Jump to content

gopher

Members
  • Content Count

    381
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by gopher

  1. I thought there were already LGBTQ characters on Studio C?  In the first cast, the guy that was actually gay (Stacey?) was less effeminate than most of the other dudes.  I admit my gaydar broke when the 46 different terms for sexuality came out so I can't tell what anyone is anymore.  It's a good thing that everyone now posts their sexual orientation on the internet so we all can know without trying to guess.

  2. 3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

    The State GOP was working on censuring Romney and there were attempts to find a way to recall him. I don’t think it was a safe move.

    The GOP in general is really going overboard on ideological purity. McCain’s wife was censuring by the Arizona state GOP for defending her husband against things they were saying about him.

    Ideological may be a bad word. Idolatrous purity since it is about devotion and kissing the ring of one person?

    I don't think Romney was too worried about any idle threats from the State GOP.  He's often been criticized by the GOP as being weak and wishy washy so this was a way to prove he has a backbone.  Of course, far more damning accusations of him come from the left who reminded us during the election that HE PUT HIS DOG ON THE TOP OF HIS CAR WHILE DRIVING HIS FAMILY ON VACATION!!!

    Romney seems like a decent guy and I wish there were more people in government like him.  But it still seems like this award was more a dig at Trump than rewarding courage from Romney.

    • Like 1
  3. 3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

    Honestly this is just sad. Every single senator knew exactly who and what the former president was. Cruz called him a 'pathological liar', 'utterly amoral', and a 'sniveling coward'. Lindsey Graham said "If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed ... and we will deserve it". The only difference between them and Romney is that Romney has morals.

    I've worked in DC too long to believe morals factor much in decisions made by politicians.  It was a safe bet for Romney to go against Trump since he knew it wouldn't hurt him much as a Senator from Utah.  I'm not sure why you are claiming Cruz and Graham have no morals with the criticisms they made against Trump.  Don't you agree with their assessments?

    Of course, there are exceptions in politics - I once walked past Ted Kennedy as he walked down the Capital steps.  His eyes were bloodshot, his face was beet red, and he was staggering, obviously drunk.  I saw him again a few years later and he looked much better.  Orrin Hatch gave a fireside in Oakton, VA where he claimed he helped to encourage Ted to get sober.  +1 for the Mormons!

  4. Romney should have declined the award due to the treatment the Kennedys gave him about his religion earlier in his political career.  Plus, why hasn't JFK been cancelled yet?  He treated women horribly.  His name should be removed from the award.

    Sad if this is the greatest example they could find for courage shown last year.  Romney didn't like Trump so it wasn't surprising he voted the way he did.  I'm sure he's probably clueless that this is more of an attempt to shame the former president rather than reward him for courage.

  5. 26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

    It is the official policy of the LDS Church, and it has been the practice of the Church to contribute food and money to both LDS and non-LDS charitable causes.  Millions of dollars are expended to non-LDS causes every year.  The odd practices of your own bishop do not determine the actual policy and practices of the LDS Church at large.   Over and above that, we just concluded a food drive in our wards in Utah County to supply the local secular Food Bank with lots of food.

    Your stake Pres probably needs to take a closer look at your bishop to determine whether he actually believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Sorry, I wasn't more clear.  There was no one in the ward that required money from the ward last year.  No one was turned away from assistance.  In fact, offers to help pay bills were declined by a few members.  So I'm placing some of the blame for the large surplus the church has on the members for not using the resources the church has made available to them.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  6. Is there widespread evidence that the church is refusing to help members in need?  If so, I can see why it would be troubling to see the church is hording money at the expense of neglecting its members.  Last year our ward paid $0 out in fast offerings.  We were chastised by the stake for being stingy so this year we paid several hundred dollars to fix a member's broken down car so we won't get shamed next year.  Well, he had lost his job so he did need the car fixed too.  The local bishops storehouse has been donating food and other items to non-LDS charities which implies there isn't enough demand from members.  I don't live in a wealthy area, but apparently everyone paid close attention to the lessons on self reliance in the past.

    • Upvote 3
  7. 29 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

    Ha, nice one!

    Just to clarify, the pay cut only applies to those at the Vatican. My diocese hasn't had any pay cuts (but we also got money from the PPP, so that probably helped).

    To play it safe, I'm assuming you know that none of the leaders I mentioned receive any salary from the LDS church.  I was trying to make myself laugh, not criticize the Vatican.  The church does employ people who are paid a salary who have to worry about pay cuts and layoffs.

    • Upvote 1
  8. 13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

    Hey, I think SLC should become its own country like the Vatican and then President Nelson could be an absolute monarch. I mean, if you want to be like the Pope, go all the way!

    So far President Nelson hasn't had to impose a pay cut for all the bishops, stake presidents, EQP, RS presidents, and other leaders.  They are still earning their full salary!  So maybe the LDS church is managing their money better than the Vatican.

    • Haha 2
  9. 2 hours ago, Amulek said:

    My preferred pronoun is My Holiness.

    Please be sure to use this when speaking about me from here on out, even in casual conversations which I may or may not even overhear. 

    Remember, there is no religious exemption for this, and failure to do as you have now been clearly been informed will result in a fine of up to $1,000 and/or a year in jail. 

    Thanks for your understanding.

     

    Tough crowd.  Maybe you should have gone with the safer:

    "I identify as Michael Jackson. My preferred pronouns are He/Hee"

    • Like 1
    • Haha 2
  10. 1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

    I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that real conversion means acceptance of Joseph Smith's polygamy? Therefore what? My point is that he trusted the church's word and was lied to, only to find out Joseph Smith practiced what he believes was wrong. 

    Regardless of your opinion of polygamy, hopefully you would agree that people are right to expect honesty about it from the church.

    I guess I'm not sure of what your point was either.  Back to the OP:

    elderuchtdorf.jpg.e1926244411828decfa6424bf7f60ac0.jpg

    • Haha 2
    • Upvote 1
  11. 2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

    Do they?

    It would be foolish not to insist on some kind of reassurance from God in order to believe.  It may take time before it happens.  But we have almost 200 years of men, women, and children claiming it happened to them.

    2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

    I think like with any spiritual test, facts were important to him too, along with feelings. 

    Facts are important, at least our interpretation of them.  Feelings too, but that's not enough.  Being converted requires:

     

    • Upvote 3
  12. 10 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

    My husband was a convert at 20 and it did matter to him. He asked specifically and the missionaries assured him that polygamy started with Brigham Young.

    Perhaps it is easier to believe the Restoration happened if is not inextricably connected to polygamy.

    Don't most people who claim to believe in the Restoration believe that God revealed that to them?  Does your husband believe God also lied to him by telling him JS was His prophet?  Or did he only believe what the missionaries told him without any confirmation from the Holy Ghost?  Polygamy is one of many things that are difficult to believe in the restored church without some reassurances from God.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  13. 14 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

    So why is Joseph the testimony breaker?  We're ok with Brigham but not Joseph doing it?

     

    10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

    Because all my naive life I didn't know polygamy was a commandment to live. And I was in and out of different callings that took me out of Gospel Doctrine class and never sat through a lesson in D&C 132. Or I hated to study the scriptures... preferred to read the Ensign cover to cover. And grew up believing polygamy was to take care of the widows across the plains. Was only aware of BY and those after him. Even devoured most of the "Work and the Glory" series where it mentioned he was commanded to live it but didn't go into him actually living it. In my mid forties or around 2005, a website popped up with a list and a short story of each of Joseph's wives and I felt like you do when you're in an accident and everything is in slow motion, in a state of shock. And after that I read everything I could about polygamy and the book, "In Sacred Lonliness". You see if I'd grown up hearing about him living it all my life I'd probably not look into it much. It was in the details that caused me to take Joseph off the pedestal I had put him on and finding out a lot of other things I was taught, was wrong. 

    I also learned about Joseph's plural wives later in life, but it was more of a relief than anything else.  It never seem right that something as big as polygamy would be revealed through and put into practice by BY and not through the prophet of the restoration.

    • Like 2
  14. 6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

    Don't know if your question is sarcastic. But no panic needed. Recently I sub'd in a class that had a young boy with super long hair and looked like a girl. Luckily I never addressed him that way, but maybe he was trans I don't know. One of the students made it clear to me that he is a boy, not within earshot of the student with long hair. So I think it might be a great idea to follow the article you provided and say "friends" instead of ladies and gentlemen or boys and girls. Thanks! 

    For example what if there is a trans student in class and inside they feel the opposite sex, maybe we better quit splitting up sides as in boys on one side, girls on another, and so on. Just group and split them up.

    I know when my husband and I get with friends and play games, sometimes the wives are one team and the husbands on another. Maybe we need to take each incident separately and apply as needed in the circumstance we're in.

    I don't know if I should bring it up, but I don't believe in "cancel culture", I believe in creating a better culture, if there is racism in books or cartoons or whatever. Not canceling, just making it better. 

    Oh, I was totally being sarcastic.  I wanted to troll Nehor to see if he would come back with something witty or clever.

    • Like 1
  15. 7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

    Again that is in ambiguous situations and a more generic term is preferred. No one is upset if a child refers to their mom. It is just when referring to groups. Same thing. It is more inclusive and more accurate. It is not even completely about gay parents. If one of my brothers and their spouse were to die and I were to raise their kids I am not their parent but I would fit better as a “guardian” or whatever which is also accurate in the more common setup of a mother and father.

    On an emotional level when used in the aggregate it is less likely to distress kids in less “conventional” setups including kids in foster care and other legitimately traumatic situations.

    You can panic all you want. I prefer to reserve my panicking for things that actually justify panic. You can even say it is erasing the terms “mom” and “dad”. You would just be wrong if you do so.

    We have people tying the apocalyptic warnings of the prophets to this which suggests panic if sincere.

    I'm not panicking, but I'm not convinced that it's really that distressing to the children at a school that costs over $57,000 a year to attend to hear the phrases "mom" and "dad".  It sounds more like grown ups trying to appear inclusive while working at a very exclusive school.

    What if a mom or dad wants the school to refer to them as their child's "mom" or "dad"?  Isn't much of the discussion today about groups insisting on being called by the names they choose for themselves instead of others making that choice for them?  Being referred to as a "dad" is one of my greatest honors and is one of the titles that brings me the most satisfaction.  Our society insists that we use the pronouns people pick for themselves, why can't we also insist that we retain the terms "mom" and "dad"?

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  16. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

    I heard just the opposite, that admissions were tighter than usual this year (my son was just accepted, so I’ve been more alert to this than I might otherwise have been). 

    2020 acceptance rate for freshman was 68.5%   (7,942/11,593)

    2021 acceptance rate for freshman is 59%   (7,309/12,379)

     

×
×
  • Create New...