Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by OGHoosier

  1. 5 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

    The laws of physics may have nothing whatever to do with celestial glory. Most people imagine heaven to merely be a souped-up version of mortality. I'm convinced that it is so far beyond that, that we literally cannot imagine it. Well, we can imagine it, but our imaginary vision of heaven (any of them) is like trying to see something in a lightless cavern a mile underground.

    "souped-up version of mortality". That's a funny line and I approve. Actually that's how I've always viewed the telestial kingdom - souped-uo mortality. The celestial kingdom should not be considered in the same category. 

    Edit: I encountered a discussion on some other board about the laws of physics and the gospel and many Smart People™️ were posting and a consensus was that, since God is a physical being He has to obey the laws of physics as we know them. And because many Smart People™️ were going along with this I bought into it for a bit until I looked up and was like "wait why the freak should I believe that? I don't believe that. I don't think God is required to adhere our feeble conceptions of reality and I don't see any reason why I should believe that." 

    It was on that day that I was introduced to both philosophical skeptical theism and the fact that overthinking things doesn't stop with our high school final essays.  

  2. 3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

    As I have matured in the Gospel and quantum physics, I have come to feel as you do about it. My favorite physicist is Richard Feynman, and my second favorite is Stephen Hawking, both of whom were decided atheists.  In Hawking's last book (published posthumously) he said something that really clicked with me about God. Granted, he was disparaging the very existence of a Creator at the time, but what he said took me to a new place of understanding. I suppose that "understanding" is a matter of degrees (as Feynman once said, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics"). But it became extremely clear that in order to create the universe, God had to be standing outside of it, or else he would have had to create Himself, which is an absurdity. What Hawking said was that at moment of the Big Bang there was no time for a Creator to exist in (let alone create anything in). This is patently obvious! So there's no other "place" or "time" for God to be than "outside" of the universe, whatever the heck that's supposed to mean. Of course, Hawking uses this idea of "no time for a creator to exist in" to say of course there's no God, but there's no math nor physics behind that assertion, so it's just his unsupported opinion. He may have changed his opinion by now.

    Multiverse confirmed ;). I'm skeptical of many worlds theory though. 

    I am not scientifically adept by any means, so I'm probably butchering this, but I've typically found my response to the problem of entropy and eternity from this. I don't think there's reason to believe that our reality is a closed system. Also it's possible that celestial glory changes basic laws of physics. I don't dip too far into that bottomless well.

  3. 10 minutes ago, katherine the great said:

    She also had a testimony that he was a flesh and blood man and prone to mistakes. Emma was a magnificent person and if she isn't living her best celestial afterlife than no one is. 

    I expect she's doing just fine, for magnificent she was, though I'm obviously in no position to render a verdict. I unfortunately lack the quality of "being God" that would give me that right. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  4. 2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

    Is that so? I'm not objecting, I'm just questioning. You have a reference? 

    I know about the resurrection of the just and unjust, and that the unjust have to wait until all the just are resurrected (or do they?), but do all the just get resurrected at the beginning of the Millennium? Problem with that, in my mind, is that during the tribulation leading to the second coming many righteous people will die before they hear the gospel (people in places where Christian missionaries have not yet penetrated, for example, and so have not heard the "good news"). So there they are in the spirit world, not yet taught the gospel, and up starts the Millennium and they can't yet be resurrected because they're not ready for it -- but their ultimate kingdom cannot yet be determined.

    Or do you mean to say that those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom will begin to be resurrected at that time? In that case, what about those who live into the Millennium who will eventually inherit the Celestial Kingdom? When do they get resurrected?

    I'm not convinced, by the way, that it matters in which order one is resurrected.  The resurrection of the just is qualitatively better than that of the unjust, regardless of who gets resurrected before whom. 

    D&C 88:99-101, emphasis mine: 



    99 And after this another angel shall sound, which is the second trump; and then cometh the redemption of those who are Christ’s at his coming; who have received their part in that prison which is prepared for them, that they might receive the gospel, and be judged according to men in the flesh.

    100 And again, another trump shall sound, which is the third trump; and then come the spirits of men who are to be judged, and are found under condemnation;

    101 And these are the rest of the dead; and they live not again until the thousand years are ended, neither again, until the end of the earth.


    Juxtapose this with D&C 76:71-73: 


    71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

    72 Behold, these are they who died without law;

    73 And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh;

    From this I've thought that the people resurrected with the second trump are those who inherit the terrestrial kingdom. It's clear that they, unlike the telestial inhabitants, rise at the beginning of the Millenium, and therefore take part in the resurrection of the just. This makes sense, since D&C 76:75 calls the terrestrial-dwellers the "honorable men of the earth", with the caveat that they were blinded by the craftiness of men. 

    I also think that time works differently for spirits. Given that spirits are eternal beings it would absolutely have to. There's no reason that our feeble conceptions of the nature of time should actually be right. So I too am wary of a linear interpretation of these things, and I also consider that the Lord does love His symbolic teaching and there is 0 reason to believe that that has stopped with our dispensation (and the temple in fact confirms that it has not). So, I'm pretty open to loose interpretations of the trump-sequence in D&C 88. Multiple scriptures are pretty clear that Christ has to be resurrected before anybody else, but other than that I'm not sure how sequential it is. 

    The infinity of preexistence, the nature of eternity, is somewhat interesting to me. I used to be kind of baffled that our eternities could be decided by the events of 70 or so years on this little planet. But then I reflected that we have had an eternity to become what we presently are, so this life is the culmination of an eternity of preparation. Somehow that made it click on an intuitive level. 

    • Upvote 2
  5. 15 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

    I think this is exactly opposite to the truth. The Church is specifically set up to try to teach young people to receive revelation -- including seeing visions, dreaming dreams, and prophesying. In the case of young men, which is where I have personal experience, this is specifically why we organise them into quorums beginning at age 12, call and set apart presidencies, and even give presidents genuine priesthood keys. If you look closely at everything that has been (re-)emphasised in the youth space over the past two years, the goal is to make sure that otherwise well-meaning adults get out of the way as necessary and let this happen. The learn/do/share principles of Come, Follow Me are exactly what the School of the Prophets was set up for.

    As both a Young Men president and a counsellor over Young Men in two bishoprics, I used to ask the boys if their school teachers, rugby coaches, etc. took them seriously. The answer, of course, was always no. And then I would emphasise that we and God took them seriously and expected them to step up and learn to lead by revelation. It sometimes took time, but it always worked! And like the Seventy in Jesus's day, these boys would 'return again with joy' over the experiences they had had. And then they went on missions and came home even stronger. And at this point, every single one of them is active, and one of them is counsellor in our bishopric, and I see him every week working with individual deacons to get them to have their own experiences too.

    Failing to raise up sons and daughters who prophesy and see visions merely creates cultural 'Mormons', the primary pool from which ex-Mormons emerge.

    "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams" - Acts 2:17, citing Joel 2:28

    Nice scripture reference ;). Peter and Joel had an inkling of what was to come.

    • Like 4
  6. On 12/7/2020 at 12:58 AM, teddyaware said:

    Isn’t it also just as possible that a cunning apostate would, as part of a plot of strategic deception, seem to encourage others to remain Latter-Day Saints in order to make himself appear less treacherous and threatening? I’m amazed at how some (not you) seem to accept things at face value, not realizing that the adversary can always be counted on to employ subtlety and feigned good will as hallmarks of his ancient craft.

    General charity would ask us to take his words at face value but at the same time what you are talking about is an observable phenomenon, at least if you take r/exmo posters at their words. 

    Quite an unfortunate situation. "May God judge between me and thee" appears to be the only safe recourse. 

    • Upvote 1
  7. 44 minutes ago, bluebell said:

    I served in northern Cali along the coast and inland through Napa Valley. It wasn’t unusual for us to be 5+ hours from the mission President and APs. Zone leaders were usually closer. 

    Beautiful place. I was never more than an hour and a half's drive from the mission office. Nowhere in the mission was, even in LA traffic. 

    • Like 1
  8. 29 minutes ago, poptart said:

    Been to Rome too, it's amazing.  Think seeing the Vatican made one of the biggest impressions on my life.  Another thing about late Rome that always impressed me, how when the worthwhile Roman families moved away, started up places like Venice/Milan and how their militias gave everyone a run for the money.  The USA is still quite Anglo culturally hence why people like Robin Hood were so liked.  Don't get me wrong, love the movies but it wasn't the longbow that was banned by the church.



    Other thing that strikes me about Rome, geez they put a lot of the vikings to shame brutality wise, that's saying something.  Also, their gods were about as mean.  Like I said, it's something that made me take a good long look again at  the Christian religion in the west.  I've had my fair share of misgivings against Christians but i've never really had anything against the Church as an institutions.  Even the LDS, the ones here I talk to are fantastic and while I've had my differences with others IRL, like the Catholic/High Protestant Churches the LDS church is fantastic, shame some of their people are what they are but it is what it is.  Anyway, for all the early problems they had they really were one of the few, if not only orgs that did anything for the least of these.  Communal dinners, kindness etc.  Didn't matter if you were some high born Roman, a solider or a slave, all were equal.  That and with the degeneracy that was so rampant among the upper classes as well as how badly they exploited the poor, in a way I can see why the early Christians rioted as bad as they did.  I don't justify it but when you oppress a people that badly, well things happen.  That and thanks to the early Church there are repurposed Temples in Rome that were saved.  By the time the Roman empire was in serious decline a lot of people really didn't care about the gods nor the imperial religion, a lot of Christians just walked in and fixed things.  People like to blame the church for the dark ages but no one bothers to consider that things were already headed in that direction.  Without the Church a lot would have been lost and Europe probably would have descended into total barbarism.  Humbling when you think about it.


    It's been said that the Vulgate Bible was the pillar on which Europe leaned as it fought off invasions from the south and the east. The church also provided the foundations for the university system and it is thanks to the monks and scholars that we have what documentary collections we have from classical Mediterranean history. We would know nothing of Polybius and Livy and Plutarch and Diodorus were it not for dusty monks in monasteries, toiling away on manuscripts and building better than they knew. I've generally been sympathetic to the Catholic Church and that kind of increased when I went to Rome. They've done a lot of bad things as an institution but any institution that old is going to ruffle hella feathers in future generations when expectations have changed. In the meantime there's quite a bit of their legacy which I treasure and without which our modern world could never have been. Some thanks the Church gets for that, I suppose. 

    Especially re: your comment about the Church preserving ancient temples. There was something of a mixed record on that, but in all they did pretty well. The astounding extent of Roman ruins which remain in ancient Rome testify to that. The Colosseum got stripped of its marble facings to decorate some mansions and churches and Roman denizens were drilling into the walls of the structure to extract the iron spikes that held it together. It would have collapsed if the Pope hadn't pulled out some excuse (something about the Christian martyrs who died there) to declare the place a church. We have the Colosseum and the Pantheon because the Catholics intervened to stop their destruction. I stayed in an airbnb near the Pantheon and I will always be thankful to the Catholics for preserving and beautifying it, and preserving Rome in general. I was struck by how the interior of the Pantheon and the Rotunda of the Charters of Freedom in the US National Archives are almost identical. It even comes down to the name - the word "Rotonda" is how Romans refer to the Pantheon. Our own United States wouldn't be half what it is without the influences and culture preserved by the Catholics. Our dependence on them would horrify the rabid American antipapists of ages past but frankly they were wrong. 

    It doesn't help that the antipapists would usually turn on us next so I never had very tender feelings for them in the first place. James G. Blaine btfo. 

    tl;dr Respect the Catholics. 

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 1
  9. 20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

    Generally I heard from leadership above a district leader once a month and district leaders just took reports. You are generally controlled as much as you allow yourself to be. Missionaries have gone off and done all kinds of crazy. There is no one there to tell you to get out of bed or to do the work or whatever except (maybe) your companion. I just don't see it as particularly controlling. I was genuinely curious if missionary life had changed.

    I was a missionary a couple of years ago. My situation was probably different than most because I was in urban Los Angeles and all of us missionaries were very close together. We saw our zone and district leaders every week for district meetings and we saw the APs and President twice every six weeks for zone conference and the once-a-transfer interviews with the President. We'd get trainings from DLs every week. We'd also go on a couple of exchanges every six weeks where we'd swap companions and train or get trained for a day. So in my experience mission leadership was more integrated into the weekly life of the missionary then you experienced. But it's not like they were totally nannying us. When it comes to the day-to-day grind you're right, you were as controlled as you chose to be. 

    • Like 1
  10. Actually Ammon is a pretty good example. In a physical self-defense situation he was a force of nature but he was an exemplar of service and humility in any other situation. Gentleness is all the more praiseworthy when the ability to be otherwise is there. 

    As for the examples of Captain Moroni and Elijah, it's a little different. Religion was woven into the state and it was a matter of kill or be killed. And so they did. Thankfully, we do not live under such conditions. Better to follow the examples of apostles and prophets in conditions closer to our own. I can think of 15 of the top of my head which would be good candidates. 

    I'll put it on the record that I generally agree with @Calm when it comes to these videos though. 

  11. 1 hour ago, poptart said:

    This was an interesting read, never read anything about Rome from it's beginnings to the end, learned a lot.  For one, Nero wasn't as bad as people say he was, not saying he was a great guy but still.  Anyway, what stuck out were the Christians.  Up till now I had the impression the early ones were like the original Antifa, they rioted, destroyed temples, had old rites banned, burned libraries etc.  What's interesting is one of the reasons why the religion spread, the imperial beliefs kinda sucked if you were a typical Roman, poor and/or a slave.  A new belief system where the God says all are equal, blessed are the poor, greed is bad and love thy neighbor?  Add into the mix just how bad things were, how corrupt the privileged class and temples were as well as how degenerate Roman society was at that time?  Wow Christianity would have been an easy choice religion wise.  When I read just how brutal they were to the poor, big suprise they rebelled the way they did. 

    More time goes on more I start to see a lot of the Christian religions opponents had the benefits of growing up as a privileged member of western society.  They really weren't bad, compared to some of their contemporaries and what came later they paled in comparison as far as bad actions go.

    One of the highlights of my life was visiting Rome a year or two ago. It changed everything for me. I was awestruck by the beauty of all the old churches and just astounded by the ancient Roman structures older than any building I'd ever seen before. They have this air of immensity that applies to the whole idea of the Roman Empire. From the first-century until the 19th there was always somebody proclaiming themselves as the heir of the Emperors on the Palatine. I became so absolutely intrigued that I chose the Roman navy as my research topic this semester and am considering professional work in the classics. 

    But you can't go to the Colosseum without seeing the blood that was shed (and yes, I know that fights to the death in the Colosseum weren't that common.) You can't admire the Arch of Titus without seeing the carvings of the Temple Menorah being hauled away. You can't tour the Domus Augustana without feeling the weight of the emperors, one after another, who were murdered there by their own guards, and if you walk over to the facade overlooking the Circus Maximus you can almost see the contradictions; here was sport and here was death. And everyone who tours the Forum in awe of the ruins walks in the footsteps of not only senators and generals but thousands of captives displayed there in triumph. To say nothing of the fact that, unbeknownst to most, they are in sight of the Mamertine Prison, where the greatest of the Apostles went to die. 

    Rome was brutal and in the end brutality was its reward. 

    Edit: that being said, if I were to live anywhere outside of the United States it would be Rome. I've never been in a more beautiful city, the food is incredible, the history is without peer, and I've long believed that to dismiss the beauty or utility of something because of objections to its creation is to commit the genetic fallacy. So I love Rome. 

    • Like 2
    • Upvote 2
  12. 10 minutes ago, Calm said:

    Your summary is how I see things at this point. He is 22, he has been a member for 4 years. He comes to BYU with that nonmember background...how could he not see it as overboard in many ways and not feel like poking at it to shake it up?  

    If he was doing what he did on a critical level, what typical critic would care?  They would be able to relate. But when put on defensive for belief, sensitivity about personal jabs is going to increase. It is just human, so I get that. 

    But I am lost on the vehemence from many given he is 22, a convert, and minority.  

    From members too. Usually they are more protective of young converts in my experience.  I hope they take the time to learn more about him. Is he not showing enough (or any) deference to those older than him setting off triggers?

    I have nothing to add, I just want to register agreement in stronger terms than just a like. 

  13. 1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

    It’s a shame someone wasn’t around to reign in Elijah during his ministry. 

    ‘And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked [the prophets of Baal], and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked’. 

    And then there’s the matter of Brigham Young...

    I still think the biggest own in history was when Jesus told the Pharisees to carry His reply back to Herod with "Go ye and tell that fox.." and then, when hauled before Herod, didn't even acknowledge his questions. From the looks of it Jesus had some lingering respect for at least the office of the Pharisees, high priests, and Pilate, but He had only contempt for Herod Antipas.  I wonder how it must feel to be the loathsome individual who murdered John the Baptist on a dare and along the way earned the only personal epithet to ever fall from the lips of the mortal Lord of Sabaoth. 

    Actually it probably has something to do with the throne Herod sat on. He claimed to be a Jewish king. Christ accepted the suzerainty of the Romans over Israel. He accepted that the Pharisees had authority as they sat in Moses' seat, that the chief priests had authority in the place of Aaron. But Herod made pretension to the throne of David, which rightly belonged to Christ Himself. Any deference to Herod would be more than he deserved, and his dynasty protected their claims to power by offending the little ones in the most profound way possible, so no wonder Christ tweaked their noses at every opportunity. 

    • Upvote 1
  14. 1 hour ago, Ahab said:

    I thought about calling it "the" power of God instead of only "a" power but decided against that because God has many more powers but this one is one of the most powerful ones I can think of.

    The power to give us a very particular and specific thought that goes beyond the power of words.

    Think for a moment about reading a sentence of words and how it is possible to understand those words in several ways, even though TO YOU one way to understand those words might stand out as a more obvious meaning of those words.

    Words do have more than one meaning so it should be easy to understand how a person could understand a sentence of words differently than someone else.  I think it is a common thing that happens to all of us.  We choose how to understand what we read.

    And it happens with spoken words, too.  When we hear someone say something we choose how to interpret what they are saying.  Or we just give up and ask them to clarify what they meant when they said something. Or we don't even bother to try to understand them.

    But there is a power that God exercises when he helps us to understand someone else's words.  Out of the many possible interpretations he can give us one specific thought, even if it isn't the thought the person we heard was trying to convey.

    Think about how during a General Conference session someone can get a thought from the Holy Spirit while listening to a speaker's words.  And how someone else hearing the same words can get a different thought.  Each giving the hearer something different.

    That is a power of God I find to be totally mesmerizing sometimes.  I will often just sit there while being carried away by the spirit of God as he teaches me something as I listen or have listened to someone else's words.  Sometimes understanding and connecting exactly to whatever the speaker is talking about, and sometimes getting a different thought from God as God expounds on some of those words from that speaker as I am thinking about them.  And other people around me are either getting the same thoughts that I am getting or they are getting different thoughts according to whatever they are thinking about.  Inspired by the words of the speaker, sometimes, and sometimes inspired by their own thoughts they are getting from God, or from somebody else.

    Can everyone understand what I am talking about?  Does everything I have said make sense to everyone?  I wonder if what you understand from my words is what I had in mind when I wrote them or if you got some different thoughts from God as you read them.

    Have you experienced this power of God in your own lives and if so how would you describe or define it?  Do you think everyone realizes this is actually a power of God?

    Human beings can catch inspiration for one topic from something unrelated, but the influence of the Spirit comes with a different signature which can be sensed. Intelligence touching intelligence. 

    • Like 1
  15. All of this is reminding me of a book I was planning to buy called Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Yale psychologist Paul Bloom. https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338 . I had been intrigued by it but ultimately decided not to buy it, but this conversation has reignited my interest and I might get it now.

    The gist is that empathy, which we view as a basis for moral decision-making in the modern age, is actually "capricious and irrational." We're more inclined to feel empathy for those we view as allies than for those we view as enemies, and anger and rage are just as likely to be fruits of empathy as compassion or kindness. Empathy compels one to primarily self-serving and factionalistic acts of goodness: you come to affiliate with a certain group or identity and your acceptance of empathy as a guide will effectively turn you into a soldier for that group or identity, upholding your fellows but dealing mercilessly (ironically enough) with your enemies. Bloom advocates as an alternative "rational compassion" which has not been fleshed out well in the summaries and reviews, so I can't comment much on it. Perhaps the book's own description will do that job. 

    This seems like it fits into the conversation we're having here, though. I think "niceness", however we define it, whether milquetoast face-saving or performative kindness, takes its cues from empathy. We put ourselves in other people's shoes and follow the Golden Rule. However, we can perhaps put ourselves in their shoes too much ,abandoning our knowledge entirely as we assume for ourselves what we assume to be their opinions. Christ's admonitions to "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" are not commands to treat people with absolute empathy but to treat people according to the divine principles which we endorse. If we, with our knowledge of divine law, would want to be corrected if we were to err, then we are commanded to do the same for our brethren. Rationality merges with empathy in order to provide a stronger, more centered form of compassion. 

    • Like 4
  16. 1 minute ago, Nevo said:

    Speaking of Zelph on the Shelf, guess what video popped up and auto-loaded immediately after I watched the This Is the Show episode "The CES Letter is too awful for Satan"? Zelph on the Shelf's response to the "Mo Wives, Mo Problems" video. The format was simple. They just watched the video and offered their reactions in real time. I thought the Zelph on the Shelf pair came across as better human beings, and I thought their arguments were stronger. The FairMormon video, in contrast, was glib and shallow, used terrible arguments, and showed zero empathy. If I were a Gen Z kid with questions, I know which video I would prefer. Is FairMormon only trying to reach DezNat types?

    They might be experimenting in that direction. A few of the prominent DezNateers who I keep tabs on are definitely amped about it. 

    For what it's worth I don't have the same take on the videos as you do, as is to be expected. Argumentative soundness, like words, exists in the eye of the beholder. Or so I've come to believe as I have slipped into profound disillusionment with the fruits of philosophy and abstract dialogue. @mfbukowski has crashed into my worldview like Mehmet's cannonball into the venerable but outclassed Theodosian walls. 

    This is partly why I react to the videos with less aplomb. I am unconvinced that what positive fruits may come would be more visible at this stage than the initial outcry, so I'm don't consider myself competent to render judgement. I am not confident that my metric of offensiveness is properly calibrated to judge. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  17. 19 hours ago, Calm said:

    My husband knows some people working on Thorium Molten Salt reactors.  If they get it working, it will be so cool.  I have no clue where they are in the process though at this point.



    I hope the Molten Salt Reactor happens. I am unabashedly a nuclear power supporter and would love it if an even safer and more efficient model of nuclear power were to arise which could overcome objections based on safety and material disposal. 

    If it does happen, expect Idaho to have an economic boom. There's enough thorium in Lemhi Valley to power the United States for centuries at current rates, and that's before you get to all the thorium in the rock formations around Rexburg and Idaho Falls. We're talking some of the largest deposits in the world. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1
  18. 7 minutes ago, juliann said:

    I admit I don't understand it. I always demanded the academic, scholarly approach. That is how we were finally able to deal with the Evangelicals and why we don't have them overrunning our sites anymore. They couldn't counter liberal scholarship but couldn't dismiss it, either. 

    But in my retirement, for the first time in decades, I am even losing interest in the intellectual side of gospel living. It takes a lot of devotion to scholarship and time to think. But there is little empty head space now with 24/7 streaming and iPhones. I am having to deal with the fact I do not meditate anymore, I go for the quick entertaining fix. Well, and grandkids. But it has taught me how arrogant and intolerant I was because other's wouldn't devote all their waking hours to what I thought was so meaningful and fascinating. 

    I don't know what the solution is here, fortunately, I don't have to come up with stuff anymore. I just keep a pile of rocks ready for anybody who tries and misses. (sarcasm alert)

    Never has a generation been able to hop so quickly between challenge and recreation. Most of our work is on computers. Most of our recreation is too, and the boundary between the rigorous and the relaxing is only ever as much as a Chrome tab. Our favorite media (Instagram, Twitter, and TikTok) are optimized for brief visual engagement. If you want to get something done with Gen Z (as a generalized stereotype, of course, but not without descriptive merit) you HAVE to be engaging and attention-grabbing. I find that the younger generation does place more of a premium on confrontation as well. "Get rekt", "roasted", and "they got ratio'd" are common refrains. There's definitely a attitude of aggression - youthful aggression, but its there. In my experience Gen Z comes not to bring peace, but a sword. Some might call it regressive. I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not normal. I have none of the aforementioned three social medias and grew up obsessed with old statesmanship and civics, which has led many of my own friends to call me a Boomer in a Zoomer's body. Also, that particular generation gap cannot be emphasized enough.

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 1
  19. 9 minutes ago, juliann said:

    Your FM talk was one of the most highly rated ever, if I recall. I am no longer with FM but people have a very inaccurate perception of what a shoestring operation it was. I can see how this happened. These people don't make $200K a year with all expenses paid from what they do. They must rely on what people bring to them. I can also visualize how a handful of volunteers are left with picking up the pieces while being jeered from all sides. It has always been a thankless job and will remain so. 

    It hasn't even been a week, so perhaps it is too soon to talk about undoing the past 20 years? (In which time we made some real doozies of mistakes.) We learned as we went along and I assume that will be the case now. Meanwhile, we as a church are left with the loss of our youth, who as a Boomer, I am told really do need a different approach. I would hope that this will be a very hard learning experience but a pathway to getting it right and doing more good and needed work. And that FM supporters will respond with kindness and understanding. 


    Honestly, another language is needed for the rising generation. I have been able to get into the formal scholarship in Interpreter and Dialogue and other places around the 'nacle, and there are many of my generation who have done so, but there are many who are not as easily reached or moved by such methods. That's why the august, respectable, and predictable denunciations of The Show by those who inhabit the commanding heights of CoJCoLDS-adjacent intelligentsia feel like so many category errors. The generation gap is big this time around.

    Edit: This is not to say that every joke Kwaku and Ben make is justified, but the general movement in their direction is absolutely necessary. With all due respect to the credentialed academic denizens of this board, your work is meat and Twitter and TikTok conditions one for milk. Specifically, the milk of quick quips and attention-keeping. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2
  20. Quote

    Jesus was loving. He was gracious. He was forgiving. He was kind. But he was not nice. He was a man who would leave the 99 sheep to rescue the one, but he was also totally unafraid of offending people. Jesus understood the difference between graciousness and personal compromise, between speaking truth and needlessly alienating people. Rather than wear a shiny veneer, he became the embodiment of rugged love. This, not niceness, is what we are called to.

    The article is quite right in that niceness for its own sake can be a problem. I tend to think that if a desire to appear respectable constrains one's witness, then the situation is effectively the same as that of the Pharisees praying loudly on a street corner: "ye have your reward." 

    However, President Eyring is also right in that stereotypical "niceness" can be a useful stance with which to approach critical dialogue. Admittedly, Jesus Christ did not approach it in this way, but I'm not sure how relevant that is for our time. I don't buy the argument that "Jesus had perfect judgement and we don't, so we should refrain from His sharpness." Jesus had perfectly superior judgement to us but He also told us to follow His example, which He set deliberately, and He did command to make righteous judgements. But I do think that our standards for rhetorical effectiveness today are different than they were in first-century Israel and I'm not sure that Jesus would use the same approach if His ministry were today. 

    That being said, if I'm going to judge by the acceptable rhetorical standards, then maybe Kwaku has a point, at least when he's talking to Gen Z. I admit the videos resound with me a bit. I can see why these videos would appeal to Gen Zers like me. The generation raised on Twitter and TikTok will likely react to rhetorical tactics in different ways then our more patient predecessors. 

    • Like 3
    • Upvote 1
  • Create New...