Jump to content

mgy401

Members
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

42 Excellent

About mgy401

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Perhaps worth pointing out that the verbiage of the LDS baptismal prayer isn’t quite eternally cast in stone, either. In this dispensation we’ve been instructed to use the specific form outlined in D&C 20:73. But alternative forms were used in Mosiah 18:13 and 3 Nephi 11:25.
  2. Many early LDS tabernacles were also built on a cruciform floor plan—the Provo Tabernacle and the Assembly Hall being two examples. But it strikes me as being an open question whether this was supposed to be a direct nod to the symbol/theological significance of the cross, or merely an emulation of houses of worship that were being built by other faiths and whose design had proved functional. I suppose that next to a simple square/rectangle, a cross is probably among the most prevalent and logical footprint for any large building meant to accommodate a crowd?
  3. This is what the argument will be: If government can stop the meetings of churches because they transmit a biological virus that is 0.5% lethal, why shouldn’t it stop the meetings of churches that transmit ideas to LGBTQ youth that lead to suicide, which is 100% lethal?
  4. Hence, the rainy day fund. If the Church’s rainy day fund only yielded a 3% annual return rate, about one-sixth of that income could be used to give free tuition to every single student at the three BYU schools. (Not saying the Church *should* do that, of course. But financially speaking, so long as BYU admin and faculty remain in the Church leadership’s good graces, the universities will be just fine regardless of broader educational trends.)
  5. Because I think (admittedly speaking in generalities) it’s *far* more likely that a man would divorce someone he found sexually unfulfilling, than that a woman would divorce a man who was keeping his covenants and treating her like gold but had admitted that he just had certain *thoughts* or *feelings* that he never has and never will act upon. And because if Ivie had wanted to say “I was willing to stick it out, but my wife wanted to leave me because she’s a homophobe”, he could have done that—but he didn’t. And because I think we all know what modern social media would do to a woman who publicly said she was *not* OK with her gay husband abandoning his covenants to her.
  6. I live in Utah County and am pretty conservative on social/LGBTQ issues. I have a hard time sympathizing with any man, gay or straight, who divorced his wife of 13 years merely because he has decided he’s not sexually attracted to her. But, I voted for Ivie anyways—the tax increase was a 67% increase in *the county’s share* of your property tax, but most property tax goes to the state for education; so it was “only” like a 5% increase in my total property tax. I work with enough county departments and have seen how cash-strapped they are, that I reluctantly agree that the tax hike needed to happen. In debating the situation with numerous friends and family members here, no one mentioned Ivie’s sexual orientation—no one. The election was basically a referendum on the tax increase.
  7. 1. Not really. An armed citizen can take down a proximate, direct threat to self or a defined third party, but he can’t go taking out a fleeing attacker just because the attacker *might* thereafter attack some other undefined victim. Police, however, have both a duty to protect the public that a private citizen doesn’t have; and the training to identify what does or doesn’t constitute a threat to the public. 2. Martin was not shot from distance as he was running away. He was shot from less than 18”, in the midst of a scuffle resulting from his physically attacking Zimmerman, getting on top of Zimmerman MMA-style, and pounding Zimmerman’s head into the concrete sidewalk repeatedly. Third-party witness testimony, and forensics, corroborated this. If Trayvon Martin is the best example the BLM folks can think of to try to convince me that there’s a problem, then that leaves me with the impression that there must not really be *that* big of a problem.
  8. A point to consider: The constitution allows government under certain conditions to end life, end liberty through imprisonment, seize property, prevent marriage, confiscate children, and punish speech. It does not, under any circumstances, allow government to order a person to change their religion.
  9. Screeds like Tasi’s often reduce to a matter of “the dog that didn’t bark”. What did Tasi see that he isn’t telling us about—and why the omission? Tasi witnessed Brigham’s teachings in action when as a lawyer, he saw abused women legally freed to divorce their husbands—as Brigham advocated. Tasi saw Brigham’s teachings in action when he law children being attentively cared for by their parents—as Brigham advocated. He saw Brigham’s teachings in action when he saw the construction of solid, habitable buildings and the cultivation of fertile fields and fragrant gardens on land that was formerly a barren desert wasteland—as Brigham advocated. He saw Brigham’s teachings in action when he saw a Utah culture rife with the arts, painting, music, theater, education—as Brigham advocated. He saw Brigham’s teachings in action when he saw the Gospel of Jesus Christ preached, brutality condemned, avarice rebuked, honesty and fairness promoted, generosity encouraged, substance abuse abandoned, laziness reviled, marital fidelity extolled, community-mindedness incentivized, covenants made and kept . . . all as Brigham advocated. He saw Brigham’s teachings in action when he saw the storehouses, the hospitals—the poor fed, the ill tended, the sorrowful consoled, the visits made, the funeral potatoes baked—all as Brigham advocated. One would think a person of Tasi Young’s experience, of all people, would be especially attenuated to thoroughness, nuance, and presenting all sides of a story . . .
  10. My gender is irrelevant to the question of whether you deliberately tried to create the impression that the public limelight found you rather than vice-versa.
  11. Me. Butterfield, it sounds to me like *you* are the one trying to craft a one-sided narrative and promote it to the press; and you’re just miffed that @smac97 did his due diligence before accepting your claims at face value. I have no idea as to the veracity of your other claims. But as for your claim that “In my own investigations a journalist sought me out not the other way around. I did not seek to share the story . . .” — Frankly, I do not find it credible that either the Church or your ex-husband would alert the press to the existence of a story that would tend to embarrass both of them. That leaves you, and only you, as the one who set the wheels in motion for this story going public. It is an unfortunate truth of human nature that if a person is caught saying one inaccuracy, folks will wonder how many of that other person’s statements are similarly inaccurate. I’m sincerely sorry for whatever you’ve gone through, and I wish you the best. But I’m not going to automatically accept conclusory allegations that are contrary to evidence and common sense just because you, as a trauma victim, tell me that you deserve to be believed. The natural response is going to be to investigate before I make up my mind; and as is clear from your statements to smac97–you don’t want your claims to be investigated.
  12. I think the more likely approach the Church might take, is that it was a divine policy that allowed the church to pragmatically negotiate the challenges posed by prejudice and wickedness outside as well as within the Church; rather like the Church’s failure to build the New Jerusalem in Jackson County and its subsequent removal to Illinois and then Utah. But frankly, even that approach is problematic. Re-affirming the idea that God would subordinate the interests of black Church members to serve a greater good (or just to accommodate white wickedness) isn’t going to earn us lot of popularity points in today’s culture. And the alternative—to suggest that Brigham Young, due to his own baser instincts, imposed a wholly unauthorized and unmitigatedly harmful church-wide policy, and/or that David McKay misrepresented his instructions when he said God had specifically told him to leave the ban in place—strikes deeply at the Church leadership’s moral authority and the notion that, as President Uchtdorf put it, “God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.“ For those of us who believe the LDS leadership have special insight into the mind of God and a special commission to relay that insight to the rest of us—if God had anything revolutionary to say on the matter that the Church or the world was ready to hear, He’d very likely have said it by now. For those who don’t recognize any special divine insight or authority by the LDS leadership—from a PR standpoint, there is absolutely *nothing* they could say that would lead to a net improvement of the status quo (as the Church’s supposedly uninspired leadership would be inclined to see it).
  13. [Tangent] Growing up, I was taught that it’s still proper to use the title “Bishop” in reference to a released bishop because while “Bishop” is no longer his ecclesiastical position, it remains his priesthood office. Similar, I suppose, to the reason that on my wedding day the temple sealer kept referring to me as “elder”.
  14. The thing is, that’s not what’s happening either. What’s happening is “Stop the police from killing us for no reason!” ”OK, give us an example.” ”John Doe”. ”Hmm. Looks here like he actually attacked the cop, and the cop fired in self defense, and here’s the forensic evidence to prove it.” ”Don’t try to fool me with your “forensics”, you tricky man. Explain Tom Roe‘s death to me”. ”Ugh, that was horrific. Looks like that cop was definitely, certifiably racist. I also note he actually got convicted of first-degree murder.” ”But he didn’t get the death penalty!” ”You succeeded in having the death penalty abolished in our state, fifteen years ago. You said it was inherently racist.” ”Well, what about Ed Jones?” ”Yep. Cops were out of line, but I note that two of the six offending cops—and the police chief and the mayor—were black as well. So it looks like the problem in that department may be use-of-force generally more than bona fide racism.” “Hey, check your privilege, racist! And you can’t deny the inherent racism in Andy Johnson’s beating!” ”That case was an absolute travesty. It looks like the cop there also had a track record of inappropriate use of force against multiple victims of various races. So yeah, I agree we have got to address the general problem of police brut—“ “What? No! The problem is racism, only racism, and nothing but racism; and unless you agree that the problem is only racism, I shall burn your house down!”
  15. 1. *Shrug* I was responding to a specific statement by Meadowchik (or their acquaintance). I’m fine looking at solid policy proposals; just not a fan of the “hide the ball” game being played by some. 2. I don’t think Ahab was suggesting that we should act as though nothing’s wrong. I think Ahab was simply saying that the universal application of the principles we are already teaching would largely solve the problem; and that if people aren’t listening to the first solution we offer, then they probably won’t give much attention to the second or third or fourth solutions we come up with.
×
×
  • Create New...