Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Light is Good.


Recommended Posts

I think light is always good. I think many of us will disagree with what light actually is. Without thinking hard to figure out if I am correct I would say light is something like Godly knowledge. And it's a two way thing. The organization should be helping it's members find Godly knowledge for themselves and the members should be using Godly knowledge to view t he organization. And if you look at the whole plan of God then you can see that I'm talking about all organizations, not just the church.

Other things that people may view as light - most likely just little pieces of the whole puzzle. 

Edited by Rain
Link to comment
10 hours ago, Maidservant said:

The church is owned by one man, Jesus.  What he does with his own money is his own business.  Getting into someone's business doesn't represent light; it is an act of oppression.  I can't imagine disclosing my finances to my neighbors or even my children (in bullet point detail, anyway).

(Btw, darkness is a good thing.  Another subject,  I suppose.)

The conduct of the church (i.e. the prophet and his counselors) is based on the concept/reality that it is Jesus Christ's church (not the members' church).  If one doesn't agree with that premise, then likely very little of the conduct is going to make sense on the basis of any other premise.

I don't think what the church spends money on is a big surprise.  It already is in the open and in evidence.  Buildings, education, salaries, PR, humanitarian, community improvement projects, missionaries, literature, et cetera, et cetera.  What else could there be that needs to be known?

All light emanates from one Man also, Jesus (D&C 88). His light shines from within and from without His organization. He uses keys to organize and direct that light (D&C 6:28). What more can be expected from or about that organization than that light which He permits to be organized and directed through delegation?

So what else that needs to be known are things like: the organization is His, the keys are His, His delegates are His.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
13 hours ago, Maidservant said:

The church is owned by one man, Jesus. 

...

The conduct of the church (i.e. the prophet and his counselors) is based on the concept/reality that it is Jesus Christ's church (not the members' church).  If one doesn't agree with that premise, then likely very little of the conduct is going to make sense on the basis of any other premise.

Hey, this is what we Catholics say about the Roman Church, too! ;)  We even call the Pope "the Vicar of Christ."

Link to comment

I'm for it. 

John dehlin's org might have been much better served if he was open about what they were doing and how things had been going.  Apparently, he's been rather controlling and closed about most things except for finances.  And it looks like it might come back to bite his caboose.  Then again, maybe all these allegations are wrong.  So we'll see. 

The Church has been getting light shined on it.  That needs to continue.  There is so much to uncover, I think.  We'll all be better off in the end, though.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you saying that Jesus has his own planet? ;) 

 

I'm being reductive in my speaking at that point.  :):P

My entire understanding cannot be represented therein.  I was also building a bridge with brother Nobis.

However I think the party line is that Jesus created this entire place and is the presiding being? yes?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I'm for it. 

John dehlin's org might have been much better served if he was open about what they were doing and how things had been going.  Apparently, he's been rather controlling and closed about most things except for finances.  And it looks like it might come back to bite his caboose.  Then again, maybe all these allegations are wrong.  So we'll see. 

The Church has been getting light shined on it.  That needs to continue.  There is so much to uncover, I think.  We'll all be better off in the end, though.

A wee off topic, but from my way out-of-the-loop observer's perspective, he probably would have just been okay if he was congruent and practiced what he preached. What's looking bad to me is chronically critiquing one previous community while starting up a new one without really introspectively looking at one's own behaviors, how it's working, and whether or not you're paying lip-service to the causes you say you stand behind. What it leads to, if true, is hypocrisy 

I prefer self reflection first and bring oneself to light before looking outwards.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Are you saying that Jesus has his own planet? ;)

 

Not yet, but soon.

Right now it's Heavenly Father's planet and Christ's inheritance to be bestowed.
 

Link to comment
On 5/22/2017 at 4:09 PM, The Nehor said:

Worthiness to receive revelation? Yes. If God wants to tell you something that has not been generally revealed but you are a blabbermouth who will tell everyone God will not tell you.

Shining light onto everything sounds so good and pure. Until you realize that is how police states operate. The Apostles and local leadership discuss things in confidence and arrive at decisions. If we released transcripts they would have to be super careful to try to say nothing that would offend.

In church finances (I suspect this is what you are not very subtly hinting at) the Brethren are lead by revelation. They may have projects whose ends they do not yet see or that make no sense to the world. They may even seem wasteful or counterproductive. Why arm our enemies with weapons against us if we do not have to? I taught the gospel for two years full-time and have spent about a decade more with callings involved with missionary work. I have yet to hear one investigator ask for church financials. The largest group of people who seem to want them are our enemies who want to use our lack of disclosure as a weapon and/or think they would get new arguments against us if they were disclosed. I have also seen members want them but they are usually wavering and either want to placate our enemies or are looking for reasons to criticize themselves.

Hey, Nehor, the White House could use a good press secretary -- to explain why the Pres shouldn't release his tax returns.

Link to comment

So if a non-profit organization has a board who are all getting paid high salaries and the chairman of the board has full and final decision making power for the non-profit would that be cause to want the non-profit disclose their finances?

Link to comment
10 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

A wee off topic, but from my way out-of-the-loop observer's perspective, he probably would have just been okay if he was congruent and practiced what he preached. What's looking bad to me is chronically critiquing one previous community while starting up a new one without really introspectively looking at one's own behaviors, how it's working, and whether or not you're paying lip-service to the causes you say you stand behind. What it leads to, if true, is hypocrisy 

I prefer self reflection first and bring oneself to light before looking outwards.

 

With luv,

BD

Other than the hearsay being tossed around on the other thread, is there actual evidence that Dehlin has not been congruent and has not practiced what he preached?

Link to comment
31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Other than the hearsay being tossed around on the other thread, is there actual evidence that Dehlin has not been congruent and has not practiced what he preached?

Rockpond, notice that I said "if true" it would be hypocrisy. I'm aware allegations are not the same as  certifiable evidence. But multiple allegations from several sources and differing outlooks that have a similar thread, is concerning no matter the case. 

 

I will lay out my bias that I'm not a fan of Dehlin's, but I'm also too lazy and apathetic to be an avid critic of his. 

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
36 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

Rockpond, notice that I said "if true" it would be hypocrisy. I'm aware allegations are not the same as  certifiable evidence. But multiple allegations from several sources and differing outlooks that have a similar thread, is concerning no matter the case. 

 

I will lay out my bias that I'm not a fan of Dehlin's, but I'm also too lazy and apathetic to be an avid critic of his. 

 

With luv,

BD 

You wrote: "...he probably would have just been okay if he was congruent and practiced what he preached."

I acknowledge that at the end, you threw in an "if true" but it isn't abundantly clear how broadly you are applying that qualifier.  

I am concerned with how the allegations based on hearsay are being repeated so much that they are taking on a life of their own. 

So, I'll ask the question again, slightly modified:  Are you aware of any actual evidence that Dehlin has not been congruent and has not practiced what he preached?

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

You wrote: "...he probably would have just been okay if he was congruent and practiced what he preached."

I acknowledge that at the end, you threw in an "if true" but it isn't abundantly clear how broadly you are applying that qualifier.  

I am concerned with how the allegations based on hearsay are being repeated so much that they are taking on a life of their own. 

So, I'll ask the question again, slightly modified:  Are you aware of any actual evidence that Dehlin has not been congruent and has not practiced what he preached?

And I'll slightly modify and state the if applies to the whole paragraph. 

Personally I have a hard time watching his podcasts and always have. It's not the subject matter, it's him. He grates on me...and few people do. I went back and watched pieces of Margi's self interview/essay and felt for her even though certain things I couldn't relate fully to. I've listen to other people's stories who've left the church and also don't have a hard time listening to theirs. Because of that, I've only watched a handful of his interviews in the last several years. But I haven't had the curiosity to dig past the articles and things written that have already been referenced here. I found hope for things' article that he posted from a friend and past co-worker of dehlin's both helpful and balanced. I find other concerns...concerning. They're following a pattern, but are not concrete. Some of it would be difficult to prove and are notoriously based around hearsay in normal life (sexual harassment or being an ally more in self-serving terms or elitism)....but being well aware of minority concerns and assault/harassment developments, I know that far drastic problems can often go unproven for decades and still be very true. When I hear multiple similar reports on this, I generally get concerned. The financial one is the easiest to glean a paper trail, in the long run though.  

My guess is that the truth is probably complicated. But since this hit the fan only very recently, of course nothing is concrete. It just doesn't look good considering there are several complaints and critiques from varying sources stating similar things. 

I usually do give the benefit of the doubt and I'm waiting for the dust to settle to turn that if to something else. What I see is definitely concerning, would point to a hypocrisy in his end, and would also match a concern I've had on the back burner  in general with some of the post-mormons or struggling mormons that I've had the opportunity to talk to I depth that I can't share (it's not Dehlin specific). Some of his responses to these criticism also rings of confusing setting healthy boundaries with cut-off and soft-punishing behaviors for descent or public criticism. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment
4 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

And I'll slightly modify and state the if applies to the whole paragraph. 

Personally I have a hard time watching his podcasts and always have. It's not the subject matter, it's him. He grates on me...and few people do. I went back and watched pieces of Margi's self interview/essay and felt for her even though certain things I couldn't relate fully to. I've listen to other people's stories who've left the church and also don't have a hard time listening to theirs. Because of that, I've only watched a handful of his interviews in the last several years. But I haven't had the curiosity to dig past the articles and things written that have already been referenced here. I found hope for things' article that he posted from a friend and past co-worker of dehlin's both helpful and balanced. I find other concerns...concerning. They're following a pattern, but are not concrete. Some of it would be difficult to prove and are notoriously based around hearsay in normal life (sexual harassment or being an ally more in self-serving terms or elitism)....but being well aware of minority concerns and assault/harassment developments, I know that far drastic problems can often go unproven for decades and still be very true. When I hear multiple similar reports on this, I generally get concerned. The financial one is the easiest to glean a paper trail, in the long run though.  

My guess is that the truth is probably complicated. But since this hit the fan only very recently, of course nothing is concrete. It just doesn't look good considering there are several complaints and critiques from varying sources stating similar things. 

I usually do give the benefit of the doubt and I'm waiting for the dust to settle to turn that if to something else. What I see is definitely concerning, would point to a hypocrisy in his end, and would also match a concern I've seen in therapy in general with some of my post-mormons or struggling mormons that confidentiality means I can't share (it's not Dehlin specifc). Some of his reaponses to these criticism also rings of confusing setting healthy boundaries with cut-off and soft-punishing behaviors for descent or public criticism. 

 

With luv,

BD

Okay.  I understand you find all the allegations concerning.   I do as well.  Are you aware of any actual evidence that Dehlin has not been congruent and has not practiced what he preached?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  I understand you find all the allegations concerning.   I do as well.  Are you aware of any actual evidence that Dehlin has not been congruent and has not practiced what he preached?

Rockpond, you've literally asked me the exact same question 3 different times. I'm going to exit out of this specific discussion if you don't mind. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, BlueDreams said:

Rockpond, you've literally asked me the exact same question 3 different times. I'm going to exit out of this specific discussion if you don't mind. 

And you've avoided answering it three times but you continue to take the opportunity to reinforce the accusations that are largely based on hearsay.  

I wonder why you are unwilling to answer the question?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

And you've avoided answering it three times but you continue to take the opportunity to reinforce the accusations that are largely based on hearsay.  

I wonder why you are unwilling to answer the question?

I find it trapping and leading. And I answered it to the best of my current ability with my current concerns.  That's why. Need yoga now. Peace. 

Edited by BlueDreams
Link to comment

 

13 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I find it trapping and leading. And I answered it to the best of my current ability with my current concerns.  That's why. Need yoga now. Peace. 

How about this:  Is it at all concerning that we've got pages and pages of LDS posters here repeating and rehashing hearsay and allegations about a man, rewriting and reinforcing them until they take on a life of their own, all without any real evidence?

It's a concern for me. 

Namaste. 

Link to comment
21 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

How about this:  Is it at all concerning that we've got pages and pages of LDS posters here repeating and rehashing hearsay and allegations about a man, rewriting and reinforcing them until they take on a life of their own, all without any real evidence?

It's a concern for me. 

Namaste. 

Sorry If the previous post is snappy. I'm battling a pre-migraine. Yoga helped cleared tension but doubled up my nausea and dizziness . I really  don't want to continue.

 

with luv 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

Sorry If the previous post is snappy. I'm battling a pre-migraine. Yoga helped cleared tension but doubled up my nausea and dizziness . I really  don't want to continue.

 

with luv 

I'll help.  Yes, it is concerning.

 

Link to comment
On Tuesday, May 23, 2017 at 0:09 AM, The Nehor said:

Worthiness to receive revelation? Yes. If God wants to tell you something that has not been generally revealed but you are a blabbermouth who will tell everyone God will not tell you.

Shining light onto everything sounds so good and pure. Until you realize that is how police states operate. The Apostles and local leadership discuss things in confidence and arrive at decisions. If we released transcripts they would have to be super careful to try to say nothing that would offend.

In church finances (I suspect this is what you are not very subtly hinting at) the Brethren are lead by revelation. They may have projects whose ends they do not yet see or that make no sense to the world. They may even seem wasteful or counterproductive. Why arm our enemies with weapons against us if we do not have to? I taught the gospel for two years full-time and have spent about a decade more with callings involved with missionary work. I have yet to hear one investigator ask for church financials. The largest group of people who seem to want them are our enemies who want to use our lack of disclosure as a weapon and/or think they would get new arguments against us if they were disclosed. I have also seen members want them but they are usually wavering and either want to placate our enemies or are looking for reasons to criticize themselves.

What do you mean by people blabbing?  What kind of blabbings are disqualifying the Brethren's ability to transmit more revelation to the membership and the world?

Of course, members are less likely to want financials because of the nature of the institution.  As is demonstrated already in this thread, there is an attitude that "God's church" does not need to be subject to such scrutiny.  Rather than point fingers at church critics, be advised that, today in the LDS Church, transparency in church financials are systemically hindered, in both attitude and practice.  There are top-down checks and balances, but not in the other direction.

If the members, Nehor, can be subjected to checks so that the leadership can be assured of the faithfulness of the individual members, be it with finances or policy or declarations of doctrine or personal worthiness or whatever other reasons the leaders scrutinize members, it should easily follow that the LDS leadership be subjected to light and scrutiny by the membership so the membership can be assured of the leaders' faithfulness.  But, as we know, that is not how the LDS Church works. 

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment

I think that light and disclosure must exist in all areas of mutual organisation, especially in a church which seeks to glorify truth.  In an organisation by God, I believe I would see members sit in council about church practices and policy, such councils being either open to the membership's audience, perhaps even participation.

I don't see the possibility of God setting total authority of his church in one mortal or even a small group of mortals.  In such a case of extreme power, such individuals would rightly be subject to extreme scrutiny. But, alas, even as in practice TCJCLDS more and more resembles such a group claiming such extreme authority, they very clearly separate their workings from extreme scrutiny.

Why not air the councils of the Twelve to the membership? Why not model to the church how Christ's apostles bridge disagreement and work for consensus?

 

Edited by Meadowchik
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...