Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×


  • Posts

  • Joined

Posts posted by rongo

  1. On 1/30/2023 at 6:03 PM, bluebell said:

    Rongo, I know that this is something that you feel very strongly about--you've spoken of it many times in the past--but women working outside of the home is not the cause of society's high divorce rate.  As Mustard Seed said, the divorce rate has been going down for decades.

    Here's one study that shows that it peaked in 1979 and has been going down since.  Also, the state with the lowest divorce rate is New Hampshire and the highest is Alabama.  I would be greatly surprised if Alabama had more married working mothers than New Hampshire (to explain why it was so high and NH was so low.) 


    14 hours ago, Calm said:

    This is surreal you are still trying to claim we agreed this long after I stated we didn’t.  Do you think I am going to suddenly change my mind and say Rongo was right all along!

    I was alerted that I've been referenced here. I haven't posted here since I left in July and said I wasn't going to post here any more, and I have never made a sock puppet. This isn't me, and I'm not sure why both of you think (or want to think) that it is. Stylistically, syntactically, and strategically, I don't think there is any similarity. 

    Just for the record. Back to retirement! :) 

  2. 28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

    I get the frustration but you're going off the rails a little.  Just don't post if you don't think that the way the board is run is ethical.


    26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

    We would miss you but do what you feel like you gotta do.  

    I might already be off the rails,and grinding the rims to nubs. 

    I'm ticked enough about this, I think you're right.

    It's been a great 18 years, people! Kirk out.

  3. 1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

    1) Would you be satisfied or would you argue the point and then be equally miffed that he ignored you?

    2) They don’t automatically trigger bans.

    3) Danger Will Robinson!

    I would be happy and would shut up if he simply contacted me and told me what his thought process is (because this situation is so out there. When things are heated and people are being jerks, that's understandable. But I can't make heads or tails of this. So what assurances do I have that he won't have an episode and ban me again for no reason?)

    It would not be a conversation. I wouldn't reply to his response, if you're serving as re go between here. ;)

  4. 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

    Setting a precedent for explaining bans means he has to spend time explaining to anyone who asks. Wanting to banter does not mean he has the energy or desire to explain decisions. It is also possible Nemesis wasn’t the one who did it. When the mod does explain themselves the poster will (almost inevitably) want to present a counter argument and why would the mod want to have that kind of boring back and forth? I know I love talking to people who assume that my not wanting to debate them about a decision I make makes me “cowardly or lazy”.

    Mods have decided a flag or report was nonsense. I know. I submitted a report or two that was deliberate nonsense as a joke. No one was thread banned. I have gotten explanations once or twice for a ban but it wasn’t through inquiring. It was by entertaining the mod. Last time I did I sent a hyperbolic self-deprecating message about the rank injustice of the thread ban and how I can prove I was not guilt. I got a short response telling me that I got the reason for the ban wrong. Once corrected I had to respond along the lines of ‘Well yeah, I did do that. Fair enough. Hugs and Kisses, Nehor’

    1) Nemesis could reply in private, as I first contacted him. He could also be terse and brief. I still think that even "jerks" deserve some sort of brief response. He doesn't have to get into a ***-for-tat in threads.

    2) If flags or reports don't trigger bans, then that raises even more questions.

    3) I'm getting dangerously close to "RIP rongo: 2003-2022" territory. 

  5. Just now, juliann said:

    I've lost track of how long it has been since Nemesis took over the FAIR board. Nemesis deserves nothing but praise, he maintains and pays for the board himself. It amazes me he keeps it up after all these years when he doesn't even use it himself (other than the rare comment.) It is pure service to all of us who hang around here. This is a unique place with a long history, so long live Nemesis.

    Disagree about "nothing but praise." Maintaining this with his own money is a good thing, but do you disagree that even that doesn't excuse his management style? Where else do people never know what their offenses are?

    Has he ever admitted that he messed up and undone something? Anyone aware of an example? That would show me something.

  6. Before I have to walk the plank for speaking evil of Nemesis, a couple more thoughts.

    1) Has a thread originator ever been banned from his own thread? I doubt it, and definitely not when not behaving outrageously. No one has any idea what the offending post was!

    2) The arbitrariness here is astounding. Why can't @Tacenda get rep points, bit other posters who are at least as vocal in their skepticism and unhappiness with the Church can? Nemesis has said before, "It's my board, I can do what I want for whatever reasons I want, and I don't have to explain myself to anyone." Technically true, yes, but just what kind of a parent, spouse, neighbor, etc. is a person like that like? No, you don't have to tell people what their supposed offenses we're, but why not do it? What kind of a person runs a message board that way?  

  7. 5 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

    Welcome to our illustrious club, mate. 


    The frustrating things is that @Nemesis has posted since the ban happened, so he should respond at least to a private message. Especially when there doesn't appear to be any reason to anybody. I'm sure Nemesis has read this thread, too, but is just lying low and waiting for this to blow over. He's posted since then, and the this thread title has to have caught his attention.

    Nemesis always says he doesn't check often, doesn't communicate, etc., but it looks like more of a cowardly or lazy thing when he doesn't respond than a "too busy" thing. Nemesis takes the time to banter extensively, when he wants to. e.g., the thread where he was musing about being bishop of the MDDB ward. 

    The other thing that bothers me is how it appears people can be banned for frivolous things, simply because someone reports something. Does Nemesis ever decide a flag or report was nonsense? 

    Periodically, there is discussion about why this isn't as good as it used to be, where have manu good poster gone, etc. We're looking at exhibit A, right here.


  8. Scott, you're a technical genius. Signing out let's me read the thread. Thanks for the tip!

    I would start a part 2 thread (I wanted to comment on "righteous lying" and other things, but I have no idea if I'll be banned from that thread, too. Not knowing your accuser, the alleged offense, and what  @Nemesis is thinking or intends is absurd. I can't even imagine what might have even been a stretch of a pretext. (shrug?)

  9. 5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

    I believe differently, I know me, and if Rongo doesn't validate as much as he educates I couldn't support.  

    The modern counseling term "validation" is what we used to work on under the Missionary Guide as "empathy." All people, all the time (there were role-plays and cassette tapes we used in our study). Validation/empathy is **huge** (I've worked with several CES letter casualties, and they're not interested in anything you have to say if you aren't genuinely empathetic, and not just "trying" or "faking it"). 

    Whether or not I would strike the right balance between validation and education in your case, I don't know. Maybe you would end up commiserating with Raingirl out in the foyer. ;) 

  10. 6 hours ago, juliann said:

    Rongo, I so appreciate your effort to do this and I believe that you are probably the only one in your ward who can do it responsibly. So I hope you will take what I am trying to explain in the spirit it is intended. You will have single women in RS. Think of the underlying message in pitying single women and implying being married to anyone at all, in any configuration, is preferable to what they are now. One of the things the church is trying to do, but not succeeding well, is to treat single women as valuable disciples just as they are. They are not living Plan B. This is their Plan A and they can contribute as much to others and the church as any married woman and live just as full and meaningful a life as anyone else. 

    Of course (and no offence taken). There are probably more single women than average in this particular Relief Society, and all wards have at least several. 

    My sister is a RS president in Gilbert, and she has been divorced for almost 25 years now. She would be very good on this topic as well (I'd need to bring her up to speed a bit on some things, but she already knows quite a bit). Maybe I could suggest that she do this (thinking out loud). 

    I'm always very cognizant of "do no harm" and ensuring that people leave uplifted or at least edified, and that would include where people are at in the audience. I wonder if the sisters the RS president is concerned about will even come (depending on where they're at and how calcified their "setting" vis a vis the Church is)? 

  11. 7 hours ago, manol said:

    I agree.

    If Joseph did indeed lie (or equivocate or otherwise give intentionally misleading responses) about polygamy, one of the conclusions a person might draw is that Joseph set the example and therefore it is okay, and even right, to lie or equivocate or mislead under some circumstances.  (I'm under the impression this was the late-19th-century interpretation of many in the Church, but I could be wrong.)  What are your thoughts around that aspect?

    That's always the wrong lesson to be learned from "sanctioned lying" instances in the scriptures or Church history (e.g., Abraham, Sarah, and Pharaoh, Nauvoo polygamy, etc.). It's not too far from that to justifying lying in temple recommend interviews because the person feels justified. 

    I'll have more to say on this later (I only have time for some quick-strike responses right now). Honesty and "righteous lying" (ever justified?) is a very interesting topic to me. 

  12. 7 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

    The hereafter is supposed to be the big carrot, enticing me to live righteously on this earth and make the right decisions. The celestial kingdom has never looked particularly pleasing to me, but the men tell me this is where I’m supposed to work towards. I don’t trust that there’s a man on the planet not even my husband who can truly appreciate the conundrum this puts me in.

    All you can do in your boat, I would say, is to develop a close communication relationship with God (through the Holy Ghost). You probably already are. You seem to be navigating this as well as possible, in your case, from how it seems to me. 

  13. 8 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

    So true.  Was Joseph being contentious when he refused to join a local Church and instead went into the grove?  Was the Savior carrying a spirit of contention when he disagreed with the Pharisees on doctrine?  Discomfort and disagreement are not the same as contention.  You can disagree without contention, even if uncomfortable.  Contention is about winning.  A contest.

    Yes! Many members are used to "Mormon nice" --- no disagreement, and apparent agreement all-around. We even see some of that in this thread --- disagreement makes some very uncomfortable. 

    Honestly, people who thought past "ask anything" and controversial topics activities were "contentious" were mostly uncomfortable that people were free to depart from the tightly-correlated party line in asking questions, or in discussing topics and issues that were beyond "the standard three-hour block." Or that non-members were openly invited and attracted, and able to ask questions or even "take shots" at the Church (they were actually very respectful, but we did get many expected "old chestnut" questions, too). 

  14. 9 hours ago, InCognitus said:

    Back in February we had a stake conference at a stake in Arizona, and the stake high counselor over missionary work gave an excellent talk in the leadership meeting about improving missionary work in our wards and stakes.  One of his bullet points was "being prepared for uncomfortable discussions when sharing the gospel with non-member friends".  He said that the ward leadership should "set aside time regularly to teach members how to deal with these questions", and said that we should prepare ward members to handle uncomfortable discussions.   

    I was intrigued by what he was proposing and wanted to try to implement something like he was suggesting in our ward, although I wasn't sure exactly how it would play out.  But unfortunately I was preparing to move, and was released from my calling and moved shortly after that, so I never got a chance to get involved in it.  But I think the kind of thing you are doing is what a lot of people need.

    Keep plugging away in your new stake! Area leader roulette is a big factor --- some leaders are very supportive, while others are very risk-averse. And others yet are blasé and completely uninterested (and therefore a "no"). It all depends. Good luck!

  15. 29 minutes ago, bluebell said:

    In the instance with Peter, James, and John, they could have just said "we've been commanded not to talk about it".  So I disagree with the bolded part of your statement.

    There are some times when not answering would be an answer I suppose, such as being asked if you are practicing polygamy.  An answer of "I've been commanded not to talk about it" is the same as "yes".  So perhaps being dishonest would be necessary under those circumstances (though I'm not completely convinced).  But I think that most times a divine command for secrecy does not need to collide with a desire for absolute honesty. 

    We have plenty of examples of this when it comes to the dealing with people asking questions about what goes on in temples.  No one has to lie in order to keep from revealing things they've covenanted not to reveal.

    Very good point that "no comment" or "commanded not to talk about it" is a yes answer in the polygamy situation. 

  16. 8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

    This is more than just a difficult subject.  This is one where lots of people have planted their flag into a certain position and are pretty much committed to it.  So yes contention can always pop up but some topics to a much greater degree than others.  Rongo is a much braver soul than I am.   I wish him well if he decides to go ahead of this. 

    Keep in mind that the audience and discussion isn't going to be anything like this thread.  We here are a poor comparison to an audience in a local unit somewhere. Sometimes we lose sight of that.

    If there actually was a ward where the class was composed of the 20-30 personalities who participate regularly here (including some ex-members who still somehow come to church every week :) ) --- can you even imagine? 

  17. 12 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

    Well I don't know if this will assist you with your class Rongo but here is my position: Im deeply grateful that my faithful husband is disgusted by past and possible future polygamy, IF ONLY because he cares to demonstrate understanding and compassion for my view on it. I trust it goes deeper than that for him but if not, at least I feel heard and defended by the man I love.  And if he changes his mind, I trust I'll have the freedom to change my mind about him.

    That's all I "need" for now.  What I "want" is for someone high up to demonstrate the same.  Hasn't happened yet, but I understand defend to the death all things doctrinal or accepted as such.

    There is such a range of reactions and strong feelings on this and some other issues, and all  Church members are at different places on the spectrum with it (though many haven't really given it much thought or been exposed to it much, actually). 

    In 2009, after the FAIR conference in Frankfurt, we also had a fireside in Strasbourg, France (just across the Rhine). My wife and I spent the night in Offenburg, and were going to be picked up by a member of the Strasbourg stake presidency Sunday after church. We were early to church, and the only one there was a woman in her twenties. She was from Freiburg, but sometimes came on her own to help with the Offenburg branch (not a calling, purely voluntary). One of my teachers in the MTC was from Freiburg, so I asked her if she knew the family. That was her sister, and her family! After her mission, with no prospects for temple marriage materializing, she spent a few years in Australia, hoping to find someone to marry in the temple. Then, she finished her degree and was working for their version of Child Protective Services. She was very sharp and glowed with the Spirit (her family was very strong, and all sons and daughters served missions as a matter of course after their father had joined the Church from being talked to by missionaries at the train station). There weren't any other English speakers there that day, and it was nice for my wife to have her with her at church (the branch president had been at the FAIR conference, and he asked me if I would give my presentation for a combined priesthood/RS Society third hour). 

    Afterwards, my wife said that if we still practiced polygamy, she would have no problem with her being a wife as well. She felt so bad for her. 

    People definitely fall between the extremes of "utter revulsion, under any circumstances, full stop" and "acceptance," and this includes women as well. But, it's almost all looking back at the past or hypothetical. I don't know anyone who expects or looks for it to be lived again on earth (the hereafter is a different story, and again, there is a range of views on this). 

  18. 13 hours ago, juliann said:

    You really think that telling me not to disclose what they gave me special permission for is not "secrecy?" Really?

    I think this is a crucial point when addressing the lying about polygamy on the part of both men and women. B.H. Roberts (a polygamist himself who was denied his seat in the House of Representatives as Utah's first congressman over polygamy) made the point in discussing John Taylor's debate with ministers at Bolougne sur Mer (France) that when sworn to secrecy by God, situational lying inevitably comes up when God's secrecy command comes into conflict with direct questions about it. He used the example of Peter, James, and John coming down from the Mount of Transfiguration, and being asked by the other apostles what had happened up there. Whatever they said would have been a lie (they were commanded to tell no one until the resurrection). When divine commandments to secrecy collide with a desire for absolute honesty, what are people to do?

  • Create New...