Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Nemesis

      Contact Us Broken   09/27/2016

      Users, It has come to our attention that the contact us feature on the site is broken.  Please do not use this feature to contact board admins.  Please go through normal channels.  If you are ignored there then assume your request was denied. Also if you try to email us that email address is pretty much ignored.  Also don't contact us to complain, ask for favors, donations, or any other thing that you may think would annoy us.  Nemesis

HappyJackWagon

Contributor
  • Content count

    4,608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

HappyJackWagon last won the day on May 18

HappyJackWagon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

4,432 Excellent

3 Followers

About HappyJackWagon

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,039 profile views
  1. I find this response incredibly depressing. Let me repeat what happened. A mother was upset with her teenage daughter so she pinned her to the ground, straddling the teen with her knees on her arms so she couldn't move. The mother then repeatedly hit the girl in the face with the front and back sides of her hands. When questioned about this, the parents didn't suggest it was a one time thing. They claimed the right to hit the child in the face repeatedly. This wasn't some bad girl, either. She may have sassed back at her mom or something common like that. But you side with the parents? Man, I'm glad I'm not your child. I gave my kids a swat on the behind when they were 3 or so if they were "really bad" but I grew out of that poor parenting model pretty quickly. My children are all well behaved, well adjusted, good kids and I've never spanked and I've certainly never struck them in the face repeatedly. So I admit I find it exceptionally difficult to understand why this would be justified. This is just poor and abusive parenting.
  2. So the bishop inferred from your daughter's response that you may be beating her? Wow, that's a leap. I called the hotline once because a teenage girl reported to me that her mother had sat on her, pinning her arms to the floor and hit her in the face repeatedly with the front and back of the hand. I spoke to the parents about this to get their side of the story. They confirmed it was accurate and claimed it was their right as parents to discipline the girl however they saw fit. The hotline agreed and told me not to report. Even though I told the SP about this and many more problems arose, the husband in that case is now my bishop.
  3. Yes, this is true. It also gets stickier if the person receiving the confession has an occupation in which they are a mandatory reporter. Keep in mind that the hotline is in place to protect the church from legal issues that may arise. I do not believe it is there to protect the individual serving in the calling and receiving the confession.
  4. There's more endowment?

    For anyone interested in the development of temple worship (Spoiler alert: It has changed a LOT since 1840's) then Devery Anderson's Development of LDS Temple Worship is a must read. https://www.amazon.com/Development-LDS-Temple-Worship-1846-2000/dp/1560852119
  5. Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?

    awesome. Thanks. It wasn't there 30 minutes ago.
  6. Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?

    I'll just note that this "church statement" can only be found as a quotation in the DN article. There is no statement on the Mormon Newsroom. So now we are required to believe the DN who quotes the Church PR dept. which works under the guidance of the 12, which works under the guidance of the First Presidency, which works under the guidance of the prophet, who relates to us the will of God. That chain is getting mighty long in deed.
  7. Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?

    Yeah, I'm skeptical. Sounds like the PR department is winning the week but it may just be spin. In the past when it has seemed like the church was taking a kinder, gentler approach to LGBTQ community, they then double down with something much worse; "counterfeit families", the policy, etc. I view this more as a strategy of employing cycles to keep everyone somewhat happy. We'll have a cycle of inclusion to help progressives feel hope about a changing approach and then the next cycle will be retrenchment to keep the traditionalists happy. It's hard to take this statement seriously when the policy still exists.
  8. 2018 curriculum

    It appears that most weeks the focus will be on Come Follow Me. Does this mean that there will be one topical theme for the entire month? Our bishopric tends to assign Sac Meeting talks on Come Follow Me so that means we'll get 8 hours a month on the same topic. That doesn't sound all that appealing. Am I misunderstanding this?
  9. Updated church statement - White culture

    Your usage of this cliché is odd. You know what it means, right? Yes, she is clueless about her white supremacy. Yes, I think she raises a valid (or at least interesting) point about what entity officially speaks for the church regarding doctrine. When there are 15 prophets and apostles, it seems reasonable that they would address the issue instead of a PR news release. We have many layers of people/departments speaking to us. It goes something like this. We must always assume that one person/group is speaking on behalf of the one higher and that chain eventually leads to God. Why not at least try to shorten that chain? God - Prophet - First Presidency - Apostles - PR Department - Church News & other publications - me Or one could simply cut that chain to God - me. After all, the great lesson from the First Vision narrative is that we all have access to God and that we should go to the source instead of intermediaries.
  10. SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

    I'm having a hard time taking those questions seriously. But I'll try. This is a great example of a false dichotomy. It is very possible to not discriminate against coworkers of a different gender while also avoiding temptation. We all avoid (hopefully) temptation of some kind every day. It is not possible to remove all temptation from our lives and we must still function. This is just another example of that. Non discrimination is not the only important thing, but it is very important. My employer should not accept discrimination because I'm personally afraid I won't be able to control myself. I reject the notion that one must choose between the two. It seems like a very childish mentality to me.
  11. Updated church statement - White culture

    Of course they can still claim anything they want. This mommy blogger is really something. It's hard to believe she didn't know the first statement was talking about white supremacists, but from her later tweets it really seems like she is clueless. I too am very happy with the newsroom statement. The blogger has said "she is done" whatever that means. She's also said that she doesn't take direction from PR. She wants the First Presidency to make a statement, and she's not going to listen to the newsroom. So she's still clueless and seems incapable of self-reflection, thinking that the First Presidency couldn't possible be behind the newsroom statement. So weird. But beyond the whole white supremacy crap this lady spews, she raises again an issue that many have raised in the past. Are we to take Newsroom statements as official church statements like we would a First Presidency message? Does she have a point that the First Presidency should make doctrinal pronouncements, and not leave it to PR?
  12. SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

    I shared a couple of examples beyond just the work lunch. What are the reasonable accommodations for those situations? Chaperones? Should I take an unnecessary person on business calls if I'm going to be meeting with a woman? What are your reasonable accommodations?
  13. SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

    The work lunch is just one little example of how/when male and female co-workers are sometimes alone together. There are many other ways this happens as the natural course of business. If I and a female co-worker are traveling to an out of state conference should we take a chaperone with us when we drive together to the airport, fly, take a cab to the hotel/conference center? How does that work? I don't think my employer would be interested in paying for a chaperone. What happens when I and a female employee or a female business partner are making business calls to prospective clients. Do we take separate cars? While I agree that care should be taken, it is unreasonable to think that there are not legitimate business needs for a male and female to be together to conduct business, wherever that might be. It's also unreasonable to expect there will always be a chaperone near by.
  14. SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

    Yes, but emotional attachments begin in all kinds of environments, not just business related activities. We've probably all heard the term, work-husband, or work-wife, which refers to a member of the opposite gender who is your go-to person at work. A kind of buddy. I think that is exceptionally dangerous. Far more fraught than development or business lunches
  15. SL Trib article on co-worker interactions

    I'm not saying these things don't happen, or that there isn't any risk to it. Clearly there is. But it would be wrong of me as an employer to treat my employees differently based on their gender. If my male employees get extra perks or opportunities because they are male and I'm comfortable being around them, then it's discriminatory to the women. I can't choose to only develop my male employees, or take them to lunches, or drive with them to appointments, and neglect my female employees by refusing to do the same things
×