Jump to content

Sine Saw Square

Members
  • Posts

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Sine Saw Square

  1. 26 minutes ago, pogi said:

    It sounds like they are updating that too, however (at least in the county where this video was filmed). 

    The video states that "policy 16 refers to the 21 foot rule as an outdated concept that agencies should eliminate from their policies and training."

    If you watch from 3:17 it gives better alternatives - especially if the officer already has his gun unholstered, unlocked, and aimed at the target, is not backed up against a wall, or can put an object between him and the person wielding a knife.  It is good to see how quickly things can happen however and to have a general idea of distance and time that things can occur.  

    Thanks pogi,
    I probably didn't do a good job articulating my thought- which is that under stress people do what they have rehearsed and trained.  (If it's the 21 foot rule or what ever else). I think we'd all be in favor of what ever is most effective. :)

     

  2. Re: knife wielding and police use of proportional force. Some food for thought:

    From a martial arts instructor I used to train with (hopefully this video is visible to the public??):

    facebook.com/belton.lubas/videos/10224257060803714

    The 21 foot rule that police are trained to be aware of:

     

    Also: Look up Officer Tatum's breakdown of the Philadelphia police shooting on youtube. (it does include footage of the shooting so I'm not linking to it directly). Officer Tatum is was a police officer and does a great explanation of why they are trained to shoot for center mass (including risk of civilian injury from ricochet), and why tasers were not a realistic option given the particular scenario. If you can look past his Maga hat, he has some very insightful things to say.

    I suggest, if you have the means and health, to do some martial art training and especially SPARING. You will quickly see how fast things happen, how much adrenaline effects your mind in the moment, and in general will give you a broader understanding of threatening situations. Police should be held to high standards. They need MORE training which requires more funding not less because in the moment you do not have time to think. You react. You react with what you've trained.  But Police are not God and if someone really wants to do harm to you or others they will. Even in the face of "superior" weapons (See the videos above).

  3. 21 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

    It would be interesting if we could make replies via short videos here.

    Just something to run up the flag pole. 

    All we would have to do is make a selfie-video, limit the time, and upload it like you would share any video.....   even I can figure out that one!!

    Seems like Discord would be a good format for this message board, if you wanted to incorporate video chats.

  4. 3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

    I think the shift from Church as a place to go into more of a Church as a thing to do is a very positive one and I think it's going to be hard for them to go back to in-church services and actually enjoy it.

    One last thought- as I've commented on here before, we haven't heard a peep from our bishopric or relief society or elders quorum leadership in months, and it's been great. I think some people will be reevaluating how much they really need the vast organization of the church when it has worked out so well in their family without the church leadership being involved. In my opinion the organization has proven to be largely unnecessary.

    Seems a bit sad that not hearing from your leadership has "been great".  Seems like Church involvement should be an energizing, voluntarily, positive experience. If not then maybe we need to change the way we're approaching it?  This point in history might be presenting us with such an opportunity. It could be an excuse to get lazy and coast. Maybe it exposes our disinterest?. For those who wish to maximize their engagement with their Church family, maybe it's a chance to explore how to be most effective and efficient and rethink past assumptions? 

    It sounds like the remote leadership/planning meetings have been pretty positive for most people experiencing them. I wonder if those will actually stick around? I know in my day job we are now working 100% remote and the big revelation for many of my co-workers is that they like it.  I think Church worship and social activities need an in person component though. 

    It seems that by atomizing worship to individual households we'll get a greater spread of outcomes. I wonder what effect that will have down the road. With the atomization perhaps new best practices will emerge?

  5. Hi all, I mostly lurk and read what more learned people have to say. I'd love to know what you all think about this:

    For close to 6 months now the entire Church population (at least in the USA) has effectively been 'inactive'. I know I know, home-centered worship and all that. It's great! Which actually is part of what I'm wondering. The few people with kids, that I've talked to about 'home church' have mostly had positive experiences. My brother, who's a bishop, has enjoyed the extra time at home and the convenience of meeting remotely, for example. I've found it similarly pleasant. My family has had some profound Sunday experiences. We do Come Follow Me almost every night which is almost like a nightly FHE.  I know there are others who don't have that kind of experience. They might be isolated and alone, or have unstable family situations, and so on.  But we're all experiencing something unique in our "regular" Church lives.

    Building on that thought, how are the youth experiencing this moment? What kind of long term affect will separation from the weekly tradition of going to Church, participating in classes and programs, and regular connections have on this generation as they grow in to adulthood? How will they view weekly attendance?  Will they think it unsafe? Will they view it as necessary in some fundamental way?  I think my kids will look back with fondness on the time we've been able to grow closer together. What will that memory do to their view of being active?

    Lastly, Missionary service. I really feel for the missionaries in our ward. They are very limited in what activities they can do. Our sisters are even teaching someone in another country over video conferencing. In someways they have become a charity for the ward members to support with increased requests to host the missionaries for porch-visits or 'drive by prayers' in the Stake Center parking lot. I imagine how tough that would be on my mission if I couldn't go to someone's house to teach a lesson, tract or even go street contacting. It seems like missions right now aren't really working. I know of young people who want to serve a mission, but don't want to serve THIS kind of mission with home-mtc, and being isolated in an apartment somewhere.

    So far I believe the Church's response has been very competent. A lot of changes happened just in time helping is better cope with the current moment. That certainly seems inspired.  (Scouts, Come Follow Me, Home centered gospel, etc). 

    What I'd love to hear from you is, what lasting effects you think this current moment will have on the Church as an institution, tradition, or practice? Will we need to rethink missionary service? Weekly worship? How about this rising generation? How will they see things?

    Thanks! (I'm usually rather busy and don't have time to post much but I'll enjoy your answers).

  6. Before the unification EQ sat in a large circle in the gym. Now the group is too large and another ward has claimed use of the gym for their meeting. We now sit spread throughout in the chapel.  Seemed the discussion was easier to facilitate before.  It's difficult to make 50+ men participate in a room designed for sermons. 

    The new EQ president (prev a HP) is a great guy and very effective leader. Easy to talk to and considers everyone's input. 

  7. 2 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

    Doesn't contrary evidence eventually lead one to abandon a particular paradigm? Or is stay the course and your questions will be resolved .... at some future date .... the course you would suggest?

    Also, I think there are some serious questions revolving around the historical jesus and Christ of the gospels. There are a lot of inconsistencies in the new testament that cast doubt on who jesus really was. My main hang-up with christianity is that I think whatever God there is, that God always had the power to forgive whatever one may call sin. Jesus wasn't necessary.

    You seem to suggest there are only two courses:

    Evidence leads one to abandon a paradigm (by which I think you mean one rejects their entire religious foundation)

    OR 

    Stay the course and hope future resolution (blind faith?)

    Can not contrary evidence lead us to simply modify our paradigm?

    Hoping to pull this back to the subject of the this thread, let's use it as a framework.  The stated concern seems to be "Why don't leaders today make direct public announcements of having seen Christ in person. I expect a special witness of Christ to do that".

    The concern seems to really be about one's belief of others motivations and our own expectations of how things ought to be. Are there only two ways to process this concern? Either Church leaders are purposely misleading or "automatic belief". That seems simplistic and unnecessarily limiting.  The original question is an interesting one but approaching it with a sense of anger and reactive mistrust will prevent someone from exploring alternatives and ascribe motives to Leaders that may be inaccurate and unfair.

  8. 20 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

    What paradigms?  The automatically believing paradigm?

    The opposite in fact. That's what I was trying to say with my (poor?) gym analogy. 

    The automatic belief paradigm is one of childhood... it's not even adolescent. You just believe what your parents told you. There's a place for that when you are 5 because you have no experience, education, and little capacity to understand the consequence of decisions. The rebellious teen sees everything in a black and white context- questioning but with out maturity. Either the "automatic belief" of their childhood on the one hand or "it was all a malicious lie designed to keep me down".  Every person with a mature faith is going to have their own path to the Tree of Life. There are a plenty of examples on this forum of other paradigms.

    One approach that has worked for me is found in "Letters to a Young Mormon" by Adam S. Miller. In which he explains that Christ asks that we sacrifice our story about ourselves on the alters of our hearts. What ever your story is, Christ asks us to give it up and replace it with his. So whether you see yourself as a stalwart member or a victim of misleading leaders- Christ asks you to give it up.

    Resolving friction one has personally with issue X isn't something that can be imposed by an external force. If you find it desirable to be involved in the faith and feel that something is hanging you up then you gotta go to the spiritual gym and lift heavy.

  9. 10 hours ago, wtrdog said:

    Consider me, even, as an example.

    I have read your posts in multiple threads and I have been considering where you are coming from. You seem to be stuck with an adolescent conception of the Church organization and expectations. I don't mean that as an insult! I've been there too, bruv. You appear to be intelligent and equipped with experience and learning that one gains with adulthood. I hear in your posts anger and frustration that you've experienced at some point and it seems to me that those experiences have inhibited your capacity to consider the Church wholly. I don't know what it was that made you feel hurt but I believe that until you can let it go it will continue to get in the way of positively engaging with the Gospel... which you seem to want? 

    There are other paradigms from which you can view the Church society and beliefs but those kinds of changes tend to come only with intentional action unless your name is Alma.  

    I have to go to the gym, sweat, work hard, and be uncomfortable to gain strength. It doesn't just happen.

    FWIW

  10. 8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    I don't agree at all with your and Sine's claim here.  The LDS Church is incredibly dynamic, quickly adopting change where appropriate in a host of areas.  Unlike the Amish and Ultra Orthodox Jews, Mormons adopt the latest fashions, electronics, film, etc., as an adjunct to their efforts to preach the Gospel worldwide.  Motab has been on radio longer than any other program, the Church  readily uses the latest broadcast technology worldwide (esp at BYU), and is using massive online educational systems worldwide.  The LDS welfare ops are second to none in the world.  We also have the best and most complete genealogical system in the world.

    Thank you Robert! I agree that we aren't Amish. :)  Again, I'm not asserting a claim really but rather asking for feedback in regards to a sense that I've had about my own religious tradition which you've responded to with valid points.  The education systems is an especially insightful one.

  11. 55 minutes ago, Calm said:

    Computers for genealogy, upgrade to internet so as to make sharing even easier, etc.

    I agree that the Church leaders have commended the use of computers and the internet for those things- but my sense is that as a whole, computers and the internet and their massive societal changes are viewed with caution at best. For example the idea of spending "too much" time on the internet or using computers is seen as a negative.

     

    I hope I'm not coming across as saying this position is a failing of the Church. It's just something that occurred to me recently and wanted to see if this notion had any legs.  Could it be that nearly all modern changes are qualitatively worsening lives?

  12. The Church as institution and culture seems to greet changes (social, technological, fashion, music, fads, ethics, etc) as negative phenomena. Sometimes it seems the Church makes peace with or softens to ideas over time, more often it definitively stands against change. I've been trying to come up with of an example where the Church has embraced and encouraged a modern change as good from the beginning. The only one I can think of is the societal turn against tobacco - but this really a affirmation of the Church's long held view on the substance so I don't think it is exactly what I'm trying to figure out.

    I'm not interested in criticizing or mocking the Church for this trait but to understand it. Please don't use this thread as a diving board to jump into the swimming pool of ridicule.

    1. Is this observation more or less accurate?

    2. If accurate- why are we like this? Is it based in our pioneer cultural heritage? Are all modern changes, in fact, some way bad? I tend to have the feeling that, in as much as we accommodate modern living, we in some way dull our spiritual acuity. Not sure where this sense comes from?

    3. If accurate, how do Saints navigate a world where changes in social norms, technology, aesthetic sensibilities, and public discourse are exponentially increasing?

    4. If inaccurate, what are some modern societal changes that have been celebrated by the Church? 

    Hope this makes sense.

  13. 9 hours ago, deli_llama said:

     

    Which is it though? Are we speaking of a secular mistrust of Christianity especially in its organized form, or people who are anti-religion?  I was responding to the 'secular mistrust of Christianity. It seems to me that, minus some small overlap, these are not necessarily identical groups of people or thought.  I have met people that have disagreements with organized religion, you might even say a few they are anti-religion, but they don't confine their concerns to any one particular religion, like say Christianity. Given my field it is usually disagreement with organized schools or branches within taoism or buddhism, and this critism comes from the inside. However, that is a totally different conversation.  

    I might be confused on the topic myself. As I understood it, I was commenting on whether or not we knew people personally (in particular) who thought Christianity was not just wrong or foolish but actively 'bad'. I do know a number of people that if I asked them they would agree with that perspective. It is a viewpoint seems to be born from that secular mistrust of religion (generally) but Christianity occupies a special place for the people I know on and off line-  I think it's because they see it as part of the establish majority culture and therefor oppressive.

  14. 22 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

    We're getting rather far from the original point --

    Nonetheless, what you've expressed slanders the residents of our fair city.  And that you insist otherwise indicates you don't know people here very well.  But now it's just my word against yours, isn't it?

    I'm always happy to have a beverage with anyone in the vicinity (I live in Seattle's U-District).  And it's happened exactly once. 

    Will you make it twice?  Let's you and I understand how our experience of people in Seattle could be so radically different. 

    --Erik

    Slander?  No slander intended! Many of my Seattle peers I count as good friends. I insist on nothing in the matter other than my experience. Which is that there exists a secular mistrust of Christianity especially in its organized forms, at least among the artist and tech sectors of the Emerald City. 

    I'm down for a meet up downtown. On this board, I'm nothing special, so I wouldn't get your hopes up for some amazing exchange. :)

    Drop  me a line and we'll figure it out. 

  15. On 6/17/2017 at 3:44 PM, Five Solas said:

    I'm guessing not--because I actually don't know *anyone* who thinks that, bluebell.  Seriously, I can't name a single person around here and my kids are in public school, I have a career in professional services that connects me to lots of folks, businesses, etc.  But then again, I live in a backwater in the Pacific Northwest that no one's ever heard of (named after some Native American no one remembers).  So that doubtless explains my ignorance. 

    Thank you for helping me stay humble. 

    ;0)

    --Erik

    Phew! I work in Seattle and could assemble a large room full of acquaintances who feel that way.

  16. Quote

    And now I command you, my servant Joseph, to repent and walk more uprightly before me, and to yield to the persuasions of men no more

    https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/5.21?lang=eng#20

    There are multiple examples in the DC where God calls Joseph to repent AFTER he has already committed to live the commandments. He is imperfect and yet is still the Prophet.

    How do humans learn and grow? No one decides at one instance to act on a complex series of behaviors and then unerringly executes them for ever. It's called practicing repentance for a reason. As the inimitable Tony Horton of P90x fame admonishes: "Do your best and forget the rest". :)

     

×
×
  • Create New...