Jump to content

rongo

Contributor
  • Content Count

    5,361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,165 Excellent

5 Followers

About rongo

  • Rank
    Places Sun, Moon & Stars In The Sky
  • Birthday 07/19/1975

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Baseball, basketball, football (especially college); LDS Church history; the Gospel; reading

Recent Profile Visitors

4,202 profile views
  1. I'm not including you in that. Your part, pre-knowledge of memory issues, was whether or not he specifically said temple. I'm referring to posters who said things similar to, "There isn't a temple," or "Mormon temple isn't a CoJCoLDS temple," etc. They know darn well that a temple is meant, and which temple, but were playing semantic games (a la teenage kids I've seen). Yes, I'll stand by cringey with those.
  2. I think you're feigning confusion as a rhetorical tactic here (a la Columbo: "There's just one thing I'm confused about . . .") 1) When I wrote gaslight-ey, I wasn't thinking about her memory issues. I think that's pretty clear. Without that in mind (which I didn't know about), it seemed like she was denying that President Nelson had called it a temple, which seemed ridiculous and easily proved wrong (and known to her to be easily proved wrong, I assumed, without knowing of memory issues). 2) When she brought this to my attention, I apologized. I now believe that her post was a sincere question due to a memory issue, and wasn't an attempt to make it appear that he hadn't called it a temple, as I had thought before I knew of memory issues. Why are you confused about that? It seems pretty clear from the natural ebb and flow of posts. Aren't you doing what you earlier complained about? Assuming the worst about me?
  3. The "getting you to doubt your sanity" is the extreme form we often beat up as a strawman. That's why I added the diminutive -ey to denote "gaslight-lite." What usually happens, and this gets argued about, is that there are attempts to make things seem like they have always or never been taught. And people get pulled into the weeds in terms of proof-texts and the degree to which average members were or should have been exposed to them. In this case, the Shanghai temple clearly was announced. We were all there, we all heard it, and we all were excited about it (it made quite an impression). And yet, there were a range of responses meant to downgrade the roadblocks ahead, from "No temple was announced," to "it will be a different type of temple," to "we have to play the political game of deniability," to, " 'Mormon' temples aren't the same as CoJCoLDS temples," and so on. All of these sought to, in varying degrees, minimize the possibility that Shanghai might be a boondoggle like the Russia one. Trying to make me doubt my sanity? No. But don't you see some cringey, convoluted, "pretending something they knew was true wasn't true" (or the reverse of this) in these responses? It's things like this that are gaslight-lite (gaslite? ).
  4. One star. Would not recommend, would not buy again.
  5. From multiple people in this thread, addressing the straightforward matter of whether President Nelson did or did not announce the Shanghai temple at conference. You don't think any of this could be considered to be gaslighting, not even slightly?: This last one reminds me of when teenagers, following the shift to never use the term Mormon again, went around saying to their friends at school, "There's no such thing as Mormons" (without any context or explanation). When their friends were confused and said, "But you're a Mormon, right?" they would repeat, "There is no such thing as Mormons." I've witnessed this multiple times, and I've told them privately that I understand what they were doing, but that it's not a good way of trying to do what we've been asked to do; the important thing in talking to our friends about the Church is communication and above all, not confusing the heck out of them. I feel the same way about things like this: saying, "The government said Mormon temples. Since there aren't any Mormon temples, only Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint temples, they're not talking about us, but rather, some other church." Somehow, I don't think that would be very convincing to the CCP that we got them on a technicality.
  6. Fascinating! Thank you for posting this. So, 1990s reforms essentially privatized parts of the Chinese economy, making Chinese Communism a different flavor from Leninist. Very much agree with the complications and potential risks parts, disagree with the part about understanding the situation better than the prophets. This is a discussion board. If we can't think out loud, ask questions, make assertions, etc. unless they are in plainsong lockstep with Church policies, procedures, and practices, then there isn't any discussion. From anyone. I'm concerned, given the lay of the land (which I admittedly and demonstratively am not an expert on), that things like this or the Russia temple could go south on us as regimes and geopolitical situations rapidly change. That, coupled with our frequent declarations about always going in through the front door, while at the same time insinuating that a lot of winks and nudges and code words with double meanings are necessary with dangerous regimes, makes things like the Shanghai temple, the Russia temple, etc. a concern. Or at the very least, a topic of interest.
  7. I am so sorry about that, Calm! The last thing I wanted to do is make you feel bad about memory issues, especially medication-related ones.
  8. No, I don't. But I think she did in this instance. Doing something in one instance but not in most others doesn't make someone "the kind of person" who does it. It's like logical fallacies. We all use them from, at times, even though we aren't normally "the kind of person" who does. Hopefully not, anyway . . . There you go with your "kind of person" rhetoric again. Pointing out instances of it when appropriate isn't "trying to accuse" anyone "of being that kind of person." Just like with logical fallacies.
  9. It wasn't asking for a reference (that she could easily have googled herself, just like I did). That's separate. It was her tack of "Was it even referred to as a temple? Did President Nelson even actually say temple? Are we reading temple into this?" Etc. We all heard the dramatic Shanghai temple announcement (most of us at the same time), and it's squarely listed as a temple in some published lists from the Church https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/new-temples-april-2020-general-conference but apparently not in others, so wordsmithing to downgrade "temple" to something else approaches gaslighting. That's why I said "gaslight-ey," not a full-out accusation of gaslighting. When you look at some of the rhetoric here, it is a tactic people seem to turn to, wittingly or unwittingly, when circling the wagons to try to damage control embarrassing or problematic things to make it so that leaders never stepped on rakes or had something go south on them.
  10. I didn't know individuals could own property in the PRC. Wouldn't they have to be Party members to be allowed to own buildings as individuals? That's kind of tenuous, isn't it, to have a temple located at someone's privately-owned building (which isn't a church, let that be stressed)? What if they apostatize, or knuckle under to regime pressure or persecution? A separate question that comes to mind is whether the temple would be subject to random, spontaneous, mandated inspections on demand, as a condition of getting a temple there. East Germany left the temple alone, but there is a world of difference between that regime and culture and the CCP (or, even, the Putin regime). You'd have to plan on "observers" at services (Brother Pawelke, the branch president in my East German city for decades, headed that off by inviting the Stasi to meetings and providing them with who would be speaking. They quickly learned that there was nothing of interest there, and that the Mormons weren't a threat to the regime), but temple worship shouldn't be subjected to that. If that is a requirement, then maybe we wait until it isn't.
  11. It's working for me now, too, but it didn't yesterday. I got the "no redirect found" message, and I checked the URL to make sure that I didn't have any stray characters. It was just odd to me that, right at the moment I was reading all of this (including lists from the Church with and without the Shanghai temple), the Church's China site didn't work for me.
  12. That's just semantic hair-splitting. The temple portion of a multi-purpose building is a temple, and the whole thing is rightly referred to as a temple (cf. Hong Kong). The fact that it is limited to Chinese citizens only, or is referred to as a facility, or is in a multi-use building does not mean that it isn't a temple. Why would anyone want to claim that the Shanghai temple isn't a temple? No one is disputing that there are restrictions or differences that make its situation unique. I know that we're not going to break ground and build a temple with grounds. What I'm concerned about is whether the CCP will ultimately allow the changes to be made in the building and temple ordinances (washings and annointings, endowments, sealings, baptisms) to be performed in it. Will it ultimately allow it to be dedicated (I could care less if there is no signage or Moroni, or whether vacationing Americans can go do baptisms there).
  13. I hope you're right. I just hope that this doesn't get smashed between CCP and U.S. foreign policy tensions (and hurt egos, and propaganda). I'm not sure President Nelson has quite the cachet in China some think he does. I'll bet most of the government has no idea who he is. It looks like there is general backlash against foreign churches and institutions, particularly those with American connections. I could see acting against Church interests as a means of bravado, playing to the base, making statements, etc.
  14. Thanks, Judd! What do you make of having an official list (as discussed at that blog), and the list I linked to (from the Church News) that contradict each other. Sort of a plausible deniability list for one audience, and a different list for a Church audience is what that looks like. At any rate, it looks like the Church has spiked any China content it had (cf. my previous post on this ). I think endowment house/temple is splitting hairs. An endowment house is a temple, isn't it? And, I'm sure the intent with Shanghai is to at least have a font and a sealing altar as well as an endowment room (like the Freiberg temple in East Germany).
  15. It's still on the list of temples I linked to above. Where are you getting that it was never put on the list of temples? That seems shady, doesn't it, if true, to announce a temple but not list it on the list of temples. I don't think that's accurate. I think it's clear that it has been removed for obvious reasons (China is upset, and we don't want to further hurt it's prospects).
×
×
  • Create New...