Jump to content

Sleeper Cell

Members
  • Content count

    1,191
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,097 Excellent

About Sleeper Cell

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Recent Profile Visitors

1,350 profile views
  1. BYU increases tuition for 2018-2019 school year

    Apparently the non-LDS tuition at BYU is substantially lower than the out-of-state tuition at the other schools.
  2. Do people have to ”lack passion” in order to be able to present their case “dispassionately?” A personal example. Years ago, while waiting at a red light, I was sideswiped by an MTA bus. (Fortunately, only minor injuries). MTA claimed that their bus was the stationary vehicle and I sideswiped it. When the matter went to (small claims) court, MTA had three witnesses and the police report on their side. You better believe I was angry -- after all, I absolutely knew that I was right. Furthermore, I felt that what had actually happened should have been obvious to the officer and any competent expert who examined the photos taken at the accident scene. (i.e., I believed that MTA’s experts had to know that their driver was lying). Fortunately, I was finally able to set my anger aside and make a dispassionate presentation in court. I began by saying that I would prove that this accident could not possibly have occurred in the way the bus driver, the witnesses and the investigating officer claimed it did. Then I proceeded to do precisely that. And did so in a dispassionate manner. (They had three witnesses and the police report. I had Sir Isaac). The judge ruled from the bench in my favor. Had I not been able to set aside my anger and make a dispassionate presentation, I believe that I would have lost -- in spite of the compelling physical evidence.
  3. The OP specifically mentioned police and fire services among the public benefits that churches receive without “fully paying for them.“ Do you really consider providing such vital emergency services to be some sort of governmental “largess?” As for the roads (the OP’s other example), a major source of funding comes from the taxes on gasoline (which, in my experience, are included in the price per gallon, with no special treatment for anyone). For that matter, doesn’t virtually all the “church use” of the roads consist of members (who are already fully taxed for their use of the roads) driving to and from church? That said, I would not object to a “benefits assessment district” roads tax (which would be applicable to all property owners, including churches). Such districts are (at least in theory) intended to tax each property owner differently, according to the benefit that property owner actually receives from the roads. But I would object to a tax that would be imposed on some churches and not on others, based on their willingness to give up some of their rights.
  4. Is the Pope more Mormon than our current leaders?

    IOW, even if the Proclamation (or anything else) were added to the canon, it probably wouldn’t convince you (or others who don’t accept it as revelation) that it really is a revelation. Perhaps this sort of thinking might have something to do with why “Mormon canon is essentially closed post Joseph Smith.” Do you accept Joseph F. Smith’s vision as revelation? If so, how many additional revelations would it take before you would say that the Mormon canon is “essentially open” post Joseph Smith BTW, do you really regard OD 2 “kind of like scripture light?” What about letters written by only one apostle, especially if they were only sent to the local church leadership of one congregation?
  5. Oaks address about SSM makes national news

    How many is “quite a few?” And at what point does “just a few” become “quite a few?” (Yes, I know that even if there is only one person who believes God is telling them to kill “the homosexual,” that is one person too many. But that is not my question.)
  6. conference today

    … Just what is your goal?
  7. Mormon Bishop convicted of rape

    Typical male bias? For Pete’s sake, give it a rest. Do you have any evidence that the "typical male" agrees with this judge’s grossly lenient sentence or with his reasoning? For what its worth, I believe that the fact that this guy was supposedly a “good family man” (at least, when he wasn’t committing rape) and a bishop makes his crimes much more reprehensible, hence disserving of a much harsher sentence than he would otherwise have received.
  8. One woman speaker

    So the talk given by the only woman speaking in general conference rubbed you the wrong way? On the other hand, a talk given afterwards by a male speaker that “almost sounded like a rebuke” of her talk did not rub you the wrong way? It almost sounds like you are less concerned with a speaker’s gender than with what the speaker has to say.
  9. conference

    That explains a lot.
  10. conference

    I agree that your time can be better spent doing something other than pretending you are interested or playing with your phone. I do not understand why you say that you will “probably read” a few of these boring talks, especially since you are so sure they will say nothing that we haven’t heard “1000 times already.” BTW, wouldn’t the time you spent posting this comment have been better spent with your “family enjoying nature and … exercising?”
  11. Degrees Within the Celestial Kingdom

    One is for Republicans; the other for Democrats. Each will believe that they have attained the middle degree of the celestial kingdom, while the other guys were assigned to the lowest.
  12. Sounds like your argument should be with the Miami Herald. Why not write a letter to the editor using extracts from some of your previous comments (with a few minor edits for continuity). Something like this: Dear Editor: Last October 26, you published an article entitled: “'Helping Hands'” Mormon volunteers help in post-Hurricane Matthew cleanup effort.” In it you mentioned that 370 Mormon volunteers from various parts of Florida had traveled to Flagler and Volusia counties, where they spent two days helping the hurricane victims. You also published no fewer than three (3) photographs showing these volunteers wearing bright yellow shirts that clearly identified them as members of the Mormon Church. It is my opinion that true charity is given anonymously or without an underlying motivation for recognition and credit. If charity is the true love of Christ, then there is no need to be identified as anything other than an unidentified person The Mormon church desires to be recognized for their collective organized efforts when it serves to benefit them and frankly that offends me. Sorry but that is how I see it. If they did not seek attention and recognition they wouldn't wear the shirts identifying volunteers as members of the church....and they could still provide the same service...but what they wouldn't receive is the same recognition and media attention plan and simple. Its very clear to anyone with eyes to see WHY these yellow shirts are covered with advertising for the LDS church...they seek to be seen for the good efforts of their members and receive the media attention and good will that accompanies doing so beings the church...and that's fine...it seems to be working...but lets not try to be in denial as to why this identification is put on these shirts...that's just ignoring reality. By the way, I personally did nothing to help the victims of Hurricane Matthew. Sincerely, Johnnie Cake Its been a few months, but the Miami Herald may still publish it. Go ahead. Send it in. It would be interesting to see the reader comments -- especially those from the hurricane victims.
  13. The rise of the alt-right Mormons

    Can you name one person working in the White House who self-identifies as “alt-right?”
  14. Sigh. In my opinion “true charity” also includes being charitable when judging those who volunteer to help others. In thread after thread, the LDS church has been criticized for not doing enough “humanitarian service.” But when it does do what even our critics admit is humanitarian service, we are told it is not really “true charity.” And why? Because of our shirts. What has changed in the last 40 years since the Teton Dam break is that disaster responders have continued to learn from each new incident and have modified their SOPs accordingly. (For that matter, I doubt that there were even any national training standards or recommended SOPs for civilian volunteers before the mid-1990s). There are probably a lot of things that would be done differently, had the Teton Dam incident occurred today. Every disaster response group with which I have worked or trained wears some sort of uniform (if only a vest) that clearly identifies their group’s affiliation. As rpm pointed out: “The reason you wear your yellow vest [or some other sort of uniform that clearly identifies your group’s affiliation] in disaster relief is to give comfort to those you are helping that you are a safe person to let into their home. And so that others can know that you also belong with the groups that are taking the assignments from the same people. Of course residual positive exposure comes to the church, but that isn't the reason you wear them. It allows those in charge to watch after you, and those you serve to accept the service, and potential scammers to bypass where you are because of the risk of being caught for doing bad things by those in the vests.“ Have you, personally, had any disaster response training, whatsoever? Even a basic CERT class -- a standardized training class designed for volunteers with no previous training? (The class is free; you can probably get information on how to sign up for the class from your local fire station). Among other things, the CERT class teaches the importance of the concepts to which rpm alludes. Not letting “one hand know what the other hand is doing” is fine when donating money, but counterproductive and possibly even dangerous when it comes to disaster response. Indeed, one of the primary purposes of having a standardized “incident command system” for disaster response is to make sure that “one hand does know what the other hand is doing.” You said: “the church now desires to be recognized for their collective organized efforts when it serves to benefit them and frankly that offends me. Sorry but that is how I see it.” How could the Church’s “desires to be recognized for their collective organized efforts” possibly hurt anyone? On the other hand, impugning the motives of those who are willing to donate their time to help disaster victims -- over something as petty as a shirt-- is hurtful. And frankly, that offends me. Since I am a volunteer responder committed to other agencies, I probably will never respond to a disaster wearing the “Helping Hands” shirt. So, I really cannot speak for those that do. But in my experience, most volunteer responders do not seek personal recognition or even a “thank you” -- although an occasional simple “thank you“ would be appreciated. (As for those who do, so what? Such recognition costs society nothing.) On the other hand, many volunteer responders tend to be sensitive to petty criticism from “outsiders.” I have seen long time dedicated volunteers quit over such petty criticism. In one instance, I have even seen it destroy an entire volunteer responder group. And that is hurtful to the entire community. BTW, when I an deployed in the field, I would prefer to wear yellow (or another highly visible color) for personal safety reasons. Not to call attention to myself or my agency for self promotion purposes. Of course, the choice of “uniform” is not up to me.
×