Jump to content

Judd

Members
  • Content Count

    482
  • Joined

Community Reputation

349 Excellent

2 Followers

About Judd

  • Rank
    Seasoned Member: Separates Light & Dark

Recent Profile Visitors

1,487 profile views
  1. These days we talk about smoking food with all kinds of wood chips and other things. I wonder what it was like to eat food smoked by camel dung.
  2. Ldschurchgrowth.blogspot.com I don’t have a specific thing to link you to. Perhaps search Cuba. It’s been discussed over the years.
  3. The Church is already in Cuba. They’ve been sending missionaries (I think only from the Dominican Republic). His tweet is just saying they met with an official from Cuba, who reaffirmed that they were welcome. It didn’t have anything to do with policy. I think people not being aware that the Church is in Cuba may have mistaken this for meaning something other than a Cuban official’s statement of good will.
  4. I haven’t read this whole thread, but there are a few questions I have: It seems religious organizations are often threatened with their tax exempt status for getting involved with political issues. Why is this, and why are religious organizations the only ones threatened with this? Many organizations, in fact I’d guess the vast majority, that are not companies but are involved in politics are non-profit and tax exempt. Nobody threatens them. For instance, Planned Parenthood not only is tax-exempt, involved in politics, and never threatened with losing that status, but it’s often viewed unconscionable to suggest even cutting funding, let alone suggest removing tax-exempt status. But, more importantly, do you know what else is tax-exempt and involved in politics? The Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee. So if someone feels religious organizations getting involved it politics should qualify them to lose tax-exempt status, please provide a cogent argument on why we say this about religious organizations but literally no other tax-exempt organizations, even those whose sole purpose is politics.
  5. Poorly worded but I think it’s saying that in November this will change after the old legislation was in place for 86 years.
  6. Teachers have a lot of exposure to children, yet very few people seem nearly as concerned about this as they are a once-yearly meeting with the bishop where someone is outside the office. Case in point being that this guy did this to apparently 20 students and we’re not phased at all to lay societal blame at the feet of an education system and their policies that facilitated it — but looking at his role as a bishop of where there have yet to be any allegations under (not to suggest that he should be in that position, or that changes can’t be made, but it’s an interesting conundrum to observe where the focus is placed). To me, it’s somewhat similar to this meme: Or to those afraid of exposure to one flu shot, but no qualms about fast-food and sodas every day, coupled with a sedentary lifestyle.
  7. This general sentiment is one reason it chapped my *** to see the church sell all the property downtown to the city for $1.00. It’s a city that, by and large, resents the church and any influence, without any recognition of what it has been able to bring to the community, despite its perceived flaws.
  8. I recognize Facebook as a company that can do what it wants, including this. However, we need not conflate criticism of what it chooses to do with mandating they don’t do it. Two very separate things, and it’s reasonable to take two (superficially appearing) very different positions on each of those issues.
  9. I’m sure 2:1 in personal interviews would go swimmingly in public perception. But, to answer your question, there is always someone to be outside the bishop’s door. No, it’s not exactly quite the same as two-deep, but then again, neither is a personal meeting with the bishop the same as a Sunday school lesson.
  10. “When Dehlin speaks, the vetting has been done.”
  11. I think there are broader questions that should be relevant here: We assume that anything God does would be without error. Therefore, if God is to “inspire” something or, say, organize a church, will there not be bad things that can come from within that? The more broad question is, if God presumably created this world, would he allow people the calling of parents who will seriously abuse or harm their children? It seems to me being a parent has a lot more responsibility, as well as a much more immense potential for evil, than being a local leader in a congregation. Why would we not struggle with believing God could allow so many people be placed into the worldly circumstances that they are in, but feel his hand must surely not be involved in any kind of organization where unfortunate events happen? Ergo, if we don’t believe God can have a church authorized by him and simultaneously contain people who, in positions of power, fall mightily and inflict harm on others, then we may want to ask how God could also author this human existence while knowing so much evil would be afflicted on so many in the process.
  12. No, she is “in contact” with three law firms.
×
×
  • Create New...