Jump to content

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, changed said:

Why not?  We put signs on food indicating what ingredients are in it, put signs on buildings saying what they do and who they serve, if someone is not going to serve ___ fill in the blank, just put up a sign, and everyone can either stay off that bit of private property, or walk onto it as they see fit.

 

So just to be clear - you would find signs stating "No Blacks Allowed" or "No Gays Allowed" to be acceptable?

I have a major problem with that type of behavior and/or approach. If you are open for business and selling things then I think all should be able to buy from your store/restaurant/business.  Now, if you I am selling additional services that demand my creative ability and is an expression of my personal ability then I can understand picking and choosing for whom I would work. 

Your position surprises me. I don't think I have ever met anyone who supported such. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, changed said:

Why do you think people hang on to anger? 

I think it has to do with justice.  If someone actually repents, and is able to restore what was broken - then it is no big deal, and no anger to hold onto.  If someone does not repent, does not do anything to compensate the victim, never even says "I'm sorry" - no justice - that is when things get hard to let go of....

If judgement is just, if there is a cause - we are entitled to our anger.  To not be angry, would be disrespectful to the victims involved... only I do not like being angry.

I think anger can be a result of fear, self protection and not necessarily a desire for justice.  And I have known cases where they have received justice, there is repentance and restitution and yet the anger stays and may even grow.  This may be due to a distrust of the repentance process so the fear of repeated harm remains or an inflated view of what justice should be.

And just because someone intellectually accepts justice has been done, etc. doesn't mean they emotionally, gut level accept it.

Anger in the sense of emotion as opposed to righteous indignation is not required for justice or respect, imo, if there are other reasons one is pushing for victims to be protected and to receive justice, including sorrow and as I said, righteous indignation.  Anger often leads to a loss of control and acting unreasonably, which can interfere with getting justice and protection, so I definitely don't see it as essential to respecting victims and instead, I think it may be detrimental if very strong.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

So just to be clear - you would find signs stating "No Blacks Allowed" or "No Gays Allowed" to be acceptable?

I have a major problem with that type of behavior and/or approach. If you are open for business and selling things then I think all should be able to buy from your store/restaurant/business.  Now, if you I am selling additional services that demand my creative ability and is an expression of my personal ability then I can understand picking and choosing for whom I would work. 

Your position surprises me. I don't think I have ever met anyone who supported such. 

 

Let them display their signs, and let the consequences follow.  I would not support an establishment that refused to serve xyz, but it is a free country.  Just don't trick someone through your door under the false pretense of service, and then make a scene of kicking them out.  Signs are better than false hope.  

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Calm said:

... the fear of repeated harm remains ...

 

This thing has sucked me into reading the stories of others... there are many places that say 20% of the population is now... it is not at just a few people, it has turned into paranoia/anxiety/distrust of everyone, and anger at G-d - that there are so many victims... I can't talk myself into thinking this "refines" or has any good in it at all.  I want to go back to being a happy (naive?) person, and I cannot go back.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, changed said:

Let them display their signs, and let the consequences follow.  I would not support an establishment that refused to serve xyz, but it is a free country.  Just don't trick someone through your door under the false pretense of service, and then make a scene of kicking them out.  Signs are better than false hope.  

So you are okay with the consequence of the one black family (or gay couple or Mormon couple or Catholic couple or Asian couple or atheist couple or Jewish couple) in a racist/bigoted town having to drive 40 miles down the road to buy groceries because the local grocer is a bigot and supported by the rest of the town?

That is kind of morally abhorrent and yeah, you are trying to walk back the Civil Rights movement at that point. How about a sign that says blacks can ride the bus but only in the colored seats? If the sign is there is it okay?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, changed said:

 

LDS believe in works, not just grace and faith... you don't just sleep all day and put it all in G-d's hands... we all have to work, and take care of issues our self.

Holding on to anger:

  • Helps victims to feel loved and cared for.  (Tell that kid - you were hurt?  so what - smile - everything is fine?... or would it be better for that kid to see you get angry because you love them and you want to protect them.)
  • can change culture, bring awareness to issues, can change policies.
  • anger is a form of communication - hide and isolate, or connect with others.

I would word it as we believe in both grace and works. The way you word it implies to me that works is much more important, which I would not agree to.

And I never said we do nothing. I specifically stated there are things we can do do (and I add now that we should do), but are not able to do everything necessary to make things just. 

Anger does not help people feel loved. Anger may help someone initially feel you are on their side, but what I have experienced is that more than a little anger takes away from me - meaning when someone becomes angry for me it becomes about them and not about me and not about their empathy for me. Their anger distances their empathy for me.

Anger definitely changes things. No doubt about that. That doesn't mean it changes things for the better. A dog once bit my husband and it put my husband in quite a bit of pain. Now I could have been so angry that I stirred everyone to ban dogs in the neighborhood. Anger would have changed things, but not for the better. Better, if needed, I could have used my feelings and brain to educate and help people with how to not let a dog loose in the neighborhood by itself. Much more effective. Anger by itself does more harm. Passion needs to be teamed with reason. So if we are using anger to motivate us we need to make sure we don't let it control us - something very difficult for most to do. 

Edited by Rain
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So you are okay with the consequence of the one black family (or gay couple or Mormon couple or Catholic couple or Asian couple or atheist couple or Jewish couple) in a racist/bigoted town having to drive 40 miles down the road to buy groceries because the local grocer is a bigot and supported by the rest of the town?

That is kind of morally abhorrent and yeah, you are trying to walk back the Civil Rights movement at that point. How about a sign that says blacks can ride the bus but only in the colored seats? If the sign is there is it okay?

 

Public vs. privately owned - public owned facilities (schools, bus, street, parks etc.) need to be inclusive of all.  Private (strip clubs, bars, to day-care etc.) should accurately reveal their services, and who their clientele should be.  I guess I am a bit of a libertarian.  I do think natural consequences are effective, especially in this information age.  

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, changed said:

 

Public vs. privately owned - public owned facilities (schools, bus, street, parks etc.) need to be inclusive of all.  Private (strip clubs, bars, to day-care etc.) should accurately reveal their services, and who their clientele should be.  I guess I am a bit of a libertarian.  I do think natural consequences are effective, especially in this information age.  

They were not in the Jim Crow South or early Mormon Missouri and Illinois or 1930s Germany or the present-day West Bank or.....and I could go on. The idea that economics will fix discrimination is very naive. People are tribal. The United States is a grand experiment in overcoming that provincial tribalism. We have screwed up a lot along the way and have only slowly expanded the definition of what it means to be American and we are currently fighting/regressing into reactionary tribalism right now. Hopefully the experiment will survive. Allowing people to experiment with economic discrimination will at best do NOTHING good and could cause IRREPARABLE AND CATASTROPHIC HARM.

Libertarianism be damned if it wants to allow people to indulge their darker impulses at the expense of others.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

They were not in the Jim Crow South or early Mormon Missouri and Illinois or 1930s Germany or the present-day West Bank or.....and I could go on. The idea that economics will fix discrimination is very naive. People are tribal. The United States is a grand experiment in overcoming that provincial tribalism. We have screwed up a lot along the way and have only slowly expanded the definition of what it means to be American and we are currently fighting/regressing into reactionary tribalism right now. Hopefully the experiment will survive. Allowing people to experiment with economic discrimination will at best do NOTHING good and could cause IRREPARABLE AND CATASTROPHIC HARM.

Libertarianism be damned if it wants to allow people to indulge their darker impulses at the expense of others.

 

OK - LGBT weddings in the temples it is then :)

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, changed said:

 

OK - LGBT weddings in the temples it is then :)

I am not seeing how that qualifies as economic discrimination. Help me out here.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I used to think that people who isolated themselves from society in monasteries etc. and took vows of poverty and silence were a bit crazy . The longer I live and observe human interactions in groups , the more I can sympathize with the idea of a quiet life away from the madding crowd.

I wonder if the Brethren would consider starting groups , we could call them brotherhoods and sisterhoods, that would create communities in some high valley in the Uintas ...

They could be in the world but not of the world in a more literal sense.

Edited by strappinglad
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, changed said:

Why do you think people hang on to anger? 

I think it has to do with justice.  If someone actually repents, and is able to restore what was broken - then it is no big deal, and no anger to hold onto.  If someone does not repent, does not do anything to compensate the victim, never even says "I'm sorry" - no justice - that is when things get hard to let go of.  

If someone has offended you, and you cannot be happy again until they say "I'm sorry", and repent to your satisfaction, and compensate you to your satisfaction, then you have made yourself a slave to their choices.  If they never meet your expectations then how can you ever be happy?  You would have to first change your mind about what is of value to you. 

10 hours ago, changed said:

If judgement is just, if there is a cause - we are entitled to our anger. 

You are also entitled to be happy, but you cannot be angry and happy at the same time.  You cannot serve two masters.   

9 hours ago, changed said:

Holding on to anger:

  • Helps victims to feel loved and cared for.  (Tell that kid - you were hurt?  so what - smile - everything is fine?... or would it be better for that kid to see you get angry because you love them and you want to protect them.)
  • can change culture, bring awareness to issues, can change policies.
  • anger is a form of communication - hide and isolate, or connect with others.

It is not necessary to be angry in order to love someone and care for someone.

It is not necessary to be angry in order to change culture, bring awareness to issues, and help to change policies.

It is not necessary to be angry in order to connect with others. 

It sounds like you treasure your grievances very highly.   So... how has that worked out for you?  Has it made you happy? 

10 hours ago, changed said:

I do not like being angry.

Well there you go!   You've already figured it out!   Why then put all this energy into justifying and defending something that you already know does not make you happy?  

If you had to choose between your grievances and anger on the one hand, and peace and happiness on the other, which would you choose?  (For right now, nevermind about "how"; just assume there is a "how" that is do-able.)  If you cannot have both, which would you prefer? 

 

Edited by Eek!
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, changed said:

 

I'm stuck right now with feelings of bitterness and anger - over something real that is impossible to resolve - over this evil high priest who wronged so many innocents and I cannot let go of the bitterness, of resentment to the organization who called him to leadership positions, that appears to support abusers more than victims - I am just filled with anger and I don't know what healthy thing there is to do.

For those times when we missed it, or didn't do the right thing, the Apostle paul said to the Galations in chapter 6:7 "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, changed said:

To not be angry, would be disrespectful to the victims involved...

At the risk of oversimplifying:

Let's say a person is the victim of a terrible act, and feels violated and outraged, frustrated and helpless because what happened can never be un-done.  The person tells their story to a friend and the friend is outraged along with them.  This reinforces the person's feelings of anger and helplessness.  The friend's sympathetic anger makes the person feel a little better for a little while. 

Then the next day, those same awful feelings of anger and helplessness return.

So the person seeks out another friend and tells their story.  This friend is likewise outraged along with them.  Again the person's feelings of anger and helplessness are reinforced.  And again their friend's sympathetic anger makes them feel a little better for a little while.

And the next day, those same awful feelings of anger and helplessness return. 

This can go on for a lifetime.  Having other people join in your anger and outrage does not resolve anything.  It is a temporary "high" at best, as it reinforces the negative thought patterns that are hijacking your life.   

If the person believes they are helpless and have no choice in the matter, there may not be enough years in a lifetime for the pain to fade until it's just a dull ache. 

But what if the person is not actually helpless, but does have the power to choose, they just were unaware of it?  Wouldn't that be good news?

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I used to think that people who isolated themselves from society in monasteries etc. and took vows of poverty and silence were a bit crazy . The longer I live and observe human interactions in groups , the more I can sympathize with the idea of a quiet life away from the madding crowd.

I wonder if the Brethren would consider starting groups , we could call them brotherhoods and sisterhoods, that would create communities in some high valley in the Uintas ...

They could be in the world but not of the world in a more literal sense.

Though I think this was said in jest, I can understand how many humans would feel driven to seek out such a haven of peace. This does differ from those Religious that felt called to a life of study and prayer away from the world.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I used to think that people who isolated themselves from society in monasteries etc. and took vows of poverty and silence were a bit crazy . The longer I live and observe human interactions in groups , the more I can sympathize with the idea of a quiet life away from the madding crowd.

I wonder if the Brethren would consider starting groups , we could call them brotherhoods and sisterhoods, that would create communities in some high valley in the Uintas ...

They could be in the world but not of the world in a more literal sense.

We tried that. It did not work.

When it is time to try again I am sure they will let us know.

Share this post


Link to post
20 hours ago, changed said:

After finding out what was wrong, did she find a solution to it?  Was there an actual problem that needed to be dealt with?

 

Yes, she did and she enumerated those in her testimony. Do you need a complete transcript? I don’t understand why you want to diminish her goodness.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, strappinglad said:

I used to think that people who isolated themselves from society in monasteries etc. and took vows of poverty and silence were a bit crazy . The longer I live and observe human interactions in groups , the more I can sympathize with the idea of a quiet life away from the madding crowd.

I wonder if the Brethren would consider starting groups , we could call them brotherhoods and sisterhoods, that would create communities in some high valley in the Uintas ...

They could be in the world but not of the world in a more literal sense.

Sounds good to me. Worked for the Anti-Nephi-Lehis.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Eek! said:

But what if the person is not actually helpless, but does have the power to choose, they just were unaware of it?  Wouldn't that be good news?

Yes.  The ideal would be to forgive seventy times seven, and eventually forgive everyone.  Some people have a gift of not taking offense.  But many of us struggle to forgive and forget, and forgive ourselves when we know we've been the one who's done wrong.  I think it's part of being human.  

Joseph Smith said "“I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women—all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty, who will give me dominion over all and every one of them, when their refuge of lies shall fail, and their hiding place shall be destroyed, while these smooth-polished stones with which I come in contact become marred."

Dealing with offenses must be an important issue for us to resolve.  While I agree with Eek!'s comment, the issue is complicated.  We also have the assignment to learn how to mourn with those who mourn and suffer, sometimes due to offenses.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×