All Activity

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness. This works.

The debt of using them to fulfill my own purpose and happiness.

Yep. Would you trust someone who insisted you agreed to pay them for a product you didn’t like or even hated when you don’t remember agreeing to buy it.

That's another interesting thought. What debt do you owe them? I don't know the name of my debt but I pay it by helping them achieve happiness. Secondarily, I strive to encourage my kids to help others achieve happiness (which enriches their world).

This is an interesting thought. Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation? How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?" Even when I was active, I found this an extraordinarily insufficient reasoning. It seems like a super thin justification for imposing life impacting obligations on my kids - particularly obligations that all flow to me. There isn't anything in my experience that supports the notion (that my kids owe me because of the premortal existence).

To you. Well, yes. We are all here sharing our opinions. I think I made it pretty clear: As Latter-day Saints, I think we must speak on behalf of the Restored Gospel. That may sometimes include saying something unpopular. I think there is sort of a trend amongst some members of the Church in which they conflate the not condemning the sinner with championing sin or championing behavior that doesn't lead to, or is incompatible with, a covenant relationship with the Savior. I think there is a lot of good will and goon intentions in there. We want to be kind and warm and welcoming, and that is all well and good. But I also think there is some measure of fear. We don't want to say things that go against popular sociopolitical worldviews. And we really don't want to be the subject of character assassination simply for speaking reasoned, but unpopular, thoughts. I wasn't presenting my opinion as fact, just as my opinion. I think what Charlie Bird is doing is profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel, both as to his marriage and as to his "Egg Donor" pageant. I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent. I think since Nehor and SeekingUnderstanding are in this thread, the "Bigot!" accusations are a matter of when, not if. That they go draw water from the ad hominem well so immediately and so often is, to me, an indication of some things. The ad hominem stuff in this thread is, in my view, an effort to squelch viewpoints. Toe the line or shut up. I don't think that's a healthy state of affairs. We ought to be able to express an interested viewpoint on a topic, or else be indifferent to it. We ought to be able to have a discussion about the topic without being diverted by ad hominems. I think it matters a bit. Charlie Bird is trying to influence people to a particular set of principles relating to the Restored Gospel. I find some of the more important principles he is presenting are profoundly incongruent with the Restored Gospel. He is trying to influence people, and that matters. Others ought to be able to attempt to persuade and influence people away from the problematic things Charlie is advancing. True words. I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them. You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct. Charlie and everyone else can do the same. Charlie seems to be advocating for, and seeking from others condoning treatment of, violations of the Church's teachings relative to marriage and the Law of Chastity. On these points I feel we must choose to listen to the cumulative counsel of the leaders of the Church (such as Elder Holland), or we can choose to listen to Charlie Bird. It's one or the other. Charlie has set himself up as a voice alternative and superior to that of the Brethren, and is, I think, implicitly asking other Latter-day Saints to listen to him more than to the Lord's anointed, at least in regards to marriage and the Law of Chastity. I think we should listen to the Brethren, and to set aside, and not endorse or condone or advocate for, the problematic things for which Charlie is seeking - and is getting - notoriety and influence. Thanks, -Smac

To be clear, your sentiment is especially honorable. To address the OT sentiment, shouldn't there be a corresponding commandment - or at least shouldn't this one include the two-way obligation? I personally suspect that OT adults more comfortable (than I am) with seeing their children as material.

I wonder why they chose “Remnant”. It has for me an unfortunate connotation of some of the apostate groups. Great name otherwise.

I've thought about this. But that part of the Gospel is tied to the non-existence of any memory of those events. The notion of holding one accountable to an agreement made in an existence that no one has 1st hand knowledge of - this seems problematic at best. Binding my own children to it doesn't feel at all like good parenting to me. Personally, it feels like leverage and exploitation.

If it’s the noodles she doesn’t like, a good sauce is great on baked or roasted potatoes or rice.

I prefer using tomato paste with water rather than sauce. It’s more intense flavour with a nice sweetness. Canned tomato sauce is typically pretty bland.

In my household, spaghetti is not well appreciated, but I love it. Too much. I finally found a recipe for the sauce that I really like. Here it is: GARRETT’S MEAT SPAGHETTI SAUCE Author: by Sue Garrett Ingredients • 1 lb. lean ground beef • 1 onion, chopped • 1 bell pepper, chopped • 1 TBS. minced garlic • 1 TBS. Italian Seasoning • 1 tsp. basil • 1/2 tsp. oregano • 1/2 tsp. Montreal Steak Seasoning • 1/2 tsp. parsley • 1 (16 oz.) can of tomato sauce • 2 (14.5 oz.) cans of diced tomatoes • Salt & Pepper to taste Instructions 1. Cook ground beef, onions, and bell pepper together until done. Drain if needed. 2. Add the remainder of the ingredients and bring to a boil. 3. Turn the stove down and simmer for at least 30 minutes. (I kept mine going for almost 2 hours.) 4. Serve over cooked spaghetti noodles. Here in England I can't find "tomato sauce" in the same form found in US grocery stores. Imports from Italy are available, which I haven't tried yet. So instead of the can of tomato sauce I just added another can of diced tomatoes. It worked out well. Since I like my spaghetti sauce with a little more "bite," I added a 1/4 teaspoon of cayenne. The wife liked the sauce! Which was a plus, since she's no big fan of spaghetti. For myself, I topped off my portion of pasta+sauce with Cholula hot sauce.

To you. That's an important part of the equation that I think probably needs to be said more. Not about your opinions specifically but about all of our opinions. Feeling strongly about something, and having arguments that show it's reasonable and which back us up, doesn't make opinions canon. You feel a certain way about their choices. 100% valid. Also 100% not fact. I don't think anyone is saying that you should be indifferent. I just think that it's good to remember that no one else should care about our indifference regarding their choices. You can think he's very much in the wrong and he equally can know that what you think (or what I think) doesn't matter. True words. I would guess that Charlie Bird also agrees with them. You can definitely advocate for whatever interpretation of the gospel that you believe is most correct. Charlie and everyone else can do the same.

Exactly. We are told this, we don’t typically know it automatically. It is part of our cultural programming. It may be an intellectual belief, but it may not be emotionally accepted and therefore not be much of a or even any part of a child’s motivation through their life. It therefore may not have much effect on a child except to induce guilt, because they are told they should feel grateful but they don’t, or makes them feel manipulated. Even if it is true, it doesn’t mean the child consented to the way a parent chose to have them or bring them up. Their existence is still forced in that sense.

I gravitate towards a mixture of these two perspectives. I do think that children have some obligation to their parents, and I think that parents obviously have obligations to their children. I think the way those obligations play out (and what they are) change greatly throughout life. From my perspective, I feel like the commandment to honor thy father and mother is a reminder that the relationship is meant to go both ways.

I appreciate the support though. While human water diversion is responsible for the vast majority, roughly 60% to 80%, of the lake's historical decline.

You've been doing keto? Have the results been what you expected?

This is an interesting thought. Aren't we told that we chose to come to this earth and have a mortal probation? How then is any of us "forced {} into existence?" In the Latter-day Saint paradigm, our spirits preexisted prior to coming to this earth. That's another interesting thought. What debt do you owe them? I can discern the "state of servitude." "And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God" (Mosiah 2:17). This is particularly so relative to our family members. I agree as to the importance of consent, as it is an expression of the gift of agency. I am happy for you. Thanks, -Smac

Certainly tongue in cheek. Still quite unseemly and troubling. If he were not presenting himself as an active Latter-day Saint, I would be broadly indifferent. But he is, so I'm not. From Elder Holland: I'll leave divine judgment to God, but I think Latter-day Saints need to be on guard against the sorts of things Charlie Bird is trying to present as compatible and in alignment with the Restored Gospel. Thanks, -Smac

That more or less was my thesis. I was presenting some generalized observations and looking for feedback. Yes, maybe later. I also addressed this point: The child is the one party who never consented and is treated as the object of a deal. I also noted that I agreed with most of the others. Again, the purpose of the post was to open a discussion. Again, I would prefer to discuss the topic. Ad hominem impedes discussion. I didn't bring up Charlie Bird, but his association with surrogacy brought into sharp relief a number of the issues associated with surrogacy, the most obvious being the commoditization of women. Thanks, -Smac

Perhaps it is because this comes up at the same time as another thread talking about race, but the first thing that stood out to me was Br. Perkins "confidence" in what he is teaching here. Br. Perkins seems pretty confident that the ban wasn't based in divine inspiration (like many others), which I find an interesting contrast with what @smac97 said in the other thread that the church prefers a kind of we really don't know one way or the other. Considering this is FAIR (10 years ago), I find it Br. Perkins also contrasts with the late Sarah Allen's FAIR response to the CES letter where she tends to insist that we don't know and maybe can't know if the ban was divinely inspired. In keeping with the B. H. Roberts Foundation data that church membership is roughly evenly divided over the three stances, I can contrast Perkins and Allen with Bruce Porter's (semi-retired CES) youtube channel where he insists that race is real and that it traces back to Old Testament figures. Perhaps part of what makes this observation so interesting is that Perkins makes it seem like his conclusions that race isn't real and that scripture never teaches anything about race are clear and obvious to those who have a correct understanding of scripture. When he gets asked how 19th and 20th century LDS (leaders and members) seemed unable to understand these scriptures correctly, he attributes it to the near universal beliefs about racism in the broader culture, implying that, when such beliefs are ubiquitous, we can't expect even prophets to see past the cultural blindspots. I think the main conclusion I draw is that there is still room in the church for people who believe all kinds of different things race and the priesthood and temple ban. I'm inclined to agree with Br. Perkins, but there are plenty of others who seem to believe differently, and we're all members in good standing. That kind of diversity of belief seems to be the most interesting observation when discussing this issue.

I wasn't saying it was you or Pyreaux. I think you misread the exchange.

This makes much more sense to me than the more typical attitude I see expressed directly or indirectly that a child owes everything to their parents for the favour they did of giving them life and are in eternal debt to them. I get that aligns more with our doctrine in the sense that we need to come to earth to get bodies, but our brains typically don’t have a sense of the preexistence, so why should we expect our children to emotionally feel that obligation. And if life isn’t that great for them, why should they automatically be grateful for the experience. Maybe some day their experiences will lead to an appreciation, but expecting it of them is somewhat arrogant imo. I think it’s more natural to feel forced into life and if our culture wasn’t pushing the idea kids owe parents everything or kids are essentially possessions for parents to play with how they want or to fulfill their own ambitions with, I think our relationships between parent and children would be healthier. I think being realistic means even if as children, they are fully dependent on adults, it doesn’t mean they know they chose the conditions (maybe they did, maybe they didn’t) while adults chose to act in most cases to bring them into existence and therefore the adult needs to get over the inconvenience that it creates in their life….though the parent still needs to make choices for their own self care that allow the parent to maximize their care of their children until the child can truly start making choices for themselves and support themselves. This also should mean the parent should dump any idea of living through their children in any way besides being grateful and happy for them if the child has a life they are fulfilled by rather than mapping out the child’s existence from birth to death for them.

Virtue signaling is the act of publicly expressing opinions or supporting social causes primarily to show off your good character or moral correctness, rather than out of genuine conviction. Neither myself or @Pyreaux are doing this.

I struggle with this. No child consents to anything, not to being born, not to being adopted, (in younger years) not to which parent gets custody, and so on. I have reconciled this in a way that seems to be driving the extraordinarily good relationship I have with (all 5 of) my sons. It is my choices that forced them into existence. They owe me nothing because non-existent beings are incapable of consenting to anything. I had all the power of consent and due to this extremely one-sided arrangement, I remain in their debt for the rest of my life. I reside in a permanent state of servitude to them. These are the defaults, our starting points. Respecting their consent builds abiding trust at a deep level. Consent is key to salvation, ethics, ability and love. It hangs out in the very best circles. The weight I place on consent flows from Church's teaching about Satan's premortal plan for us - which was based on a lack of consent and the resulting dearth of worthwhile redemption. Associating those two conditions with evil has changed my relationships with others, in ways that can be indescribably positive. Consent may outweigh even kindness in achieving our most valuable and fulfilling humanity. Plugging my parenting into all that has been ceaselessly good.