Jump to content

mgy401

Members
  • Content Count

    144
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

187 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ordinarily I’d perhaps be more charitable. But in this case, Helfer’s particularized stock in trade is supposed to be the tools she gives to clients to help them deal with trauma in ways that are constructive rather than antisocial. And I’m not sure I’m ready to equate “public [psychological] trauma”, as you and @Meadowchik characterize her experience, with “publicly humiliating an institution, its leaders, and adherents; proactively misleading folks about its doctrine stances; getting privately contradicted; taking the dispute public; failing in your gambit to surreptitiously record th
  2. If they specialize in faith transitions they could easily have called themselves “former Mormon” or “recovering from Mormonism” or a variety of other names. They want the people who are still in the Church. It seems bizarre to me that you would suggest that mental health counselors are *not* in a position of trust and authority over their clients. Perhaps I’m misinterpreting you? I don’t think there’s any way you can handle a membership council of this nature in a way that’s going to yield good PR. Helfer is a champion for sexual libertinism in a sexually libertine society where t
  3. But remember, folks—you can’t safely trust untrained members of The Patriarchy to give solid counsel to your teenagers regarding sensitive personal matters. It is people like Helfer—the highly trained, impeccably level-headed, unfailingly altruistic professionals whose personal lives are oh-so-functional-and-put-together—to whom we ought to entrust our time, our children, and (of course!) our client retainer accounts. Taking life advice from someone whose life isn’t an absolute trainwreck, is highly overrated. I’m sure Sam Young would agree.
  4. In a legal sense, you are doubtless correct. In a practical sense—I don’t think we’re fooling anyone here. The group hasn’t chosen its name in an attempt to serve the massive client base (or tap into the enormous revenue potential) that comes from the Bickertonite church. The group is clearly trying to create a patina that their practices/recommendations represent mainstream LDS values, in order to ingratiate themselves with an LDS audience as they seek to a) drum up business for their own commercial gain, b) place themselves in an extraordinary position of trust and authority over oth
  5. FIFY. Robert can speak to himself; but from my perspective it’s not a mere matter of whoever has more resources. It’s a matter of who has the resources and wants to help Helfer achieve her objectives. The Church doesn’t. Dehlin, apparently, does.
  6. Nothing you write here really undercuts any of my points: the stock market does form the basis for the retirement savings for millions of middle- and lower-class Americans; Gravity is still perpetrating “income inequality”; and Mr. Price still apparently has additional income he has elected not to share with his employees. Instead, you seem to be moving on to the suggestion that passive investment income is, per LDS theology, inherently immoral. That leads to some interesting questions. Is it truly “idle” to lend one’s own resources to others to facilitate their own revenue-produci
  7. But then, the Church isn’t the entity whining about how the supposed unfairness of the proceeding in the first place. And of course, the gravamen of the proceeding is that she’s actively trying to undercut the Church’s mission by justifying sin. I realize that it would be a sort of utopia for some folks to see the Church compelled to actually pay its critics for their “services”, but that’s not really how the world works . . .
  8. All I saw was a post that, rather than engaging with the substantive point that Dehlin should be more than able to assist Helfer with her travel costs, got into a debate over the definition of the word “fortune”. I don’t really see a need to split hairs over whether that’s “following” Dehlin, or “supporting” him, or “running interference for” him, or whatever. But in any event, I thought a bit of perspective might be of interest—if not to you than perhaps to some other participant/lurker here.
  9. I have no idea what percentage of all stocks on the market are held by billionaires versus millionaires versus thousandaires. But the fact is that pretty much anyone with a pension or retirement fund, owes the health of that fund primarily to the market for stock in publicly-traded companies. Numerically, the number of lower and middle-class investors far exceeds the number of fat cats in the market. And though some of us may find it ideologically inconvenient—that number does include public retirement funds for teachers and firefighters and police officers and government workers, as well a
  10. *Shrug* I dunno. Just thought it interesting how some folks spring to Dehlin’s defense over $200K but pillory President Eyring and his associates over $114K. I suppose that in some people’s minds, the obscenity of a person’s individual earnings is in direct proportion to the degree to which that person’s public statements make us feel bad about our predatory sex lives, dysfunctional relationships, minuscule attention spans, and general narcissistic approach to life. “Millions for validation, but not one penny for repentance”, and all that.
  11. Mathematically, it is always a simple thing to take a little from the many in order to give a lot to the few. This is the trade-off Price makes when he chooses to pay high salaries to hundreds in lieu of taking his firm public and paying small dividends to thousands or millions of shareholders (including firefighters, teachers, and anyone who has a 401(k)). That is Price’s prerogative. It doesn’t mean that all firms—especially publicly-traded ones—can or should act as Gravity Payments has done; and I know *I* wouldn’t loan money to a company that was paying $70K a year to a phone jockey fre
  12. post removed Refer to religious leaders by their customary names. Be respectful. [OK, happy to fix! —mgy401] However relatively small Dehlin’s income, it is still significantly higher than President Nelson’s apparent income.
  13. 1. To the extent that they’re posting the quotes because they believe he has some special authority—sure. To the extent that they are quoting him because he was right—no dice. The idea of being judged by the content of one’s character rather than by the color of one’s skin is heady stuff; redistributionists and vengeance-seekers are going to have to engage with the argument, rather than simply memory-holing everyone who made it. 2. Sure. Because seeking government aid to compel thieves to disgorge tangible real and personal property stolen within the past sixty months, is the exact.
  14. 1. Point taken; but if the idea of MLK as cross-racial unifier is a myth and a critical mass of people who have hitherto embraced that myth come to reject it—then his stock goes even lower among those not already predisposed to accept the demands du jour of the latter-day race warriors. 2. In the current context, that’s sort of a distinction without a difference. BLM, Nation of Islam, Marxist, fascist, Stalinist, communist, social democrat, authoritarian, progressive—from a practical standpoint the common thread between them is that to a greater or lesser degree they all think I owe th
  15. The notion that building faith requires effort is hardly novel ground, theologically speaking. But insofar as Nelson phrased it even more innocuously than usual and yet still managed to elicit weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth from the usual suspects, I can only conclude that this was some prophetic-level trolling. Maybe even presiding-high-priest level trolling.
×
×
  • Create New...