Calm

The Nauvoo temple was (mostly?) paid for with a private donation(s?). That seems like something that would be grabbed if offered, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the initial decision of yes or no was made on the spot rather than discussed beforehand. I would think there was also a meeting to be sure no one had reservations about it, to give the official approval of the Quorum before it was announced, but unless there was another major project that had been waiting in the wings but really needed to be done, why wouldn’t it go forward? https://www.deseret.com/1999/4/5/19438397/nauvoo-temple-to-rise-again-br-pres-hinckley-hails-donation-to-rebuild-edifice/

I have always assumed that each president and apostle likely has something near and dear to his heart that he sees as a mission to fulfill if in a position to do so given many presidents seem to have a theme or focus they keep coming back to in their presidencies. I don’t track apostles’ topics well enough to pick out consistent themes in their talks, but I remember others pointing out a theme for a particular apostle on occasion. Pres Nelson to me had the personality I usually associate with a cardiac surgeon, someone who is passionate about/highly committed to their work*** and extraordinary self confident/have faith in themselves. How else would someone have the nerve to open a chest and operate on someone’s heart? So it’s not surprising to me he was intense in pushing something through once he had decided it was worth doing. I have never had any problem with the choice to change to a stronger emphasis on the actual name, including investing in making the changes (I wonder who owned “churchofjesuschrist.org” before the Church did and how much it cost to get it, I think that was a brilliant move even though I so miss the ease of LDS.org). I do have a significant issue with labeling the use of Mormon as a win for Satan, even if that was intended to be limited solely to removing the actual name. I can see the refusal to acknowledge the Church and its members as followers of Christ as a “victory for Satan” since it may lead others to reject learning of the gospel and all that Christ has done and is willing to do for us (most Christian faiths acknowledge the greatness of the Atonement, but there are additional blessings the Lord gives us that may not be acknowledged and even may be rejected as blasphemy by some). I do wish there was more nuance that use of “Mormon” instead of the Church’s name is not satanic or knowingly choosing evil over good, but it does create an unnecessary stumbling block for understanding and acceptance (as Christian). It is the norm for a Christian faith to have nicknames that is not “Christian”, so I don’t see it as inherently misleading as long as we push for greater recognition of our actual name and beliefs being connected with “Mormon”. I also don’t believe there is an issue with having pride in the name of “Mormon” because of the positive heritage behind it. It makes the most sense to me to emphasize the actual name in order to strengthen the public’s view of our attempting to following Christ even if they then choose to see us as heretics in our attempts, but it also makes sense to me to relax about the traditional name once we have made an effort to ensure the other knows we see ourselves as devout followers of Christ. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2018/10/the-correct-name-of-the-church?lang=eng ***Have you read about this guy’s commitment to learning in Wiki? Unless classes were tons easier in the past, this is rather jaw dropping for me. Bachelor’s at 21 (I wonder if he kept his side job at the bank to pay for tuition), Doctorate 2 years later? MD in 3?

Pretty sure it’s been Nehor who has been pointing out contradictions in ideology in this thread all along. What does all this really have to do with the Church and its charities? (To Nehor and Longview)

As it turns out, I came across a relevant comment about the conspiracy theory just researching a completely different topic for someone… https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/conference_home/august-2024_fair_conference/carruth-brigham_young_on_brigham_young#QandA

I don’t remember this being mentioned on the board before and if I was aware of it, I forgot about it. Came across it doing some research on LaJean Carruth’s work today and thought others might be interested if they wanted some light reading for long winter nights. https://catalog.churchofjesuschrist.org/record/5df3b7da-d0a5-437b-8268-7dde8a87c76e/0?view=browse

Accusing innocent people of betraying friends and murdering them isn’t something I would put into the fun category of ridiculous.

Very interesting read. An interview where he relates some personal stories… https://uvu.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/Peace/id/552/download Just wanted to doublecheck before I mentioned it, but Ritchie was one of my husband’s professors. Didn’t take a lot of classes from him, so my husband was quite surprised when he ran into Ritchie at UVU over 20 years later and Ritchie not only remembered my husband’s name, but his doctorate project.

I agree. I will think on what else you said. Interesting ideas.

Yes, there are bits of knowledge I want to know, but if I think about it I really just want to have the fact magically appear rather than anyone actually having to go through horror to come up with the result.

Why would we be so totally bereft of any internal goodness? Why would we be subject to the devil? Not trying to be annoying, just curious about if anyone else has ever thought about this (I have a lot, what is the ultimate nature of man, etc) and if they have come up with anything.

You made me laugh. Thank you (so did JVW with his last post) I am now imagining you as one of my professors who liked big gestures.

But young children can be kind even when they haven’t be told to, I have seen abused children be thoughtful and kind to others (of course, they may have learned that by watching someone besides their abusive parent, it might not be a natural impulse). Even a toddler will share food or toys at times. I am curious if a child was brought up in a completely hostile or indifferent environment except for being provided what they need to survive (if it could survive) could demonstrate kindness and it be real kindness and not manipulation. I see animals do good things to others, care for others, so there seems to me a natural/instinctual component to at least some level of kindness, which I would call good. And maybe a hostile or indifferent universe is the crux of the reasoning and saying all good comes from God is not just a religious identifier in scripture demonstrating humility and gratitude to God. Maybe the universe is actually inherently hostile or indifferent and only by God’s intercession can our lives be touched by things of beauty, love, and compassion, so only through him can we actually learn how to desire to be good and do good actions.

Chat’s been helpful as well, though missed stuff I found with Google.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-backed-attack-campaign-against-islamic-relief-charity-report-says https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30443693 (“Audit clears Islamic Relief of terror funding claim”)

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/middle-east-forum/ oops, this next part was supposed to go in my next post responding to Nehor. Seems originally more about fear of political influence of the Brotherhood in the UAE if I understand correctly, though picked up by anti Islam groups no doubt. Seems short sighted of the UAE leaders who went this route.

I get the reasoning, but want to know why can’t humans do anything good without God’s grace? Not even a little good. It would be like saying people can’t be smart, they will only get to the dumb level of intelligence unless they have gone to school and got taught how to use their brains. In this analogy, something about education might switch on the part of brain that does logical thinking, allows then to act on something besides instinct. It is not a question that can be answered as far as I know, just speculated about because scripture is not a psychology text. By the way, Teddy, I am not blind. Repeating yourself using larger and bolder text doesn’t make something into an explanation when it’s not an explanation in regular font. It is just curious to me that scripture teaches that humans, who LDS believe are the same species of God, are still unable to think and act in good ways without God (I would suggest it is the Light of Christ that activates this ability to do good, but still don’t get why it would be needed even for minimum good behaviour). Why is there no inclination in the “natural man” to be kind, generous, charitable, protective and loving of others, etc? At least as far as the scriptures are concerned it seems to me.

That just says what and how, not why this is so. I am not challenging the belief, I am curious about the reason this is the only way.

I was thinking of restricting access to nonmembers or members without recommends; this is instead more like protestors at conference not sticking to the designated areas, being too aggressive, etc

Does this affect restricted religious sites like temples? I am not sure I understand you.

It is not a bad thing to experience some of the bad that others in the world do. It can motivate us to care and try and change things for the better. Not saying the Church shouldn’t reasonably care for those under its stewardship, but missionaries are not the only ones who are. When my son went out in 2001, it was said to be safer for young men to be on a mission than at home generally speaking, but I wonder if that stat applied to LDS youth who were less likely to drive drunk or be involved with drugs.

I don’t know if I picked up on many of them, but it was definitely visually interesting as well as a fun watch overall. Could have skipped a few overly done things by the villain (felt a bit lazy actually), but understand why they did it that way at least in part, bringing the main character to his limits. The groups involved have always felt stereotyped to me iirc….though that may be more a result of memory than reality since it’s been awhile; this one seemed even more than I remember the others being. Probably should go back and rewatch to compare and contrast as I like to do.

I just learned three of our friends who stop attending (I know two didn’t resign, don’t know if the third did, but think it unlikely) not long after we left Canada are attending again. (Left in 40s, back in their 60s)

I have wondered why this is so if this means we can’t do good unless the Spirit is first there helping us instead of doing good draws the Spirit to us. (Most people seem to interpret the scriptures as meaning the first in my experience, we can’t even think good thoughts unless the Spirit pushes us that direction.)

Given the level of vetting I have heard the Church doing for long term partnership, it wouldn’t surprise me if it partnered with such organizations if this was the only access to very high need areas. I also wouldn’t be surprised if there were areas of the world where the only large organizations functioning able to get supplies to the people were these. I think the Church’s humanitarian efforts would test the waters, be sure that such supplies were delivered and not sold for cash, which does happen at times with charitable donations. I am aware of LDS members run charity organizations who didn’t have the ability to vet as well as the Church does and who got tangled up with corruption in Russia when they worked with small charities like orphanages (in one case, the man in charge of the orphanage took donated clothes and toys meant for the children and sold them and pocketed the cash). That was 30 years ago, so hopefully with the Internet allowing for some checking, it happens less, but it can’t be that hard to change a name, location and start the scam again unfortunately. There may be gratitude from the people which receive these donations to the extremist groups (I am speaking generally if there is ever a case the Church does work with the humanitarian arm of such a group, not saying the claims here are accurate) if they connect the political side with the humanitarian side. I don’t believe we should let people who did not choose to be put in dire circumstances die because they may be grateful and therefore more aligned emotionally with alleged or even real terrorism groups.

Seeing a lot more activity today, so am guessing we weren’t the only ones frustrated. Thanks again, Nemesis. And thanks Rain for bringing it up. I was trying to pretend I was stoic and waiting for it to load didn’t bother me, but now it’s back up to speed, that was a lot more frustrating than I realized, lol