Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

juliann

Contributor
  • Posts

    15,688
  • Joined

Everything posted by juliann

  1. Aside from boomers, less than half of members are wearing them as instructed. This is a great improvement, but it is still way too much fabric to house a few symbols. If they can do something as radical as a"slip" to wear under dresses option, they can do more. They are testing this at the equator, but the washing required for all that fabric is an ecological disaster in less developed countries as well as unhealthy.
  2. Soooo…you apparently think President Nelson woke up one morning a few years ago and said, “I’m going to build a medical school! And it was a done deal? This constant carping on how someone else, whom you have no association with, should be spending their money is quite frankly…tedious and tiresome. Now the medical school isn’t BIG enough? Seriously? The church has to outdo every other school as it enters into new territory for it to count? That is just lame.
  3. Gosh, that wouldn't happen would it? Just think, if it was at BYU it would even be affordable! A medical school at a time where we are facing doctor shortages strikes me as being....great. It is possible to disagree on how a church should spend its money...but I think you are going to have to find a lot more to convince the people who actually fund it. (And as for the end times, for those that buy into that, it isn't a flash event, it is a long event of deprivation so yes, the money would be useful, but even more so, the provisions they are now creating to be able to supply food and such.) You are just going to have to agree to disagree with active tithe payers as to what is proper or ethical, I'm afraid.
  4. Hm, I don't think some of this is builds your position. The members paying tithing, at least a large, large majority of them, do it with the knowledge the church is not completely transparent. Maybe "large donors" expect clear communication, they are either getting it privately...or they are getting what everyone else does and still paying. I don't see a problem there.There is trust....especially when there has never been any embezzling type stuff despite repeated efforts to find it. I'll bet most were stunned to hear what the church is worth.... immediately followed by respect. The church has always taught wise money management, not going into debt is a huge part of that. So it strikes me as downright odd to try to find fault with the church having a huge fund...used or not. Remember you have a lot of tithe payers who think the "end times" are near so it makes a lot of sense to have a large reserve, especially for those who think they are going to be magically saved from death. We also know we are not seen in a positive light so having this much money seems even wiser. The church can always be in a position to protect religion for us and others. Money is power....which makes me wonder if that fear isn't at the bottom of a lot of the carping. I'm also very impressed with how they are buying land and farms. It seems far sighted where "immediate impact" doesn't. So I think you are barking up the wrong (secular tree) with this kind of stuff. Even those of us who have gripes with church policies aren't having a problem with this. That doesn't mean that more transparency wouldn't be a good idea, but good grief, what they have managed to do with my tithing is downright impressive and beyond brilliant. Maybe they just need to put a disclaimer at the bottom of all tithing slips to avoid having to give my tithing to people going after deep pockets after they change their minds about voluntary contributions.
  5. I apologize if this has been answered but I don’t remember much about the whistleblower aside from how shocking it was at the time. Since the plaintiff seems to be relying on his statements, how much admissible evidence did he actually have? I was surprised to hear references to what he said rather than what he had when listening to the hearing.
  6. Neylan McBaine gave a very good update from her book, Women in the Church, written 10 years ago. I think she explains what is happening very well, I hope a transcript is forthcoming. I also think we will continue to have even higher defections of women under the current conditions. "Any man sitting next to a woman at church this Sunday will have ecclesiastical authority over her." (paraphrase). The difference in involvement and respect is becoming too much of a contrast when women are not expected to defer to males, merely because they are male, in their every day lives. She said when it comes to the governance of the church "doing less, being less, contributing less is considered admirable." It's crazymaking. She quotes a mother saying the inequity is seen by her children as almost comical. She doesn't know what to tell them. I'm very weary of waiting. I totally understand those that give up. It is especially hard on single women. It would be different if there was a concerted effort to include, even without ordination of priesthood, but I don't see it. I do see some gains being taken away, however.
  7. Wouldn't the court first have to decide if interest is tithing? That doesn't seem secular. Then how do they decide after all this time, if it is together, what is interest and what is principle? I thought the seerstone stuff, as presented, was ludicrous. But I think the church is at fault for not thoroughly disclosing how tithing is used to prevent this kind of stuff.
  8. I listened to it. My concern was the judge/s (I couldn't distinguish them by voice only so they will all be judge to me) seemed oblivious to how church history and doctrine develop. The plantiff seems to demand that doctrine/practice be decided by picking a moment in time of her choice. I don't know how these legal proceedings go or what to expect but there is a multi-century development of every church's doctrines and I don't think these judges are knowledgable in that area. As someone trained in scholarship, that concerns me greatly if they are going to get into that.
  9. I assume "older" meant the earliest episodes, plus all of it is "older" once it is released. They have current lives going on after filming. I know the difference between the two shows although I haven't watched a full episode of the Real Housewives.
  10. I watched a few episodes because the show was on where I was visiting. They said it was old episodes. Actually, I didn't find it that shocking (no swinging.) I thought they were fairly decent in talking about Mormon stuff, one of them is painted as more "devout." The others made it clear what they were doing/did wasn't acceptable in Mormonism. So in a distorted way, it almost seemed as it makes us less weird if these weirdos are claiming to be Mormon. If that makes sense. What a bunch of dopes. They have nice hair, though except for the bad extensions lady. The worst problem is the show is just awful. How many girls nights out can a group of people have? I would hope people realize by now that all these phony "reality" shows are highly controlled so there is enough conflict, etc.
  11. Armand Mauss wrote about kleenex boxes replacing Bibles at the pulpit (he didn't mean it as a judgment.) So it is cultural for the most part, IMO. I don't like it is when people get teary the minute they start talking but other than that, stuff happens.
  12. Anyone who has attended single wards knows how many problematic men cluster there. I don't think putting 18 year olds with 35 year olds is an inspired idea.
  13. The worst part, if that is possible, was the racism and sexism. After I heard about this book in testimony meeting, I went through it with a fine tooth comb. He contradicts himself repeatedly. Like claiming he was color blind but then describing the vivid color of jewels a Native American tribe living under the ice had. His description of his birth was hilarious. I didn't do rigorous research but a quick google didn't have Primary Children's Hospital doing what he claimed at that time period. He considered Polynesians (forget what Island) cannibals and devilish. There is an icky part where he spends too much time describing a young man's sinful sexual desires. He seems a little too interested. He manages to shut the door before the Eastern Europeans could make it to the US, as if God would set an arbitrary time line to travel across the world. It is Japanese who are inhabiting America. He manages to get around the country in an abandoned magic vehicle he finds. He fuels it with used french fry oil he barters for as he travels north to find the Native American lost tribe (even though he apparently would have nothing to barter)....who hand over their records to him. Women are always side kicks and he offs his wife in one passing sentence. My fav was that despite all the detail he provides, he just couldn't find any dates in his time travels. There were some convenient similarities to other after death books. It was awful to the point of comedy. It's been many years since I reviewed the book so I may be messing up some details.
  14. Sounds like a very toxic family. I'm wondering what they hoped to gain by publicly humiliating him.
  15. So if you are literally given to some dude for whatever he wants you for, you aren't a slave? What would you call it? Like Hagar, she was already a slave. I'm actually chuckling at your belief that being old makes you lonely. What makes you lonely is not having a social circles. And the likely reason these loser men are going overseas is because women here won't have them. Women are single because there aren't attractive options. It may take awhile before a lot of men stop your kind of thinking and realize they are going to have to step it up. They do much worse being single than women do.
  16. Concubines are sex slaves. There is no way to pretty that up. If you think God is commanding that, well.... Polygamy in ancient cultures was a practice of the rich and an accepted part of the culture. It has nothing whatsoever to do with "raising seed" since plural wives have less children per wife than monogamous wives. I continue to be mystified why anyone would try to bring Iron Age practices into modern life where women do just fine without husbands.
  17. I always find it very interesting when polygamy advocates misuse these verses to make them about women rather than a prediction of the sorry state of the men, i.e., themselves.
  18. Ah, we have another polygamy advocate misinterpreting scripture that has nothing to do with today. Seriously? Being childless or unwed is a reproach for women? Live in the real world much? Have you just been biding your time to get to this topic?
  19. This goes back to why they are now being transparent about covenants. It never was a good idea to not let people know what they are promising to do before they have to say yes. They are now doing it all over again. All of my knowledge about garments came from what I was randomly told and temple recommend interviews that could be invasive depending on the man doing it (For many years I was expected to tell two men that I wore my bra over the garment because some Stake Prez decided that was appropriate.) I never saw it as a covenant, just something I was supposed to do as an adjunct to covenants.
  20. I doubt he knows the difference between yoga pants, leggings, and exercise tights, the later two probably the real beef. Because he is singling out younger women in particular, they don't tend to wear garments under tight exercise clothing. One of the things that I found unusual in SLC was so many women wearing exercise clothing when shopping. This seems more of an attempt to control clothing with garments merely being the means. There would be no point in targeting women and yoga pants if it was only about underwear. At least it didn't go into modesty rhetoric but it is still men policing women's bodies (and underwear) which is never a good look.
  21. Maybe we need to ask for a more clear rule about using sacred scripture as a brickbat to throw at people. But, this is what you are actually doing while hiding behind "scripture." BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to: • Spamming or advertising products, publications, or websites • Profanity and vulgarity including offensive avatars or signatures • Insulting language, or statements meant to do nothing more than provoke others • Personal attacks or squabbles (dispute opinions not persons) • Mocking the beliefs of others • Telling others how to behave or “net nannying” (Instead report objectionable content) • Derailing threads with irrelevant or unwanted commentary • Violating standard rules of debate such as extreme comparisons and hyperbole • Refusing to provide appropriate references to support your statements • Spreading malicious gossip • Engaging in board wars by bringing other boards content here or vice versa • Badgering a participant for an answer that has already been given • Judging others worthiness, questioning sincerity, mind reading or psychoanalyzing • Pretending to be someone you aren't, or faking membership in a religion to fool others • Posting personal or identifying information about others • Altering members quotes on the board • Quoting members in your signature without obtaining their permission • Posting copyrighted material or passing off other’s materials as your own • Creating another user name (sock puppet) to get around suspension or banning • Contacting anyone who doesn't want to be contacted
  22. Sounds like they are trying to do another round of retrenchment. This is an odd thing to add to Sis. Dennis' talk and I don't appreciate him targeting women. "Yoga pants?" That is insulting.
×
×
  • Create New...