Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,020 Excellent


About HappyJackWagon

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,187 profile views
  1. HappyJackWagon

    Is it time to end Testimony meetings?

    We also did ours the week before.
  2. HappyJackWagon

    Which talks inspired you?

    No idea. Zero I'm reminded regularly how I know so little about how the church operates beyond the stake level.
  3. HappyJackWagon

    Which talks inspired you?

    So it seems that either AA70 are inconsequential enough that their work load could be doubled without any problem. But I'm guessing they do quite a bit behind the scenes, counseling with SP's on general issues they received from SLC, but also on the individual circumstances unique to a SP's calling. It would seem SP's need someone to be a resource to them and it would seem counterintuitive to me to remove that resource or make it harder to access. Do you personally know your AA70 or would you have been writing to someone you don't know? There is already an issue (at least in my mind) about how little access there is up the chain of command from the SP, and this would only exacerbate that issue.
  4. HappyJackWagon

    And they came to pass...the sacrament?

    I think you're right that there are many who simply don't care about the issue. The status quo works for them just fine. I'm reminded of the quote "Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition." I've always enjoyed that quote and think there's some truth to it. But in lieu of other duties that would be unique to women, why not at least allow those who are interested to participate in ways that are not priesthood specific? For example, couldn't it be argued that having young women participate in ministering is simply political expediency? How would having YW help in this kind of activity that was previously viewed as a male youth activity not be similar to having YW assist with passing the sacrament? Not every YW would want to participate. Not every YW would find it to be an important allowance. Not every YW would care at all about it...but SOME would. What I find most surprising about the previous post I was asking questions about, was the idea that YW don't feel a need/desire to contribute to the larger church community. I don't understand why that would be. Especially around activities like "ministering" and passing/preparing the sacrament which are not specifically priesthood functions found in doctrine, what would be the harm in recognizing that at least some YW have different needs and desire to participate and there is nothing unique for them to do in serving the community.
  5. HappyJackWagon

    Which talks inspired you?

    Interesting. I never really got the impression that church authorities were underworked before? OR is this part of the restructuring of the quorums of 70 as AA70 isn't really a scriptural position? It seems odd to me that they would reduce the number of AA70's, thus making more work for those who remain. There seems to be a large supply of potential volunteers for these positions so I'm not sure why they would increase the burden on a relatively small group.
  6. HappyJackWagon

    Which talks inspired you?

    I have a specific General Conference Question, that's not necessarily about a talk, but didn't think it was worth starting its own thread. Am I remembering correctly that there were quite a number of Area Authority 70's released, but no replacements called? Does anyone have any information about why this would be the case or did I miss something?
  7. HappyJackWagon

    And they came to pass...the sacrament?

    I appreciate your perspective but I'm hoping you can help me understand it better. You seem to be arguing that it is critical for boy to feel separate from females in making a contribution to the community, and that girls don't have the psychological need to make a contribution. What is that based on. It seems very counter-intuitive to what I know about young people. I don't know why girls wouldn't have the same, or similar, desire and need to contribute to the community. You seem to recognize that passing the sacrament isn't necessarily a priesthood duty yet the boys need to have a sense in purpose in not only contributing but in contributing in a way girls cannot. You seem to feel so strongly about this that you say you would not participate in the church if "women's priesthood" were to be conflated with "men's priesthood". I wasn't aware there were two separate priesthoods. Can you explain this? I'd specifically be interested in your understanding of what is uniquely "women's priesthood".
  8. HappyJackWagon

    Elder Oaks

    So if the name of the Church really hadn't been fiddled with in a way that offended God, why the need for the correction regarding the name of the church? If the church had been so strong on this issue, why correct the direction and why acknowledge that the church had "unwittingly" been a part of not referring to the correct name of the church? It seems the crux of Nelson's argument is that the Lord revealed the name of the church and that the church wasn't following that revelation properly. But as you seem to be stating the church had never altered the official name of the church and in fact had in fact taught previously about how to properly reference to the church. So why the harsh language about "Mormon" being a victory for Satan because when we use the word it removes Christ from the name of the church, when it really did no such thing.
  9. Mormons want to be considered "Christians" but only as they define it. I was recently part of a frustrating conversation on this board in which devout church members argued that ONLY Mormons are a part of the body of Christ and that all of the Christians are outside of that body. So there is a conundrum that we want others to recognize that we are believers in Christ, but we don't want to be lumped in with all of the other Christians who aren't even part of the body of Christ. IMO the argument the devout defenders were making is a SUPER cynical way to view Christianity as they would be offended if other Christians don't include Mormons as Christians, while simultaneously stating that Mormons are the only true Christians. It was a depressing conversation.
  10. I'm sure you're right, but what are the church's financial disclosures? Can you give an example of what they have disclosed?
  11. HappyJackWagon

    Bill Reel’s Conference Predictions

    I don't get it. You seem to be beating around the bush a bit. Can you be more specific? Less prudish, perhaps
  12. Of course transparency cuts both ways. Transparency doesn't create perfection, only accountability. I've got no problem holding Dehlin accountable if he misuses funds or whatever the accusation du jour may be. At least the information is out there and he can be accountable for his action. The church does NOT make information available and is totally unaccountable to the people who donate. I suspect the church isn't perfect, just as Mormon Stories isn't perfect. The difference is, one is accountable and the other is not.
  13. HappyJackWagon

    Good for you Pres. Nelson!

    I agree. But if Nelson had these strong feelings about the name of the church, going so far that he believed using "Mormon" was a victory for Satan, and an offense to God, why did he support Pres. Hinkley and Monson? Is it reasonable/righteous/understandable that an apostle would choose to support the Pres. of the church over God? Does loyalty to church trump loyalty to God? It appears that's exactly what he did. If it is, I find that very offensive and a victory for Satan.
  14. HappyJackWagon

    Elder Oaks

    So does "latter day saints" So your argument "Latter day Saints" is an acceptable way to refer to a person formerly known as "Mormon" doesn't hold up, because it leaves out the name of Jesus.
  15. Nah. Stormrider said... Sounds to me like he's saying how he has no interest in "him" (Sam Young) yet is commenting directly about "him" (Sam Young). But nice try