Doctor Ninja Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Well, as I remember, he allowed Pres. Hinkley to use his personal jet to visit the saints world-wide.How embarrasing.... for Herr Doktor.John Huntsman Sr., not Jr. My link
cdowis Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) Well, my memory is somewhat flawed... Jr vs Sr.I want to thank your rolling eyes for helping me out. It certainly explains the mask -- all the better to see them rolling around.Hey, I've only gotten started. What about Sunday School class.... nobody watches the teacher because.... well, nevermind. Edited July 5, 2011 by cdowis
Doctor Ninja Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Well, my memory is somewhat flawed... Jr vs Sr.I want to thank your rolling eyes for helping me out. It certainly explains the mask -- all the better to see them rolling around.Hey, I've only gotten started. What about Sunday School class.... nobody watches the teacher because.... well, nevermind.I've noticed you give some jabs here and there towards fellow members. Why is that? And I deeply apologize I don't meet your lofty expectations.
Ron Beron Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) I'm just glad he didn't adopt from Mexico. Imagine if he was raised within the Aztec religious practice. The truth is some religions are more sophisticated than others. Hinduism, for all its age and wisdom, has been surpassed by its offshoot Buddhism and in the west by monotheism. Even though I studied Asian cultures and religions for the last thirty years I have yet to understand the moral significance of Hinduism or its practice (consider in points its views towards evil and women). Buddhism as an evolution of Hinduism is more sustainable. As for Mr. Huntsman I wish him luck and applaud his largess. Edited July 5, 2011 by Ron Beron
cdowis Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) I've noticed you give some jabs here and there towards fellow members. Why is that? This is a hobby.Since you have made this personal, may I mention that I have noticed a few things about you, such as making a judgemental comment about someone who is not here to defend himself. My comments are directed to those who can respond, and I hope they do.Now, you lob a "rolling eyes" at me. Why did you do that? I simply turned it around and lobbed it back. I could go away, but I am here and ready and willing to respond to you. Does that make you feel uncomfortable? Perhaps you are not accustomed to that.Anyway, let's get back to the topic. Edited July 5, 2011 by cdowis
Doctor Ninja Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 (edited) This is a hobby.Since you have made this personal, may I mention that I have noticed a few things about you, such as making a judgemental comment about someone who is not here to defend himself. My comments are directed to those who can respond, and I hope they do.Now, you lob a "rolling eyes" at me. Why did you do that? I simply turned it around and lobbed it back. I could go away, but I am here and ready and willing to respond to you. Does that make you feel uncomfortable? Perhaps you are not accustomed to that.Anyway, let's get back to the topic.This is the internet, nothing personal, nothing serious.The moderators have performed their jobs and have kept me in check as a new member, and I already have a Bishop, thank you. Edited July 5, 2011 by Doctor Ninja
alter idem Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 As for Mr. Huntsman I wish him luck and applaud his largess.His 'largess'?I think you may be mixing 'Jr.' up with Huntsman Sr. also. And this is going to happen a lot more often now that Jon Huntsman Jr. has officially dropped the 'Jr.' from his name for his Presidential campaign. While those of us in Utah know there's a 'Jr.' and a 'Sr.', outside Utah, this is not as well known. Call me cynical, but I believe Huntsman Jr. WANTS people to mix him up with his dad because it's his Dad who is a highly successful self-made billionaire, and incredibly generous philanthropist whose given away a great deal of his fortune; a truly great man. Huntsman Jr. has served as Ambassador to Taiwan, a short stint as Gov. of Utah, and left to be Ambassador to China and has no fortune of his own except for what his father has given him.
frankenstein Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 is it possible that as a condition for adoption, the Huntsman agreed to the raise the child in a certain religion?
alter idem Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 is it possible that as a condition for adoption, the Huntsman agreed to the raise the child in a certain religion?If you go back to page one and read post #16 you'll find that Huntsman and his wife have put out a correction; they DENY they are raising their daughter has a Hindu. It does ruin the premise of the thread, IMO.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 A Sensitive New-Age Guy.The sort that trendy-lefties get all dewy-eyed over.Regards,PahoranMr New Castrati any one?
Jeff K. Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 I think it better to allow the parents Huntsman to be parents and make their own decisions. The unit of the family being so important in our church follows that ideal.
katherine the great Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 I'm just glad he didn't adopt from Mexico. Imagine if he was raised within the Aztec religious practice. (that's pretty funny!)
Ron Beron Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 His 'largess'?I think you may be mixing 'Jr.' up with Huntsman Sr. also. And this is going to happen a lot more often now that Jon Huntsman Jr. has officially dropped the 'Jr.' from his name for his Presidential campaign. While those of us in Utah know there's a 'Jr.' and a 'Sr.', outside Utah, this is not as well known. Call me cynical, but I believe Huntsman Jr. WANTS people to mix him up with his dad because it's his Dad who is a highly successful self-made billionaire, and incredibly generous philanthropist whose given away a great deal of his fortune; a truly great man. Huntsman Jr. has served as Ambassador to Taiwan, a short stint as Gov. of Utah, and left to be Ambassador to China and has no fortune of his own except for what his father has given him.Emotional largess not financial. And, yes, I did mean junior. I wouldn't vote for him, but helping a kid is helping a kid.
LDSToronto Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 To be sure, I respect the Huntsmans' right to raise their children as they see fit. I also have great respect for Hinduism (and, indeed, for pretty much all religious traditions). But I don't understand the rationale of parents resorting to race-based religious instruction for their children, particularly from Latter-day Saints, who claim to have "knowledge of a Savior" which is supposed to be "spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people" (Mosiah 3:20).Thoughts?Perhaps they believe in agency and are giving her a choice. H.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Here:I wonder how this works in the real world. The Huntsmans have an adopted daughter from China. Are they going to raise her in "Shenism" (Chinese folk religion)? Buddhism? Taoism? Atheism (the current Chinese government is officially atheistic)?How do they square this with LDS exclusivistic truth claims? "Yes, kids, the LDS Church is 'the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth,' except it's not intended for folks from India, 'cuz their religion should be based on their ethnicity." "Yes, kids, according to Doctrine & Covenants 133:37, the Restored Gospel is 'shall be preached unto every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,' but not to the folks from India, 'cuz their religion should be based on their ethnicity."Would the Huntsmans expect a Hindu couple to raise a child adopted from LDS parentage as a Mormon? As a display of "openness and all-bracing gesture?"To be sure, I respect the Huntsmans' right to raise their children as they see fit. I also have great respect for Hinduism (and, indeed, for pretty much all religious traditions). But I don't understand the rationale of parents resorting to race-based religious instruction for their children, particularly from Latter-day Saints, who claim to have "knowledge of a Savior" which is supposed to be "spread throughout every nation, kindred, tongue, and people" (Mosiah 3:20).Thoughts?-SmacThanks for this…it tells me all I need to know about the man. Liberal to the core.
Pahoran Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Perhaps they believe in agency and are giving her a choice. H.I'm sure they do. But no more than real Latter-day Saint parents who raise their children in the Church of Jesus Christ do.Regards,Pahoran
Avatar4321 Posted July 5, 2011 Posted July 5, 2011 Why wouldn't they raise her to know her family and cultural history? Personally, I think we should all know about other cultures and religions. It would make us much better Saints.
Jeff K. Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 I think members of the church in Utah learned the importance of cultural context given some of the controversy that came from adopting native Americans in years past. I think culturally it is important to allow and even encourage someone to know of their past. It gives them reference and foundation. This doesn't need to take away from the culture that presently nourishing her. Like patriotism one can have joy in being from two places and still find happiness in both.Nothing says those of Hindi heritage cannot also be excellent members of the church. It is a question of diversity that works well within doctrine. 1
ebeddoulos Posted July 6, 2011 Posted July 6, 2011 Oh have a heart HuitzilopochtliThat is funny! Kind of morbid ... but still funny!
3DOP Posted July 7, 2011 Posted July 7, 2011 Parents who believe in one true religion will never freely choose to teach their children its equality with false religions by "letting the child choose" or by deliberately training them in a different religion. I am not arguing that they are wrong in doing this. If the parents think there is no true religion, then these are reasonable approaches to religion.
Recommended Posts