Jump to content

let’s roll

Members
  • Content Count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

182 Excellent

About let’s roll

  • Rank
    Member: Moves Upon the Waters

Recent Profile Visitors

140 profile views
  1. Just a thought for you to consider.... My understanding is that one of the purposes of a law of tithing is to prepare us to live the law of consecration, which is the higher law. How would your current thoughts about tithing translate to living the law of consecration?
  2. It’s there for you to discover. My experience is that a principle is more often valued and retained by those who diligently search it out, ponder it, and make it the subject of their communion with Deity.
  3. I respectfully disagree with your characterization of Hamba’s post. The characterizations in your post are yours, not his. I’d invite you to go to his profile, read enough of his posts to convince yourself your judgments may have been misguided, and if you feel so inclined, let him know that. Having read hundreds of his post, I’m confident he’ll respond by saying something like, “no worries mate.”
  4. I’d suggest that if you think all your tithe is is giving money to the church you don’t understand the principle of tithing. I’d invite you to ponder with an open heart and when you’re 100% committed to follow the direction you receive, consult with Deity.
  5. Perhaps being one in the way Deity intends isn’t the same as being equal in the way the world views equality. I would expect Deity to exert all its efforts in moving mortals toward being one in the way they intend and be concerned about equality only if, and when, that concept intersects with being one. Is equality a divine goal or a divine measure? It seems to me collaboration is a better description of the divine goal and “oneness” a better description of a divine measure. Is our drive for equality a precursor for collaboration and oneness or a distraction?
  6. It would be consistent with the theme of other recent changes to “remove the training wheels,” replacing real or perceived compulsion with an invitation to receive and follow personal revelation and wisely exercise our agency. In that light, I could see the WoW being characterized as a “correct principle” that would continue to be taught with members invited to “govern themselves” with respect to adherence to the principle.
  7. Is equality a divine goal or a divine measure? It seems to me collaboration is a better description of the divine goal and “oneness” a better description of a divine measure. Is our drive for equality a precursor for collaboration and oneness or a distraction?
  8. He did some healing, but the healing had a higher purpose. He fed some people and gave others to drink, but again with a higher purpose. Thank you for your other post, which I enjoyed. One thought...I don’t think we’re placed here to see what we can do with “minimal outside interference.” In fact, Deity has expressed a longing for significant involvement in our lives, but we need to invite them in for the right reasons. Mortality isn’t a test of what we’re capable of on our own, but rather a test of our willingness and ability to collaborate with Deity.
  9. Probably just me, but I find it a bit profane to ascribe terms to the Savior that are these days more often used as indictments than descriptors.
  10. Jesus did give us some recipes, some of which heal...body and soul.
  11. Perhaps being one in the way Deity intends isn’t the same as being equal in the way the world views equality. I would expect Deity to exert all its efforts in moving mortals toward being one in the way they intend and be concerned about equality only if, and when, that concept intersects with being one.
  12. I understand that the majority of the next entering class of the BYU law school are women. If you had anything to do with that, I congratulate you. If you’re in the placement office at a law school, I would expect your experience has been that female graduates in the top half of the class have been much more in demand than males in the top half. As a lawyer who has recruited at over a dozen law schools, that has certainly been my experience.
  13. As someone who regularly reviews resumes, I can tell your first premise is false, at least in the legal field, where female applicants are favored over their male counterparts and have been for at least the last 20 years. As to your second point, I don’t know Claire Foy, and I suspect you don’t either, so if we’re going to speculate on why she didn’t think she needed to negotiate, I’d suggest that her life experience has been that people take care of her and she’s received preferences because of her talents, so she hasn’t been accustomed to having to negotiate. The same is true for many young athletes. That’s why they both hire agents.
  14. Silly and naive are your words not mine. There’s absolutely nothing unfair about paying someone what they agree to be paid in an arms length negotiation. I’m sure she was represented. If she believed she merited receiving the highest salary on the show, she was certainly free to give those instructions to her agent. I understand the producers were trying to help everyone save face after the fact, but if it’s true that Ms. Foye’s agent didn’t know what Mr. Smith was being paid, then I’ve definitely found someone I’m comfortable characterizing as silly and naive.
  15. Salaries aren’t dictated, they’re negotiated. Ms. Foye was free to insist on being paid more than Mr. Smith but chose not to.
×
×
  • Create New...