Chum

Some of that is in play. This fundraiser is getting some of the most positive press I've ever seen - about anything. It's a whole other level of alluring. Ultimately, I will be okay with this. If only because for one moment, something is capturing American's attention but isn't advancing historical harm and cruelty.

I read about it. I was really hoping it omitted that part. Including it seems unfortunate.

I would like to add here that rancor is always rancor. And it's constantly on offer to us. We all come in contact with it. And consumers invariably don't know that they are consumers. I've been one. It looked like this. It always looks like this. I believed a narrative that [Group] is a problem. I allowed, accepted and/or supported harsh, life-changing measures against them. [this is the spot where the rationalization, manipulation, etc explanations go] What's important is that from Christ's standpoint, I was okay with harming God's children. And that I got there by consuming a different brand of our shooter's poison.

How it would make sense to me is that he had 2 powerful experiences that were intertwined; one was with his girlfriend and another was with the Church. Past here I am surmising. I imagine that both experiences faded with time and distance and left voids. His wife filled one. And somewhere he came across and consumed anti-Church poison and that distracted him from whatever was left. That he was exposed to vitriolic, anti-Church rancor and it had an impact on him - I think this bit is a given.

This is helpful and appreciated.

I accept this but I could use your help in bringing it home for me. If a parent finds there is no young men's weekday program at all except basketball, how should they proceed - once the initial polite asking to implement existing Church programs and polite offering to volunteer have all been politely declined?

I would like it if theological institutions and other Christian organizations would stop all instruction that leads to adherents believing other faiths are evil.

edited

Me and #5 about to go out for our nightly 3mi. I'll see what's what, on return.

The commercial with the young mom, baby crying, boiling pots, baby crying, ringing phone, burned hand, baby crying, hang up on hubby and she lunges toward the crib. That came out about 1980 and it was the first time I'd ever heard of the Church - whoever those people were. Even as an adolescent I was deeply impressed they covered the topic in a commercial and in a realistic way.

In my old ward, the C word came out whenever someone talked about improving things or doing an event that the Stake didn't prescribe. Usually there were some "You can just go do that yourself" suggestions in between.

Okay I am truly and fully confused. I wouldn't have missed laughter even then. I'm going to see if I can find the version I saw (because I heard the talk, in conference ~1996). Pray for me because finding anything on Church sites can be hard. I think the Church just copied it's search code from Amazon's site.

Wait, the audience laughed? It was all I could do to even find this talk and I've only read the transcript. I'm a little baffled. I know they laughed during the other link'd talk because the "I can't Recommend it" line about the hospital was pretty good.

Yeah they weren't close captioning a thesaurus during those 1990s conferences. The satellite tech was still pretty new.

Absolutely. I am not condemning his talk. It was appropriate and full of wisdom and came from a holy place. But it also tore into me like rabid wombat and not the good kind. Pres Hinckley's later talks came from an immeasurably better place and that's my takeaway.

I joined the church years after the talk (I linked) was given. But I heard the talk in the mid-late 1990s and am pretty sure it was at conference. Assuming I heard a redo, there could be some difference in the Pres Hinckley's delivery (between what I heard and what I linked to) but the wording looks dead on. Remember that I'm a couple of years into my membership here. I was strongly struck (then) by what felt like barely emoted yet profoundly disdainful unhappiness from Pres Hinckley. I quickly came to believe that Pres Hinckley found this man worthless. On the dresser he saw a $20 bill, took it, and left. Through the years his conscience had bothered him and he was now returning the money. (Me: The man had a conscience. Conscience is good. I've probably got some old wrongs I could right.) He did not include anything for interest for the period during which he had used my money. (Me: Wait, what? I mean I get it but this is no longer a story about conscience and repentance. Failure to pay interest converts repentance ... into what?) But as I read his pathetic letter I thought of the usury to which he had subjected himself for a quarter of a century... (Me: Pathetic letter. Pathetic letter. Pathetic. From an apostle. I imagine that man hearing this talk. An apostle weighs his repentance in front of the world and declares it is Pathetic. If it were me I would be done inside.) Pres Hinckley is still talking but his tone is the same. I probably didn't want to hear more of the same. I didn't retain any of the talk after that. (Me: I'm leaving my old wrongs in the past. I can fall short trying to do the right thing. Nothing's worth an apostle laying me in front of the world.)

At this point in my life, I find comfort in the transition. I look forward to what President Oaks will become. Although at 94, I'm wondering what's left to soften. Anyway, President Hinckley taught me how the office changes prophets - via 2 conference talks he gave. One was so harsh it felt bitter. After that, I would brace myself for his talks. The other talk was intimate and personal, in a way that drew him close. After hearing the first, you couldn't have convince me the second was possible.

True but the last years of President Benson felt like that.

If we want fewer attacks, less poisonous vitriol seems like surest way to get there. What we have the most power to effect - it's the flavors that align with what we believe.

Some of these things are possible but I don't want to read in to it. We seem to be getting a clearish picture even if a few of the key details are missing.

The recounting by that candidate was helpful. I was (personally) theorizing this was retaliation for the Kirk assassination. I now think that is unlikely. The candidate also mentioned that the perp was talking rapidly and [in my take] delivering his anti-LDS scree with some forcefulness. Content + delivery says manic phase to me.

This is presented as if the former was the reason for the latter. It uses 'human trafficker' descriptor which allows for the assumption of sex slavery or other fully non-consensual labor. However, on the ever-revolving stack of grievances that was given in the (not insubstantial) effort to develop animosity for this man, this particular claim (stemming from driving a van of workers between locations) didn't appear until long after he was returned from the El Salvador torture facility.

Same and family, same, same.