bluebell

I'd say both equally.

For me, what makes the man delusional is believing that he can infiltrate another organization and work his way up to the president of that organization when he has no idea how leadership in the organization works. He’s completely ignorant of what it will take to achieve his goal and yet he still fully believes his goal is possible.

Probably

It’s probably Hinckley. He was the prophet as I was growing up and becoming an adult, and I really loved his sense of humor.

Agreed. I hate when members misconstrue and make fun of other people’s beliefs.

We have a car like that. It’s a 2008 Range Rover Rover with a super charger. It’s incredibly fast, but you don’t feel it at all.

It's an interesting plan, from someone who doesn't really know as much about the church as he thinks he does. I never could figure out if he actually went through with it. I liked how the one guy with glass says that he thinks that this guy is "a really sweet guy who makes stuff up in his head". That's a kind way to look at him. And I liked how they went out of their way to say that they don't think this guy is anti-mormon, just misguided. And finally, I liked how they end with telling all the other Christians and Catholics who want to infiltrate the church in order to convince us we are wrong, to do it.

As far as i know it did not have to be mentioned (and still doesn't in a handful of states) in any paperwork that it could happen. Thankfully, there would be no way for a hospital to refuse service for something necessary if the patient refused to consent for a completely medically unnecessary procedure, so there was no coercion in that way. I mean if no one ever tells you (and isn't written in any paperwork) that there is a possibility that someone is going to give you a rectal or prostate exam while you are under anesthesia to get your gallbladder removed, then there is no way for you to consent to it. There is a difference between doing something secretly and something happening unexpectedly.

This is a tangent so feel free to ignore but I'm not seeing the 'on the day you eat of it' part of the equation and am wondering what reference you are using for that.

I was listening to conference talks this morning and completely forgot that Elder Evanson spoke about service missions and missionaries in October. At the end of his talk he says-"If teaching missionaries are the Lord's mouth, then service missionaries are the Lord's hands, and you are not second-class missionaries. Through service we change hearts--and the world." I'm sure the church recognizes that for some members service missions are see as 'less than' proselytizing missions but it seems like they are working hard to change that image, because it does not reflect reality.

Thanks! I think they used to be able to choose (or at least the stake president could recommend) but that that has since changed as the church has equalized service missions with proselytizing missions. I don't know if many members are aware of the changes that have happened with service missionaries since 2018. In 2024, for example, they were integrated into the teaching missions where they live and are now under the direction of the mission president of their area rather than the stake president, like they used to be. They are also (where able) assigned to a companion that they can go on teaching appointments with certain days or times during the week. They have regular interviews with the mission president, attend zone meetings, etc, just like pros. missionaries do. That kind of stuff.

Thanks. It doesn't sound like the church has lied about anything in what weebles provided.

Can you provide the reference (a quote from the website or something) where the church says that only those who with certain issues can be called to a service mission? I looked at the website and it seemed to leave the option open for anyone, but I could have easily missed something. It's not super easy to navigate.

In this instance, they gave talks over the pulpit discussing their surprise.

It's a lovely symbolic gesture.

I think they have a right to dictate their name and if they don’t use the word “the” before it then I think that we shouldn’t either. And I find the reason that they don’t use it to be inspiring. At the same time, I didn’t see any difference really between using or not using the word “the” before church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. I can see why removing the article can have a lot of meaning and at the same time I think for most people it won’t have any meaning at all. I don’t know that a lot of people would understand “the” community of Christ any differently than they would understand “a” community of Christ, even though you are very much right. It’s a distinction with a purpose. I think the nature of the article “the” in the English language just makes it harder to assume a specific purpose with its use. So I appreciate you teaching us why the distinction is important to Community of Christ. (it was very hard not to say the community of Christ right there, but a community of Christ also didn’t sound natural. It’s a hard article to get rid of. ).

Interesting topic. When I think of informed consent in regards to medical stuff, I think about how it is still a common practice for women to be given pelvic exams (this means people’s hands inside a woman’s vagina, manipulating her cervix and ovaries) while they are unconscious for an unrelated scheduled procedure. This is a way for med students and other medical professionals to learn and so that is how it is justified. However, the women aren’t told they will be getting a pelvic exam beforehand, and are not told one occurred afterwards either. So they are never given the option to consent or deny. I honestly don’t know how such a thing is legal. If you don’t know something is a possibility then how can you consent to it? I think it’s insane to imply consent where any information is being withheld.

That would be crazy. I can see the missionaries having a say over what their parents wanted, but I don't think a MP should be allowed to keep anyone against their will.

Yes, assuming dishonesty on the part of the girl and/or family to explain it is on option. Knowing her and her family, I don't personally see a reason to assume the worst of them to make a different narrative work. I think in this case an 'i don't know' works better.

It looks good and I wanted to see it. I'm a little sad that it wasn't amazing like it had hoped it would be. I'm tired of movies that are just 'good'. I can't figure out why Hollywood is struggling so much to make good movies anymore.

Hope you are feeling better!

I haven't looked into it. I only know that the girl (and her family) who was called to one was incredibly surprised.

Yes yes, that's exactly what I meant. 10/10 read comprehension.

I loved the first few books in that series so much. I actually walk near the Spirit Mountain Cave almost weekly, and have been inside a few times (it's gated and you have to get a key from the forest service so it's been a while). Never went deep enough down that one tunnel to find the Rainbow Room though. The character load in the series got too much after a while, it became hard to keep them all separate. I think the last one I really liked was the one where some of the kids ended up in the NT.

I thought he was saying that just because something contradicts traditional interpretation of theology or is controversial doesn't mean it can't be from God. But I honestly don't know if I'm understanding him correctly.