juliann Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 We are responsible for our choices in life. The greatest Priesthood duty is to one's family (i.e., not to "The Church" or callings). Don't forget that they are lying decievers and you are a braindead dupe!
charity Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 Fatboy, I hope the man you know listened to Elder Eyring talk about being humble and accepting the will of the Lord. Maybe that will help him.
KevinG Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 Re: My earlier comments.People sometimes refuse to take personal responsibility for their choices and then blame others for their misfortunes.In a Church where we teach agency, personal revelation, counsel and knowing for yourself... people should take responsibility.Just today I re-heard Elder Woodruffs quote on knowing for ourselves, and Elder Nelson's talk warning us to be balanced and put family first.The Church did x-y-z to me is really a cop out, and no different from the many variations of the devil made me do it.I have never been in a situation where I approached my Church leaders and told them of a hardship, where they didn't do their best to accomidate me. I realize we have some har liners out there, but we aren't obligated to follow people to hell, and in fact we are strongly admonished not to.Work, family and worship are not either or propositions. Obedience and personal responsibility are not either or proposions. Respect and being repected are not either or propositions.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 Update to save Bob and his followers some bandwidth:Juliann: I am arrogant. I am evil. I am a liar. I deceive people. I am heartless. I'm really really mean when someone attacks me. I mean really mean. I'm insensitive. I don't understand. I make fun of people's pain. Del March: I'm self-righteous. I'm judgemental. I have no compassion for others. I am intellectually dishonest. I am lazy. I am proud.Charity:
Pokatator Posted April 1, 2006 Posted April 1, 2006 Update to save Bob and his followers some bandwidth:Juliann: I am arrogant. I am evil. I am a liar. I deceive people. I am heartless. I'm really really mean when someone attacks me. I mean really mean. I'm insensitive. I don't understand. I make fun of people's pain. Del March: I'm self-righteous. I'm judgemental. I have no compassion for others. I am intellectually dishonest. I am lazy. I am proud.Charity:
Marvelous Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Most of you are in serious denial. The point Bob tried to make is that his obedience to priesthood leadership led to suffering for his family. This is what Juliann ridiculed. Are you "past feeling"?You can dredge up plenty of GA pronouncements emphasizing the primacy of the family, and I can find just as many, or more, emphasizing obedience to the Lord and his servants.I don't know to what church you belong, but the one I have been a member of for fifty years stresses conformity. Your seeming ignorance or rejection of this makes me wonder how much time you actually spend in church.
Marvelous Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Why must you take everything personally, Juliann? Because when my name and the organization's name that I founded is used it is personal? May I offer a polite..DUH? So as not to expose more innocents to Bob's droppings, I edited your response.I understand why Daniel would take what Bob said personally, as he is mentioned by name. I don't understand why you would.With regard to your third reference to a double standard, as Clark Gable said in It Happened One Night, "ya got me!" To what are you referring? Have I been condescending to you? If so, I am unaware of it. If so, I apologize.Are you referring to my patience with Bob and my impatience with you? I spoke up when you made a despicable comment about his family's tragedy. Had you hurled eptithets at him, I probably wouldn't have objected. It seems to be common practice on these boards. Juliann, I said, "Ya got me!".What is the double standard?
Greg Smith Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Most of you are in serious denial. The point Bob tried to make is that his obedience to priesthood leadership led to suffering for his family. If Bob's family suffered (and I've no doubt they did) then they have my sympathy, at least. And, so does Bob.It is hard, however, to take Bob's complaints about how the Big Bad Church hurt his family simply as stated. Why?Well, simply because Bob's story _now_ about how he believed the Church taught him to treat and prioritize his wife and family don't match what he said BEFORE his rather vocal and wordy apostasy.I was hardly ever home as a result of the combined requirements of work and Church. I learned this behavior from my LDS leader parents. This impoverished my relationships with my wife and children. [bob McCue,
Dr. Shades Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 I have often found that those who demand the most tolerance of their beliefs are usually the least tolerant of other's beliefs. OH, THE IRONY!!
Teancum Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 So when I recovered from the rage, circa.1990, I finally realised it was not the church, or God, but my personal choices.
Calm Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 This is what Juliann ridiculed.I would be interested in seeing the quote.The emphasis of criticism that I've seen is more on his refusal to accept personal responsibility for his choices rather than blaming the Church and less on his claim of blind obedience being what he was taught to do (though it's been rightly pointed out this is contrary to many of the Church's teachings).But as I said, I may have missed it. My four day fever has finally broke and I am willing to believe I haven't understood everything I've read recently.I personally respect someone who is willing to make such a sacrifice. I don't respect it when they try to shift the burden of their choice to someone else because they choose to give into pressure. If I am willing to accept credit when I get good grades or lose weight or get a good job even though I've been pressured in many ways to do these things, then I think I'd better be willing to accept criticism when I blow it because I gave someone too much influence in my life.I think obedience is a progressive 'skill' in the sense that we first follow because of fear (pressure tactic), then perhaps approval of others (pressure tactic), then hope (personal pressure), then ultimately pure love (no pressure since we desire to do). I am sure there are other steps in between and much overlap and times when there are multiple motivations of differing intensity, but I believe the ultimate obedience is when it moves beyond obedience into an act of giving without a sense of hardship.I think it's important here to separate the issues being talked about and not confuse what is being criticized with what is being discussed as misunderstood or limited understanding.
Teancum Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 again you demonstrate how clueless you are as to the pressure, "game" etc of being an outstanding priesthood leader. Aspirations, holding out apparently succesful men that advance too high callings as so wonderfull righteous, etc. Just read the bio's of some of the new MPs when the church news publishes the calls.Do you REALLY think that you guys have the monopoly on this?? Now I did not say that did I. I am talking about it from a mans point of view shich you nor Julianne have.As you are a woman and do not hold the priesthood you have no idea what kind of pressure cooker it is to be the leader priesthood holder and how it really influences ones life, choices, career moves, etc. First of all, most of us have LDS husbands, fathers, brothers, whatever, so we DO know what kind of pressure they are under.And we all have wives and sisters and mothers. The cirsumstances ar different. Julianne out right dimissed Bob for not asking to be released as a bishop or saying no. Unless you have been there and not the pressure to say yes to such a call and to not give up on it you have no clue about that situation and cannot know from a man in th church point of view what it is like. You can watch it but you do not experience it as a reality.And you agree I see that the Church is a pressure cooker and that simply sayin now is not always well... simple. It seems we agree.Teancum
Teancum Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 It always comes down to that with the countermos....the Mormons arguing that life is a series of choices and the countermos arguing that they were helpless dupes. Oh no Juliane it does not come down to that. You are setting up a straw man and marginlizing your opponents. Get off you high horse. Teancum
Fatboy Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Most of you are in serious denial. The point Bob tried to make is that his obedience to priesthood leadership led to suffering for his family. If Bob's family suffered (and I've no doubt they did) then they have my sympathy, at least. And, so does Bob.It is hard, however, to take Bob's complaints about how the Big Bad Church hurt his family simply as stated. Why?Well, simply because Bob's story _now_ about how he believed the Church taught him to treat and prioritize his wife and family don't match what he said BEFORE his rather vocal and wordy apostasy.I was hardly ever home as a result of the combined requirements of work and Church. I learned this behavior from my LDS leader parents. This impoverished my relationships with my wife and children. [bob McCue,
Calm Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Fatboy, did you know Bob? Because I would have said the same thing if a total stranger had emailed me with advice for my family. Heck, I've said the same thing to a family member, lol.
Cold Steel Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 I tried to engage him in other issues, but he said I was not worth his time. No, but he's sure worth his own time. If you were an apostle, you'd have a 100-page reply waiting for you!
Kemara Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Julianne out right dimissed Bob for not asking to be released as a bishop or saying no. Unless you have been there and not the pressure to say yes to such a call and to not give up on it you have no clue about that situation and cannot know from a man in th church point of view what it is like. You can watch it but you do not experience it as a reality.TeancumOk I will substitute for Juliann
Bob Crockett Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 It is evident from McCue that he doesn't speak or read French or even French idioms. "WALA, A MIRACLE." I thought he was Canadian, eh?How about my list:No angel came to David to tell him where the temple site was to be constructed at the treshingfloor.No angel instructed the Israelites to enter the Red Sea.No angel appeared to Ruth to tell her that she was a Moabite and thus barred from the congregation of the Lord for ten generations (gee, how did David get in) by Dueteronomy 23.No angel strengthened Jesus on the cross.No angel told the disciples to quit doubting.No angel appeared to Joshua to tell him he was being deceived by the people of Gibeon.No angel appeared to David to tell him to keep his eyes off of Bathsheba.No angel appeared to Peter to tell him that he was messing up by not eating with the Gentiles. Yet, when it suited everybody, "WALA," an angel appeared to John the Revelator to give him the Apocalypse, which nobody can understand but everybody argues about.Now, Bob McCue is basically an atheist, so this list will have no meaning to him. Gee -- an angel under any circumstance, convenient or not, will make no sense?rcrocket
Calm Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 I've been thinking about why the recognizing of personal responsibility issue is rather important to me and I think in part it is because my family went through much of the same experience as has been related here except that it was a joint effort, not just my dad's activities in the Church, but my mother's as well as the expectation to have many children that played a significant role in shaping my childhood. My mother was a devout woman and put her heart and soul into everything she did and that included helping my father with his callings. And she ended up with 5 children with 2 miscarriages (supposed to be three, but I was too stubborn) even though the doctors warned her not to have any. She collapsed after the birth of her last child, I was 9 at the time....and a very good listener so we used to (and still do) have long talks.She was very open that she thought her buying into the Molly Mormon mentality greatly contributed to her health situation (she's never recovered either, but has to limit herself in order to stay functional). When she had her breakdown (emotional in the sense of having no emotionalreserves left, physical in the sense of having tons of stuff go wrong with her that the doctors could do little about), she came to a realization it was more important to do things for the right reason than to do the right thing. And she offended many people because she started saying no and explaining that she didn't see the value in just doing something out of tradition, policy or whatever. They were okay with her claiming health as an out, but she took a lot of flak for suggesting that she wasn't going to do something because she didn't think it was of value and that she had given more than enough already to that sort of 'cause'.In the 40 or so years since that happened, we have had endless talks about this subject of obedience in the Church (and Jung and Maslow and Fromm and Campbell and Swinberg and just about anything and anyone having to do with psychology and/or religion/spirituality). It is really a core issue to our family. And while I've heard frustration from my mother that people were happier with her when she went along with others' demands, I've never once heard her complain that the Church or anyone else ruined her life or place any sort of responsibility for her behaviour on anyone else but herself. And considering how she still gets pressured at times in the most persistent ways by church and family members, it would be very easy for her to rationalize complaining this way away. She doesn't even blame my dad for her choices who is the easiest target of all. And she doesn't let anyone in the family get away with that excuse either, as much as some of us want to.It just seems so childish to point the finger at someone else when one is talking about one's own behaviour.
Calm Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 I thought he was Canadian, eh?Albertan. French is not required to be taught in the school system there beyond a couple of years in elementary (and I have no idea if even that was required when Mccue was growing up there, if he did grow up there).Western Canada is closer to Western US in a lot of ways than to Eastern Canada.
juliann Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Most of you are in serious denial. The point Bob tried to make is that his obedience to priesthood leadership led to suffering for his family. This is what Juliann ridiculed. Are you "past feeling"? Everyone! Get out your violins! Here is what I said, BTW:You are correct that I have no concept of anyone who would let their family suffer to the point that they are still in bad shape years after.... because some bishop asked them to...and then whine about it later as if they had no responsibility in the decision they made whatsoever. I don't get that. There is no way you will ever be able to make me understand it. Sorry. And letting your family suffer is disobedience to priesthood leadership...but don't let that stop the pity party. And we have admitted what heinous unfeeling animals we are for having an opinion and daring to contradict you...what more do you want?
juliann Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Are you "past feeling"? Gosh, I'm so sorry you had to spend time pondering this important question. The answer is yes! Hopefully this will save you further time...and the pain of searching out our flaws:Juliann: I am arrogant. I am evil. I am a liar. I deceive people. I am heartless. I'm really really mean when someone attacks me. I mean really mean. I'm insensitive. I don't understand. I make fun of people's pain. Del March: I'm self-righteous. I'm judgemental. I have no compassion for others. I am intellectually dishonest. I am lazy. I am proud. Charity: I think meaner thoughts than Juliann does, I just don't say them out loud. I laugh when people slip on banana peels. Calmoriah: I too am evil. I too am a liar. I spend all my time selfishly on the Internet rather than making casseroles and taking them around to neighbours. I don't even make casseroles for my own family. I am the scum of the earth. Urroner: I am evil pondscum. DCP: I'm dishonest and quite possibly insane. Jan: I am a poor, dumb, deluded, and deceived Mormon convert worthy of pity and condemnation. I am selfish and hate charitable service, donated money and goods to people suffering in the world, and giving service to others. [off-topic whining about joining a medical team at her own expense to assist hurricane victims deleted]Scott Lloyd: I am evil, deceitful, arrogant, judgmental. Somebody here told me the other day that I was gullible because I discussed Joseph Smith prophecies that came true. Oh, and I love carbs. I eat way too many.
Marvelous Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 Both my experience and my reading indicate that a threshhold of cognitive dissonance must be reached before what amounts to a mental phase transition can occur. This cracks me up...do you have a McDiss bumper sticker? The cognitive dissonance you experience now must be overwhelming if you allowed yourself to be told what to do when your wife was ill. This is what you said, Juliann. I think it was cold and insensitive. Over the course of several posts, Bob had explained the predicament he and his family faced. Whether you think he handled the situation wisely or not, you shouldn't have ridiculed his misfortune.
juliann Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 This is what you said, Juliann. I think it was cold and insensitive. Over the course of several posts, Bob had explained the predicament he and his family faced. Whether you think he handled the situation wisely or not, you shouldn't have ridiculed his misfortune. Of course it was cold and insensitive. I am cold and insensitive. And really, really mean. I'm bad. Evil. My opinion is worthless and satanic. How many times do I have to agree with you? What I wonder is why none of you will admit how cold and insensitive you are. Why do you need to live by double standards?
Marvelous Posted April 2, 2006 Posted April 2, 2006 It is evident from McCue that he doesn't speak or read French or even French idioms. "WALA, A MIRACLE." I thought he was Canadian, eh?How about my list:No angel came to David to tell him where the temple site was to be constructed at the treshingfloor.No angel instructed the Israelites to enter the Red Sea.No angel appeared to Ruth to tell her that she was a Moabite and thus barred from the congregation of the Lord for ten generations (gee, how did David get in) by Dueteronomy 23.No angel strengthened Jesus on the cross.No angel told the disciples to quit doubting.No angel appeared to Joshua to tell him he was being deceived by the people of Gibeon.No angel appeared to David to tell him to keep his eyes off of Bathsheba.No angel appeared to Peter to tell him that he was messing up by not eating with the Gentiles. Yet, when it suited everybody, "WALA," an angel appeared to John the Revelator to give him the Apocalypse, which nobody can understand but everybody argues about.Now, Bob McCue is basically an atheist, so this list will have no meaning to him. Gee -- an angel under any circumstance, convenient or not, will make no sense?rcrocket John's angel must have been dyslexic since his apocalypse is barely intelligible. Funny how angels seem to be scarce in modern times. Joseph seemed to be chummy with them, but how many prophets have claimed angelic visits since?What strikes observers as perverse is that God would send one to threaten him if he didn't marry underage girls and other men's wives. I think this is without precedence in the Bible or BOM.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.