Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

5,849 profile views

HappyJackWagon's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Dedicated Rare
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Very Popular Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Collaborator

Recent Badges



  1. What if we called it the 14 Fundamentals of following the prophet?
  2. Do refute the idea that in general church leaders and members support and justify some of these Red Flags. In fact, I would not be surprised if I rephrased this from "red flags" to "evidence of the true church" that it would be widely accepted by members and leadership.
  3. This conversation has reminded me of the Red Flags or Signs that one may be a part of a dangerous or toxic organization. Absolute authoritarianism without accountability Zero tolerance for criticism or questions Lack of meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget Unreasonable fears about the outside world that often involve evil conspiracies and persecutions A belief that former followers are always wrong for leaving and there is never a legitimate reason for anyone else to leave Abuse of members Records, books, articles, or programs documenting the abuses of the leader or group Followers feeling they are never able to be “good enough” A belief that the leader is right at all times A belief that the leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or giving validation I think church leaders and members actually glorify many of these positions.
  4. But that's not really what he said. What is obvious to you may not be obvious to others. There are many things that are obvious to me that don't seem to be understood by others. So when speaking to a worldwide audience I would think that clarity and precision would be useful. Otherwise the words can be interpreted differently by people, some of whom tend to be very literal.
  5. You're right that this may be an effective strategy.
  6. Nailed it! Major red flag promoting a toxic behavior seemingly based on a fear that a person's faith can't withstand any differing worldview. The fear is so strong that the prophet is counseling people not to seek advice from anyone who doesn't believe (as they believe). I don't think there were any limitations about what topics should be avoided. It sounded to me like EVERY topic should be avoided because the non-believer cannot be trusted. This whole talk struck me as a cheesy/corny/trite way to send a very dark message and place a deeper wedge into relationships that may already be struggling.
  7. I want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you suggesting that Life, joy and true happiness after leaving the Silo is the completely false premise?
  8. This seems to be a ret-con of your original comment in an attempt to justify your closed-mindedness...which to your credit, you admitted. I don't recall anyone (especially my OP) granting screen writers moral authority or insight into the gospel so it seems you may be arguing against a straw man there. However, if you are unable to accept the possibility that another person (even if that person be a screenwriter) has any insight into fundamental truths it would appear you consider that an impossibility. That position strikes me as arrogant. There are characters in the show who embody that position very well.
  9. @bluebell Agency, yes. Severe consequences for rejecting...yes. Seems pretty rough. But I agree with you that it's a good thing the church has "toned down" the polygamy stuff. I'd be in favor of them toning it down even more
  10. I'm sure I'm just forgetting but is there a doctrinal teaching or scripture that states a wife essentially has veto power over the sealing of her husband to a new wife?
  11. You don't try to gain understanding about the human experience through media and art: the things you watch, read, listen to? That is rather closed-minded of you. This show isn't intended to be a critique of "the church" but rather how some people manipulate their power to control the behaviors of others. It critiques how people get so locked into what they believe to be true that they are often afraid to even consider information that may better inform them. I think you are illustrating that tendency with your comment whilst attempting to signal your righteousness. Calling others "silly" because they look to learn from the world around them is a bit rude and arrogant. Also, it could be considered "silly" to think that conditions that affect other institutions and individuals don't in any way impact "the church".
  12. Curious if anyone has watched SILO on Apple TV. Without giving any spoilers: this show attempts to illustrate the pain, confusion, and intrigue of a relatively small group of people whose very survival depends upon their acceptance of truth claims about why they live the way they live and what will happen to them if they leave the security of the Silo. Their lives also depend upon an unwavering trust of their current leaders as well as the narratives that originated with their predecessors. Strange things are afoot. Some choose to question. Others won't even consider that their beliefs could be incorrect. In short, this show could be viewed as an allegory for faith crisis and/or the process of questioning ones essential beliefs. Anyone have any thoughts about this show and the limitations of the allegory?
  13. The case originated in 2013. It settled in 2018. In 2023 the church is suing its insurance carrier to pay damages. My questions is about payment of the settlement (and I apologize if this is a stupid question)- Would the church have already paid the settlement to the claimants and are therefore looking to be reimbursed, OR or the sxual abuse victims still awaiting payment on their settlement?
  • Create New...