bluebell

I don't interpret those verses in 127 the same as you. That was definitely the view of the creeds, especially expressed in this section which was written by JS while he was in hiding fearing for his life, pursued by people who professed to be 'Christian' and used upholding the creeds as their justification/excuse for all the evils they committed. And for sure the use of the label 'Christian' was different back then. I don't even know that latter-day saints in JS's day thought of themselves as Christian, as it seemed to be mostly applied only to protestants and not even to Catholics in that day. But Joseph seemed to look very charitably on other Christians. (Below are some quotes that I got from one of Dan Peterson's articles) Those who knew or heard JS speak who weren't latter-day saints also seemed to believe he had a charitable view of them. Joseph even had other Christian ministers speak to the saints from time to time, and so did BY in salt lake city. This speech is probably one of JS's most famous, on God's views of people of different religions, or who do not accept the gospel as the LDS church teaches it: Here's what Dan Peterson says at the end of the article, after he shares quotes from JS: For sure, we have had seasons or members in the church where we were more judgemental against others who disagreed with us than we are now. We have our 'worst' just like every other group does. And we have our 'best' like every other group does as well. Generally speaking though, despite our theological differences and some of the hard feelings that came out of decades of persecution and harm, we have not made it difficult for non-latter-day saints to be included in the Christian category.

Prayers! That is unacceptable!

A Christian is someone who is a sincere believer in Jesus Christ. For latter-day saints, there is only one religious test used to determine whether or not someone is a Christian: Do they believe in Christ and do they consider themselves one.

And yet, we still consider them Christian, right? We don’t believe someone has to profess correct creeds to be a sincere follower of Christ.

No it hasn't.

It’s on my watch list.

I will never understand the mindset of forcing or bribing a kid to go on a mission. I served one, my husband served (after converting when he was 16), and my oldest son has served. Missions are absolutely worth it when you serve for the right purposes and it's your decision to go. But I can't see the worth in being there against your will or grudgingly. My second oldest son has not served and it has never been an issue for his dad or I.

I just wanted to add that I don't doubt your experience or that there are wards and/or families where this kind of thing would be judged harshly. I'm also guessing that when you were growing up things were a lot different than they are now in most places. I don't doubt that at times in the past, it never would have been celebrated if a kid choose to enlist rather than serve a mission. I grew up in the 80s and 90s (born in the late 70s) but it sounds like you grew up in the 60s and 70s? I would guess that the peak McConkie era in the church was a hard time to have doubts, make mistakes, or choose a different road. I don't want my posts to make it seem like there has never been a problem with families shunning those who didn't serve, for whatever reason. Your feelings around the experiences with your family especially are valid.

One ward was in Utah. The others were in different states.

It’s a beautiful area, we vacation there often. Lots of popular off road trails. Good luck in your venture!

I thought it was fine too, just funny at the same time.

It is a little humorous to use AI to summarize a message about AI usage in the church. 😁

They were all active serving members in the cases I’m aware of. I think the plaques serve the same purpose as the missionary ones. In these same wards we would send Christmas cards to the service members as well as the missionaries. The plaques helped us remember everyone who was serving.

In a couple of my previous wards that had quite a few young men serving, they would put a plaque up with their military picture, information, and favorite scripture and display them along with the other missionary plaques.

I hope no one has implied that all evangelicals are anti-Mormon. I didn’t say that because I don’t believe it’s true. But what is true is that most of my personal anti-Mormon experiences have been at the hands of people who identify themselves as evangelical.

https://www.kylebeshears.com/p/what-constitutes-evangelical-anti This guy does a good job of calling out anti-Mormon rhetoric in evangelical circles

My anti-Mormon experiences were mostly with baptists but foursquare church attendees were usually meaner about it. Faith Evangelical in Billings Montana worked tirelessly to stop the temple from being built, for example, and protested people trying to attend after it was finished.

That's a good distinction that some on here might not have realized or wanted to consider: we are not saying that every man has a rapist inside of him that he could decide to let out at any minute. We aren't saying that men's natures are evil and that's why they can't be trusted.

It goes without saying that when a woman says something to the effect of “all men are potential rapists“ the “and also potential murderers” part is assumed. So is stuff like “all men are potential stalkers“ and“ all men are potential abusive spouses“ and “all men are potential kidnappers” and “all men are potential sexual molesters“. Etc, etc. Because when a woman says “all men are potential rapists“ it’s just shorthand for “all men are potentially dangerous”. So any way that a man could be dangerous to a woman, just assume from now on that that is included in the anxiety that drives the sentiment.

I think that you are probably a 100% right. And honestly, in a lot of ways it makes all of this so much worse. Because what you are essentially pointing out is that the victims of violence and sexual misconduct at the hands of men cannot expect the majority of men to want to help stop that violence unless they first treat those men in a very specific, male-centric, way. They must use the correct language. They must make sure the the men don't feel unfairly treated. They must not impugn the male character. Drawing attention to the problem is acceptable but only if it is done very carefully, with a focus on the male perspective, using male-approved language. Because a woman who has been sexually assaulted and harassed (more than once throughout the course of her life, likely starting while she was still prepubescent) cannot expect a nice guy to hear 'all men are potential rapists' and realize that she means 'women cannot reliably know which men are dangerous'. That is too much to ask of the 'safe' men around her. (I'm sorry if the anger in this post feels directed at you Amulek because it's not. You are just the messenger. It's the fact that the message is so horribly on point that is the bitter pill to swallow)

Teach Men Not to Rape "I observed the inner workings of “guy code” as a captain of my college’s basketball team. In the locker room, we’d assert ourselves by nonchalantly referencing girls we had slept with. I heard more than once: “If we couldn’t have sex with girls, we’d never talk to them.” I participated in the bravado, even if begrudgingly. Guy code didn’t come easy to me, something that had a lot to do with my upbringing. I was 12 years old when my father died in a car accident, turning my family’s lives upside down. In the wake of his death, my mother became the picture of strength. My coming of age was spent helping my mom, who taught me (whether inadvertently or not) that only a gender-equal, open-minded perspective could lead to happiness. Naturally, I was excited when I stumbled on a campus group called Male Athletes Against Violence. There I learned that stereotypical masculine attitudes and hierarchy can play a huge role in why sexual assaults happen on campus — men are rewarded for displays of sexuality and women are shamed for them: “Boys will be boys” while some women are “asking for it.” When I tried to convey this line of thinking to my peers, I spoke of deconstructing sexist norms and the importance of feminism. As you might expect, I didn’t meet with much success. Male-oriented approaches to sexual assault on campus often take a more conservative stance, essentially sending the message that men should be concerned about sexual assault because they could risk jail time or be kicked off a team....." The bolded part is how the discussion in this thread has felt. That it's really about making sure the men feel safe and comfortable and are being treated fairly more than it's about keeping women safe.

Men could also do some research themselves, to understand why it was said and what supports it rather than focusing on trying to refute it. Putting the onus on the woman to teach the man, especially when some men naturally come at the conversation from a place of pushback rather than leaning in, is emotionally exhausting.

I saw a thing online (not sure if it is true) that said that there is so much AI stuff out there now that AI ends up using AI as sources for its content, making it even less accurate than it used to be. This would not surprise me.

Yes thank you for clarifying for me. It never entered my mind that someone would think I was comparing men to parasites. 😂 But I probably should have, given Smac’s previous posts about the kind of a person he believes I am.

Women bear the consequences of Eve’s fall.