Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7,182 Excellent


About HappyJackWagon

  • Rank
    BISHOP Jackwagon

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,806 profile views
  1. It seems like Priesthood office means less and less. The only priesthood that seems to matter is the priesthood keys and the holders who can direct other priesthood holders, non-priesthood holders, and even children to perform priesthood functions. Priesthood keys have always been important but now they seem to be all that really matters. Don't have enough priesthood holders to be witnesses in the temple, no problem. A woman can accomplish the task under the direction of the keyholder. An 8 year old wants to witness her sister's baptism, no problem. If the key holder authorizes it, we're golden. I think we've only seen the beginning. I suspect in the next few years we may see YW passing and preparing the sacrament too since it's largely a function based on policy. I suspect the same to be true of some typically all-male/priesthood callings like clerks, SS Pres. etc as women are allowed to fill those roles. I'm torn on this because I think a lot of these changes are really good and I hope for more. But I think it minimizes the important role women serve when children are similarly authorized. I feel like it changes teachings about priesthood, which is fine, yet leaders and members alike act as if nothing significant has changed. It's just a policy. What's the big deal. IMO "it" (change in doctrine) is a big deal and should be treated as such.
  2. I never implied you said any such thing. I used examples of things people have done. Even Pres. Oaks made a comment about how a SS couple shouldn't expect to stay at his home or be introduced to his friends. Your reading comprehension is really suffering. Dude, you seriously need to get a grip and read for understanding. You are misunderstanding a LOT from many posters here.
  3. I think I just need to stop following your comments because you're being irrational. At the very least you are totally incapable of understanding a very basic point. FTR- I never said you said.... those things. It was an example to illustrate that even if some positive things are done to show some level of caring, negative actions also influence how a person feels. Rarely is a person's interaction all good or all bad with another person. But you are advocating rejection of a couple in a very personal and big way while suggesting that it's ok because you can show kindness in other ways, assuming all of those other kindnesses (if done at all) will actually make up for the overt rejection. BTW- board nannying is bad enough, but accusing me of bearing "false witness" against you is over the top. Grow up.
  4. Yeah, the church doesn't seem to have a very robust teaching about moderation. For example, when WoW was first being implemented as a worthiness issue for the temple, the goal was to keep 'drunkards" from getting recommends. Of course there's a huge difference from being an occasional social drinker and a drunk. Some things are just fine in moderation. But why call for moderation when you can ban it all together?
  5. Like you have done repeatedly with Rockpond, you are attributing to me what I have not said. I find it sad that you can't even congratulate or be happy for a person who is happy. Apparently expressing your disapproval is a higher priority.
  6. But couldn't you at least congratulate them and be happy that they are happy, even if you don't approve of the choice?
  7. Then you must be a unicorn. I don't think there is another person who would be blatantly disrespected but still feel respected because they were told they were respected. Good for you.
  8. Channeling Scott- "to" much meat should be "too" much meat because... grammar. I have no other comment about your post but wanted to make sure you knew your error.
  9. But you act as if a good gesture outweighs or at least evens out a bad gesture. If those parents do a nice thing for their child (which is only the human thing to do) yet disown them from their will, refuse to allow them to visit at Christmas or any number of awful, rude things, does it matter much that they brought you dinner one night? There certainly isn't respect there. Love is debatable.
  10. Here is the evidence that I read your post. I don't think it's as amazing as you seem to think. You said... Now I look forward to hearing your response to my specific question. If someone told you they love you and your wife and did one or two of those nice things you suggested, yet refused to come to an anniversary reception, or refused to let you stay at their house, or refused to introduce you as a couple to their friends, because (for whatever reason) they didn't approve of your marriage, would you feel love and respected?
  11. I don't think so. I've known plenty of miserable LDS people and I've know plenty of wonderfully happy non-Mormons. It would be quite the arrogant claim if members claimed to be the happiest in the world.
  12. If someone told you they love you and your wife yet refused to come to an anniversary reception, or refused to let you stay at their house, or refused to introduce you as a couple to their friends, because (for whatever reason) they didn't approve of your marriage, would you feel loved and respected?
  13. There are a number of very good articles about the development of the WoW into the modern policy we now have. From abolitionist movements to Heber J Grant's family history of alcoholism that may have influenced his push towards greater uniformity of WoW adherence. There's a really great article that I can't find right now, but this one by Leonard Arrington about the economics behind adoption of WoW policy is interesting. https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/economic-interpretation-word-wisdom There is also good review of this in Charles Harrel's This is my Doctrine: The Development of Mormon Theology. The WoW has changed...a lot. If it's a commandment of God, it should be followed. But there's really nothing indicating it IS a commandment. If it's a commandment of men, then it doesn't really matter if you strictly obey it or not (in a religious sense) I recall a fun story about how a bottle of wine from the church's vineyard was placed in the cornerstone of the St George temple. Interesting stuff. If people are going to get upset by the facts that the WoW has changed dramatically, and that past members and leaders didn't obey it in the same way we do, then they will just have to be upset. It's documented in many places for anyone who cares to look.
  14. I don't think leaders would consider it "blind" obedience. But I reject the idea that obedience to leaders isn't expected. For example, if a bishop were to ask me to clean the building on a Saturday and I simply told him "no", I think he would take exception with that. Or if the SP asked me to remove a Facebook post support SSM, and I refused, I don't think he would consider me to be sustaining him. Etc. etc. Leaders ask things of members all the time. Some are very reasonable requests. Some aren't as reasonable. Some are suggestions or counsel, some are expectations. But when a leader expects me to do what he says, then obedience is expected. I can supply many real-life examples if needed, but I'm hoping people here can recognize from personal experience that there is often an expectation of obedience,
  • Create New...