mtomm

It is not just a general love as defined in the dictionary that we are commanded to have. Christians are supposed to love as Christ loves. It's not very comforting to think that Christ hates me but really he "loves" me.

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another” (John 13:34)

So how does Christ love?

I know an assistant recorder called to serve as a calling assisting the full-time paid recorder. I believe it required about 20 hours a week. Full size temple.

40 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I knew too, and it was like a large wedge put in between my sister and her husband when I let it fly about Tim Ballard being investigated by Troy Rawlings whom we know. Our relationship hasn't been the same since. I read Tim's FB profile of his posts and several hearts were given which were from my sister and other people I know as near as last August. I'm sure this news isn't sitting well, but I haven't spoken to my sister for a while. It's like a cult following, my own son and another sibling a brother, is in the cult as well. I'm so devastated.

I am so sorry. It is a very sad situation. 

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree if Beck is telling the truth.  Beck is a storyteller.  I don’t know if he tells stories in private, but my guess is he does.

And I assume apostles have learned the art of saying “no”.  If the phone was actually called and answered, Elder Andersen probably thought it was a good idea to pick it up for some reason.

Elder Andersen may have gotten to know Beck back when he was a new member and less extreme.  Beck had an unusual story and he was making the rounds for a bit iirc as a new convert, as new converts with unusual and noteworthy stories sometimes do.  It would not surprise me if close connections were made then.  Beck could turn on a softer side of him (haven’t seen it for sometime, but I usually avoid him because I like my drama in fictional settings) and maybe he is more that way in his personal relationships.

It would also not surprise me if they met at a church event and it was seen as mutually beneficial.  Beck is or was influential in and out of the Church with a significant percentage imo.  In 2010, he was in Time’s list of top 100 leaders according to wiki.  

Elder Andersen may not be someone who ignores old friends or acquaintances just because they have gone off the deep end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-bxJOrSAgA

 

Or they do have a close relationship which we have more evidence than your theory, since we've seen pics  with Elder Ballard and Tim Ballard and AG Reyes. 

The only reason some have a problem with this relationship now is because Tim is a POS. But others have always seen these types of relationships with Church leaders as a problem. 

See: Lynn Packer

The fact that I, a lowly nobody with no special knowledge or need to know, knew at least 2 years ago that TB and OUR were up to no good should set off some alarm bells somewhere. 

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Beck may have latched on to him and Elder Andersen is too kind to dump him…Beck seems to have the ….guts to do something like that.  Elder Andersen may compartmentalize the religious side of Beck from the political.  I went to a faculty dinner with Beck as the speaker at UVU and he gave a speech I would have little problems with if I had never heard of him, iirc.  It was pro education for most of it.  I could have been acquaintances with that side of Beck while no thanks to the political/history interpreting etc side of him.  Beck reminded me in that moment of one of my relatives.  Avoid politics and he is fun to be around.  He is active in a number of good works without political agendas and I can support him fully in those.

I couldn’t compartmentalize Beck these days though, not for a long time.

I can't imagine anyone having the number of an apostle without them expressly wanting you to have it.

How come  Glenn  hasn't been told to contact his local leaders for guidance like would happen to all us other members?

I also know that when someone doesn't really want to talk to you they'll let the call go to voicemail. Pretty soon you get the hint. Elder Anderson isn't being bothered by Glenn Beck unless he is choosing to be. 

Pretty soon we should be hearing about AG Reyes doing some stuff. 

And then this will be political and church mushed together more than it already is. 

Sigh. 

On 11/30/2022 at 5:08 PM, The Nehor said:

I have wanted to kill some of their employees. I am looking at you Facilities Management. You worthless wastes of tithing funds.

Ouch. I just left 20+ years of employment for the Church in facilities management. I left because they changed the department 3 years ago to something very awful. I hope that your experience was with this latest iteration and not what I thought was a better customer oriented program years ago. 

On 11/28/2022 at 4:20 PM, Amulek said:

I'm doubtful the church has a team dedicated to actively monitoring the social media postings of CES employees. There's just too many people and too much information to sift through. More likely, they simply have some sort of process in place to review situations whenever they are reported to the university - same as what happens at other schools whenever students, co-workers, or others find that an employee has said something that is considered to be objectionable.

And for what it's worth, I don't personally consider it "Big Brotherish" for an employer to review the public comments of their employees. Nothing you say on the internet is private. If you don't want your spouse, neighbor, employer, local police department, etc. to know what you really think about them, then don't say it in a public forum.

Maybe it's time for my trademark advice whenever this topic comes up: NEVER put ANYTHING on the Internet that you are not okay with EVERYBODY seeing FOREVER.

Good advice that. Maybe I should consider putting it in my sig. (I've been meaning to put something in there eventually, so I can be like the cool kids.)

 

They don't have to have a committee to monitor what they say online because as you indicate, the members do that for them. Referred to as the MoPo. Just like students are encouraged to speak out to the honor code office or bishops about their roommates and friends others will also do it to strangers, acquaintances and friends online.  They will call the BYUs or the COB to report on someone's online activity. 

21 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why don’t they donate the prints?  Or at the very least sell them for cheap??

I have no idea.  I know that in one temple the FM Group did manage to get a few of the paintings to use in some chapels but it was done on the down low. And I believe it was only prints that you would normally find in a meetinghouse anyway. 

10 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Heh.   On behalf of the FM group, may I convey my deepest disappointment that anyone could conceive of a power above them.  From their perspective, the only time something like this happens, is when some uncorrelated random yahoo takes it into his head to make promises he oughtn't.  Shame on whatever Stake President or General Authority screwed things up with his unauthorized agreement, that is now getting the church sued. 

As an FM Group employee I confirm you have the thinking just about right. 
But I will say the quality of FM Groups varies greatly across the church. 
FM Groups have only been in existence since the early '90s.  Depending on the timeline of the events it is very likely an FM Group was not involved at all. 

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

Is the FM group in charge of art in buildings?  I don’t have much faith in FM groups in general. 

Yes, but with something like those type of paintings it would have been handled way above the FM Group. 
 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Exactly.  Hence the letter addressed to the judge, rather than the victims.  

The victims are probably suing him personally.  And his first attorney probably made that happen because he was not a good attorney. 

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Figured it would be a weak slap on the wrist.

He hasn't been sentenced yet. Have to see what the judge decides. 

If the Church has the resources to follow the law regarding watering lawns in every municipality in the USA it has the resources to help every single victim of abuse it becomes aware of. I really don't understand these "well, it's complicated" responses. 

If I alone am aware of three instances of abuse where the Church and it's representatives did nothing or covered it up the amount of "do nothing" out there must be massive. 

I really think we can work out a perpetrator's redemption in the next life just like so many of those other unanswered problems we plan working out then. 

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I've never said you cannot have an opinion.  You don't need my permission, or that of anyone else, to have an opinion, especially not as this is a discussion board.  I do think that you ought to be prepared for people to disagree with you (or is that not allowed?  ), but, whatever. 

Disagreeing  and shaming not the same thing. 

But this is such a bad derail and I apologize to the board for my part in it! 

On 7/6/2022 at 4:32 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

OK.  To each, his or her own, I suppose.

P.S.: To me, your observation seemed remarkably personal if it is based primarily on how someone is perceived to behave on the bench.  I'll never have tried enough cases to know (yes, that's a giant understatement), and since I'll never have appeared before the Supreme Court at all, I have a sample size of exactly zero to base such an opinion on, myself, but it seems to me that one ought to be quite wary of presuming to know what a judge or a justice is thinking based on his or her behavior or demeanor on the bench.  But, again, to each, his or her own, I suppose.

I have no idea what he was thinking and that wasn't important. It was his actions that has colored my opinion of him. So yes, continue to tell me I can't have that opinion because obviously I don't know what I saw with my own eyes and therefore cannot form my own opinions and if I did they certainly can't be right because you've not had the same experience I've had. 

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Why multiple seatings are usually only allowed one way.

I think this is rather a significant observation. How come living men can be sealed to more than one spouse but living women are denied this?  

17 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

You can quote someone verbatim and still rip the person's words completely out of their context.  That's what you did.  I stand by my accusation.  I retract nothing.  Deal with it.

Just one note to your observation about me. I have had the opportunity to watch Justice Thomas sitting on the bench in the Supreme court and it is also part of what shapes my feelings about him. 

2 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

See my post above, responding to mtomm.  Evil is a loaded word, and once you start using it to describe things that are merely "not good," you no longer have a word for when you really need to describe something that is far beyond the realm of "not good." 

Oh,  I can think of a lot of others but they not be appropriate for this venue. 🙂

10 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

All the dudes you named have COMMITTED evil deeds.  No one disputes that they did those deeds, or that the deeds they did were unequivocally evil.  But we tread in very dangerous territory if we label someone as evil based only on their political or legal beliefs.  Does Justice Thomas kick puppies?  Does he steal money from orphanages?  No.  He disagrees with you on public policy and legal theory. 

Hyperbole like this is why we can't have nice things in this country. We treat our political opponents as if they were either evil or stupid, cuz that's the ONLY possible reason someone might disagree with us. It's unhelpful and counterproductive.

I remember his confirmation hearings. I believe Anita Hill. I believe the  actions she described are evil.   I am not ashamed for calling him evil. He sits on the court and he should not be a political enemy. However, since the beliefs and actions of his best friend may be influencing him perhaps it is more difficult for him to remain non-political and that's not my fault. 

3 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

I did, and it's arguing against a point that was never claimed.

 

From the SCOTUS document

 

From the article

Not what he said at all. 1) The claim was what was being argued by petitioner. 2) The document says "developed using" not "made with".

later in the article

So exactly what the claim was. Fetal cell lines from an aborted fetus was used in the development.

Again, that was not in the claim. The claim was developed using, not made from. And they are developed using, much in the same that using the HeLa cancer cell line doesn't mean that any developed treatments that used that cell line for testing are made from or contain cancer cells.

Actually, in his opinion he isn't even giving credence to their claim only addressing what their claim is. I withdraw my complaint he is stupid. I'm still holding onto evil for other reasons though. 

And can I just say that the HeLa cells lines probably have a much more dark ethical history than aborted fetal cells. 

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

What, exactly, did Justice Thomas say that makes you believe he is "very stupid or just plain evil?"

Did you actually bother to read his dissent? Spoiler alert: it might not say what you think it says...

 

Did you read the link? 

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Contraceptive sells have increased through the roof.  Hording is probably on the rise and accounts for a lot of it, but hopefully this change in law is going to have the positive effect of causing people to take prevention more seriously when abortion is no longer a viable option.  We certainly need to do more to make it easily accessible and affordable/free to high risk populations.  Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a realistic goal (as long as Justice Thomas doesn't get his way with his disgusting ideas on contraception) and this change in law will only improve chances of success where convenience abortions are restricted.  It would be hard to get students to prepare for a test if they know that when they fail, they still get a pass.  Take away the easy pass and students will take more accountability/responsibility and prepare in the first place.  

https://www.ksl.com/article/50432024/amazon-rite-aid-cap-purchase-of-emergency-contraceptives

And with contraception failure we will still have how many unwanted pregnancies?  Are men okay with not having sex with fertile women?  Are they saying no? Are they saying, "well, dear since no contraception is 100% effective and we don't want anymore children we should just abstain."