out of a child's temple ceremony etc because they don't perfectly follow the WoW. What does it mean to "keep the word of wisdom" anyway? Don't drink any forbidden beverage and consume any tobacco product even once during a week, month, year, decade? Can I drink a beer in January and get a recommend in March? Can I drink a glass of Champaign at an annual gala and still renew my recommend the next year? Can I smoke a cigar when my son is born but still get a recommend 2 years later when I'm asked about the WoW? One might suggest it's up to the individual to decide and declare for themselves whether or not they feel like they adequately keep the WoW but that doesn't really mean much when there is no teaching or standard about timelines. Individuals can misjudge themselves just as easily as being misjudged by another person. The problem comes when trying to use the WoW as a way to judge self or others. I don't believe it was intended to be used in such a way.
  12. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    Dang! Awfully demanding, aren't you? The only questions I found from your post are... 1- Your typo makes it hard to understand the question. 2- No. The WoW is not a commandment though I believed for 40+ years that it was. Then I read the text again and amazingly found that it states it is not given by way of commandment. The WoW is a policy implemented by leaders as a form of loyalty test. It is only a test of worthiness insofar as it tests loyalty to the non-scriptural requirements by the church and leaders. 3- I'm not inclined to answer your personal questions beyond saying that I am in the best shape and health of my adult life and I don't attribute it to the WoW.
  13. Scrutinizing general conference

    As Pres. Uchtdorf stated, the church is engaged in a continuing restoration. That means things can change as leaders better understand the will of God. It is also clear from historical evidence that the church shifts culturally over time. These shifts affect practices and even doctrines that evolve. Either the church succumbs to the changing culture OR the changing culture influences the kinds of questions leaders are asking God. Different questions can leader to different answers and practices.
  14. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    I cannot understand how you could possibly claim that current leaders apply the WoW dos and don'ts consistently. If they enforce WoW adherence for temple recommends by not allowing people who drink, smoke, etc to have recommends yet they don't deny recommends to the morbidly obese who eat a slab of ribs at every dinner, then obviously adherence to certain parts of the WoW are more important than others. How can you claim otherwise. It's a nonsensical claim. Separate WoW requirements, as found in scripture, are not followed equally, which means some are being ignored. You can claim that ignoring it is justified because those with priesthood keys have the right to ignore it, but you can't claim it isn't being ignored. It simply is not being followed. The WoW is administered as a church policy based loosely on parts of a revelation.
  15. Word of Wisdom Poll of Personal Beliefs

    Interesting detail. Thanks for sharing. But how do you know the bolded part? Where is that stated in scripture? Where is "tea" stated at all? It's not. That too, is an interpretation.
×