sjdawg

deleted comment.  Already addressed elsewhere in thread

8 hours ago, bsjkki said:

We are disarmed sitting ducks. If you remove a members ability to protect themselves, the church should provide security.

?

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

The leaders of the Church aren't in it for the money.  Nor are its members.

 

I don't believe that I suggested they were.  If I did I certainly take that back.  I think I simply said that when finances are not shared it is impossible to know conclusively if the funds are being treated responsibly.  I am certain the internal audits find that the money is being spent in accordance with internal protocols but that is not the same as knowing if funds are being spent responsibly and in the best manner possible.

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

What, exactly, do you think he is wrong about? And why do you believe that is the case? 

 

It is impossible to know how responsible the LDS church is with their finances because they don't share the information.  I actually tend to believe they do their best to act properly but keeping finances secret always creates question marks. I also believe the funds spent on humanitarian efforts are lacking.  I agree with Peterson that investing is no the same as spending however I think the mormon church has the means to do much, much more than they do.  Of course, since the finances are secret my belief is just as hard to prove as Peterson's are.

Using big words and sarcasm doesn't make Peterson correct

It is a smart business decision by the Church.  Very poor humanitarian decision unfortunately.

The optics are terrible when the promoted solution is to buy insurance from a church owned business

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Again though, you don’t see a reason to celebrate when a wrong is corrected?

No, I don't think the mormon church believes they were wrong.

31 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So you don’t care when nonsensical things get fixed?  No excitement at all when a wrong is corrected?  
 

It seems kind of odd to struggle to be happy when a wrong has been made right. 

I'm not struggling to be happy but I dont see anything to celebrate.  Just another instance of the church being late to the party

4 minutes ago, SettingDogStar said:

It’s interesting. Why now? Why not before? Was the church wrong and corrected a mistake? Was there a revelation that we needed, and if so, where is it? An explanation?  Probably won’t get one.

Its great we have an out of the box thinker, but if we’re gonna start eliminating non-sensical policies like this we need get rid of ALL of them.

You are right.  Suspect we will never see an explanation.  The cynic in me would suggest that mormonism is under pressure from feminists and equal rights advocates but that can't be the reasoning. The church would never give in under pressure

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I just saw this and am so excited for the change.  And it's not just a change for women, youth can serve as witnesses as well.  Both in and out of the temple.  

I'm glad you are excited and I hope you find the change to be positive and beneficial for you personally. For me I'm struggling to get too excited about a change made to what was a nonsensical policy.

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/october-2019-general-conference-first-presidency-leadership-session?fbclid=IwAR3KyO-x9S1woEO9jBr4rTZAtX6Jtg7HuQfpNN1oObiJB8UqADVVbo-m0Dk

There is Canadian Coca-Cola all over my screen now, women can serve as witnesses for baptisms in and out of the Temple

Women even have the vote these days.  What amazing times we live in.

On 9/23/2019 at 9:52 AM, Tacenda said:

. My friend's sons who both served missions now don't follow the WoW, drink alcohol and drink coffee, and have tattoo's. She only knows about the son who drinks coffee and has a tattoo.

I hate seeing these criteria used as any measurement of spirituality or righteousness. I know is a a part of mormon dogma but I struggle to believe these play any role when God determines who is living a good life and who isn't.  

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

  

Prior to 2015?  No.  Now?  Yes

 

Fair enough.  Thanks

On 9/16/2019 at 3:30 PM, smac97 said:

We need to stop this assault on civil liberties. 

I'm not convinced there has been an "assault" on the civil liberties of the religious. I do agree there is a limited group of people who have pushed the envelope too far in pursuing their interpretation of equality.   

Did you consider religions fighting against gay marriage rights to be assaulting civil liberties of homosexual people.?

I believe these lawsuits are helpful in identifying the lines between the rights of various groups holding differing beliefs

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

And don’t forget the law of circumcision. It was also once declared to be mandatory and everlasting as well. 

I have a hard time believing in a God who cares whether or not men have foreskins.

13 minutes ago, Maestrophil said:

If believing caused you so much effort and distress, then I am glad for you that you no longer feel it.  

Unfortunately, however, your comment does come across as very condescending to those of us who do chose to exercise faith.

Thank you.  My comment did come across as condescending and I apologize to any who found it offensive.

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

  And that what then-Elder Nelson referenced as "the mind and will of the Lord" declared by Pres. Monson was something broader than the specific wording of the 2015 policies.  

 

I am thrilled that I no longer have to go through the mental gymnastics required to justify believing in all that Mormonism offers

22 hours ago, cinepro said:

As for President Nelson being dishonest, I think you've missed the entire point.  The point being that he isn't dishonest, he is fallible.  

Mormon Prophets are only fallible in theory. In practice, it is almost treason for Mormons to admit to any mistakes from Prophets

On 8/24/2019 at 11:40 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Now, with this most recent directive, the Church President is signaling that he means business on this point, or rather, the Lord through the instrumentality of the prophet is showing that He means business. 

I believe that with this most recent directive the Church President is signaling that he is addressing a personal pet peeve of his

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

I'm actually starting a mutual fund called "Higher Calling Investments."

All my stock picks will be made through inspiration, although some won't be.  But you can trust me because I have special guidance from God for the inspired picks.  Your money is safe with me.

But like I said, not all my picks will be the inspired ones.  Some will just be regular uninspired stock picks like everyone else makes.  You can tell the difference because the inspired ones will be the ones that make money, and the uninspired ones will be the ones that lose money.  The break-even picks are also inspired because sometimes God just wants us to break even.

If this sounds like all the other mutual funds that also sometimes make money and sometimes lose money, that's because even though I have a special conduit to God regarding stock picks, He doesn't want everyone to know.  I mean, He wants them to "know" because I'm telling them and they believe me, but he doesn't want them to know-know because all the picks make money. 

That's just the way it works with God and stock picks.

 

I'd like to invest 10% of my future income in Higher Calling Investments.

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

 

What difference would that make?  I look at dedicating graves as part-and-parcel of funerals: Funerals aren't for the dead, they're for the living, and notwithstanding the things that might be said with respect to the deceased during the ordinance, the same is true of dedicating graves.  As much as I might hope that my wishes are followed with respect to how I am memorialized, on the other hand, it's not likely to matter.  I'll either have: (a) succumbed to the void; or (b) been given other things to be concerned about.

You don't think the wishes of the deceased should be more important that the guests?  That is one of my fears.  If I were to pass somehow I want my funeral to have nothing to do with mormonism.  My fear is that my wife would be under huge family pressure to have a mormon based funeral and it might just be easier for her to go along than to fight it.  

8 minutes ago, randy said:

Correct.    A MP PH holder when authorized by his Bishop can dedicate any grave.   I have dedicated a half dozen of my family members graves...all non-members.

Did they want them dedicated?

I'm no fan of the Mormon church but these class actions seems pointless and destined to fail. I don't get the point

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

 

Maybe that’s why they want you to go through your local leader. Cuts down the risk of fraud and pranks. If this guy is going to take these people in as “clients,” he should assume the burden of certifying through notarized document or affidavit or whatever legal means that they are who they say they are. The Church is right to require it. 

Do you have to show ID or prove your identity in order to be baptized?  I honestly dont remember

Just now, The Nehor said:

I know. I am involved in one. A guy submitted the request and verbally told a member in good standing he wanted to be removed. It got stuck in limbo because the previous clerk did not upload a digital copy. I could not find it. I got an affidavit written out by a member of the ward who had dealt with it but it got rejected. I am still not sure how to proceed. It seems discourteous to go back and ask for another letter but I have not been able to get the Stake President’s approval without it.

It is a complicated process.  I'm with you. I wish it could be simplified for everyone's sake. You shouldn't have to spin your wheels on non-productive work either.