Has The Physical Gathering Ceased

[Scott Lloyd]

One person on another thread recommended good old fashion shunning. I grew up under that system in the midwest. It is an effective deterrent, but it is also socially brutal and the shame lands primarily upon the young women which is unfair.

It is inordinately brutal and fundamentally unfair, especially when the male involved is at least as much -- and undoubtedly in many cases more so -- to blame than the young woman. (I'm about to begin re-reading The Scarlet Letter, so this matter is on my mind right now. My son has been assigned to read it in his high school English class, and I try to make it a practice to read his assigned works along with him.)

On the other hand, out-of-wedlock pregnancy seems to have all but lost its stigma today, and I don't see that as wholesome either. I get uncomfortable when I see, even among our own people, girls who are pregnant out of wedlock being given baby showers. In such instances, they should rather be encouraged to place the baby for adoption into a stable home with two loving parents.

[Stone holm]

I have shown several examples of changes to the quality of thousands and thousands of people's lives who are not members and changes that will last a long time because they were made in such a way as to be self sufficient once established rather than having to continue to rely on donations.

If the Church disappeared today, there would still be thousands and thousands of people---maybe even millions---out here that had better sight, more mobility due to wheelchairs, better health due to immunizations and clean water projects and better education, lifealtering changes to their lives that were given not to members, but pretty much complete strangers (at least at the beginning) who were in need.

http://www.ldsphilan...id=lds-ldspPage

Yeah, I am hearing what you are saying. But no, I think that he has a point as well.

[Calm]

But no, I think that he has a point as well.

Perhaps you could clarify it then because I am not getting it.

[Scott Lloyd]

So, the problem of paternal absenteeism cannot be solved by simply convincing everyone to behave themselves sexually--which would be merely addressing a symptom of another, deeper problem. What we need is for people to return home to the household, and to live again in close dependence on each other. This won't happen until there is some sort of collapse in the advanced money economy that will call for closer communal and family togetherness. Then we can stop role-playing and get back to a more natural sort of living.

It would be far better to do this without being forced into it by some sort of cataclysmic collapse.

And it's not like the Church has ignored the problem you identify. It was President McKay, during the height of the "nuclear family" era, who made the iconic statement, "No other success can compensate for failure in the home."

If you go back and read that in context, you see that he was calling for fathers to give up their club affiliations and de-emphasize their outside hobbies so they could go back home and be fathers.

The statement didn't originate with him, by the way. He was quoting another source.

[pmccombs1]

Rather than having a few members well known for directing charitable work, I think it is much better that people have come to expect the faceless masses of LDS showing up to help at disaster sites with no individual public recognition expected.

https://www.lds.org/...e/helping-hands

The yellow shirts are becoming a familiar site, familiar enough nonLDS are joining up as well from what I've read when they show up at a site to volunteer because of the demonstrated effectiveness of the groups.

I do not wish to criticize the good that is done through charitable institutions, and I realize a certain variety of effectiveness can be had by this approach in spite of some shortcomings. But my point has nothing at all to do with quantities of people assisted directly or indirectly. It is not that we can reduce the idea of charity to some number of wheelchairs placed or quarts of synthetic substances injected into human veins, or expired medications accidentally distributed on another continent.

The work of Mother Theresa, of Ghandi, and of Dorothy Day was in touching the hearts and minds of people in a personal way. That is the quality of life I refer to, not the sort that is dictated by the intervention of technology to make up for physical wants and thus inch one step closer to some version of Chataqua, or Utopia, or Zion, or what-have-you. Theirs was a profoundly human touch, not an institutional one; and the left hand did not know what the right hand did. Alas, we live in a time when not even the right hand knows what it doeth, for it gives to an abstraction and thus delegates its humanity to another. Well, that isn't entirely true: Sometimes, as you say, we dress up in sloganed T-Shirts in order to render our "charity" first hand, presumably so that the institution can PR its alms before men.

[Stone holm]

I do not wish to criticize the good that is done through charitable institutions, and I realize a certain variety of effectiveness can be had by this approach in spite of some shortcomings. But my point has nothing at all to do with quantities of people assisted directly or indirectly. It is not that we can reduce the idea of charity to some number of wheelchairs placed or quarts of synthetic substances injected into human veins, or expired medications accidentally distributed on another continent.

The work of Mother Theresa, of Ghandi, and of Dorothy Day was in touching the hearts and minds of people in a personal way. That is the quality of life I refer to, not the sort that is dictated by the intervention of technology to make up for physical wants and thus inch one step closer to some version of Chataqua, or Utopia, or Zion, or what-have-you. Theirs was a profoundly human touch, not an institutional one; and the left hand did not know what the right hand did. Alas, we live in a time when not even the right hand knows what it doeth, for it gives to an abstraction and thus delegates its humanity to another. Well, that isn't entirely true: Sometimes, as you say, we dress up in sloganed T-Shirts in order to render our "charity" first hand, presumably so that the institution can PR its alms before men.

That last part is a bit harsh don't you think? I agree something seems to be missing, but we do the organised mass thing very well.

[Calm]

The work of Mother Theresa, of Ghandi, and of Dorothy Day was in touching the hearts and minds of people in a personal way. That is the quality of life I refer to, not the sort that is dictated by the intervention of technology to make up for physical wants and thus inch one step closer to some version of Chataqua, or Utopia, or Zion, or what-have-you. Theirs was a profoundly human touch, not an institutional one; and the left hand did not know what the right hand did.

So how would you know if this was being done in the Church if the last was always the approach taken? It certainly wasn't the only approach taken by the three people you are mentioning.

I have known many people who have done volunteer work and always when they talk about their personal experience the emphasis is on the connection they've made with the individuals.

It seems to me you are asking for what is impossible...a leader of massive charity that does it in secret without drawing attention to it. If any of the three you mentioned had done that approach, they would have achieved a whole lot less.

Did you watch the video about the French woman, Cecile? Can you please point out what she is doing wrong and how she should be doing it because I am really not seeing how your comments apply to the real world.

Edited July 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Alas, we live in a time when not even the right hand knows what it doeth, for it gives to an abstraction and thus delegates its humanity to another.

If by this, you mean that LDS spend less time out in the community helping in comparison to other faiths and instead rely on giving money to charities instead....I'd like to see some documentation on this.

The Shwe Min Tha Foundation not only helps provide wheelchairs and prosthetics, but they assist with education, scholarships, job training, employment searching, motivation and awareness, mobility and medical assistance devices, and even participation in sports and activities. Through these additional services, opportunities for the disabled are provided in more than one way.

One special way is the foundation's annual 3-day field trip to the ocean for disabled people who have never been to the ocean in their life, nor would have otherwise done so because of their physical and economic situations. LDS Charities volunteers, Dale and Lily Simpson, attended the foundation’s trip in 2010. They witnessed the blessings of the foundation and of LDS Charities when participants, no matter the disability, left behind crutches and wheelchairs to enter the ocean and seaside.

http://ldscharities.org/articles/the-need-for-awareness?lang=eng Edited July 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Did you watch the video about the French woman, Cecile? Can you please point out what she is doing wrong and how she should be doing it because I am really not seeing how your comments apply to the real world.

Perhaps if you could tell me what is the difference between Mother Teresa and someone like Cecile or this woman, Chantal, or the other "I am a Mormon"s that come up when you do a search on the key word "humanitarian" it would help clarify what you are looking for because as far as I can tell you want a social activist who start movements focused on helping people (and I know a number of LDS who have started their own 'movements' outside of the Church), but then you focus on the personal connection (which is what the Church is trying to establish within its own boundaries through the HT and VT programs and in the member missionary program and in encouraging members to get out in serve in their communities and providing opportunities for them to do so) leaving me more confused:

http://mormon.org/me/3ZZ3/Chantal

Edited July 3, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

Perhaps if you could tell me what is the difference between Mother Teresa and someone like Cecile or this woman, Chantal, or the other "I am a Mormon"s that come up when you do a search on the key word "humanitarian" it would help clarify what you are looking for because as far as I can tell you want a social activist who start movements focused on helping people (and I know a number of LDS who have started their own 'movements' outside of the Church), but then you focus on the personal connection (which is what the Church is trying to establish within its own boundaries through the HT and VT programs and in the member missionary program and in encouraging members to get out in serve in their communities and providing opportunities for them to do so) leaving me more confused:

http://mormon.org/me/3ZZ3/Chantal

Interesting use of the I'm a Mormon PR campaign in an argument.

[ERayR]

Sometimes, as you say, we dress up in sloganed T-Shirts in order to render our "charity" first hand, presumably so that the institution can PR its alms before men.

With you there is no winning is there? Either not enough is done or what is done is only PR.

[Calm]

Interesting use of the I'm a Mormon PR campaign in an argument.

Not addressing the question.....

[Stone holm]

Not addressing the question.....

Oh what was the question? I was just addressing the approach to subject.

[Calm]

Oh what was the question? I was just addressing the approach to subject.

What is the significant difference between Mother Teresa and the other two and those who participate in humanitarian projects without similar fanfare surrounding the three examples pmc uses to point out an apparent lack in the Church? How are these examples I've pointed out not involving the "profoundly human touch"? Edited July 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[pmccombs1]

That last part is a bit harsh don't you think? I agree something seems to be missing, but we do the organised mass thing very well.

Harsh? It cuts to the quick of my worry, which is just that impersonal, institutional charity is usually done very well by massive organizations and corporations. But the sort of charity that changes the world because it touches the people in a fundamentally human way is often not meticulously organized or sanctioned by Big Church or even Big anything. Wipe out one big charity, and another one easily enough takes its place. There will always be another Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Peace Corps, World Health Organization, LDS Philanthropies, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, etc., etc., etc., ready to react to need and disaster wherever their careful preparations are called for. I would like the sort of Charity that seems to clearly reveal the hand of God, and somehow that works best through human beings acting on their own conscience than through abstraction with their Mission Statements.

Those whom we remember best are not interested in "massive charity" at all. Jesus himself failed to organize anything like it when, all along, he had the power to heal the whole world. How efficient could he have been, yet was not? Why is that?

The greatest of them are not reactionary do-gooders who suit up when their corporate organization calls upon them, in order to do the "organized mass thing." They do not act in the context of a group with a particular slogan and nicely designed suite of web pages promoting their goodness. What I'm trying to get across is that the type of person we haven't turned out at all are the type who respond to personal vocation that is both timely and prophetic. It isn't the stuff of "I'm a Mormon" commercial advertising or weekend warrior goodness. Vocation is a way living; it does not put down its cause to do other things. It gives its entire life to that cause, not just "a lot of time."

Calmoriah said that he can't see how any of this applies to the real world, and thus I must rest my case. That is precisely why we have not produced a single Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, or Mahatma Ghandi. To be sure, our good people have a profound influence over many, and they do make a difference; but nobody from among our ranks has come along to change the world and bring everybody a renewed faith in humanity.

Well, I do sound critical (because I am!), and don't mistake me: Institutional charity has its place, and those who stand up and work in the name of the organization are, nearly all of them, far better than I who am simply a noticer and a hypocrite. So, take everything I say with the requisite grain of salt.

[Stone holm]

What is the significant difference between Mother Teresa and the other two and those who participate in humanitarian projects without similar fanfare surrounding the three examples pmc uses to point out an apparent lack in the Church? How are these examples I've pointed out not involving the "profoundly human touch"?

Oh of course they do. And we have a special slot on our donation slips for humanitarian aid.

[Calm]

Calmoriah said that he can't see how any of this applies to the real world, and thus I must rest my case.

Strawman, I said nothing of the kind.

So what you want is a social activist? How is that a "profoundly human touch"?

[Stone holm]

Harsh? It cuts to the quick of my worry, which is just that impersonal, institutional charity is usually done very well by massive organizations and corporations. But the sort of charity that changes the world because it touches the people in a fundamentally human way is often not meticulously organized or sanctioned by Big Church or even Big anything. Wipe out one big charity, and another one easily enough takes its place. There will always be another Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Peace Corps, World Health Organization, LDS Philanthropies, Habitat for Humanity, Salvation Army, etc., etc., etc., ready to react to need and disaster wherever their careful preparations are called for. I would like the sort of Charity that seems to clearly reveal the hand of God, and somehow that works best through human beings acting on their own conscience than through abstraction with their Mission Statements.

Those whom we remember best are not interested in "massive charity" at all. Jesus himself failed to organize anything like it when, all along, he had the power to heal the whole world. How efficient could he have been, yet was not? Why is that?

The greatest of them are not reactionary do-gooders who suit up when their corporate organization calls upon them, in order to do the "organized mass thing." They do not act in the context of a group with a particular slogan and nicely designed suite of web pages promoting their goodness. What I'm trying to get across is that the type of person we haven't turned out at all are the type who respond to personal vocation that is both timely and prophetic. It isn't the stuff of "I'm a Mormon" commercial advertising or weekend warrior goodness. Vocation is a way living; it does not put down its cause to do other things. It gives its entire life to that cause, not just "a lot of time."

Calmoriah said that he can't see how any of this applies to the real world, and thus I must rest my case. That is precisely why we have not produced a single Mother Theresa, Dorothy Day, or Mahatma Ghandi. To be sure, our good people have a profound influence over many, and they do make a difference; but nobody from among our ranks has come along to change the world and bring everybody a renewed faith in humanity.

Well, I do sound critical (because I am!), and don't mistake me: Institutional charity has its place, and those who stand up and work in the name of the organization are, nearly all of them, far better than I who am simply a noticer and a hypocrite. So, take everything I say with the requisite grain of salt.

I think there is something here, that I have been trying to articulate for months. I presented the problem recently in a HP Quorum, as a missionary question. One that is very close to my heart right now. It is simply, what happens when you are confronted with someone who has structured and oriented their life in a manner which is ethically and in a sense spiritually superior to what you normally encounter in the Church. It is something near to my heart because I have a son who has a wife like that and of course my whole family adores her. Unfortunately, because of the political aura that the Church members give off she will have nothing to do with the Church. She isn't anti, she just doesn't want to be involved with an organization whose members give off those kind of vibes so to speak. Its a weird form of heartbreak for me. I have two other daughter-in-laws who are very similar whom I also adore, and who also feel the same way. I don't think that the I'm a Mormon PR campaign is likely to have any impact. They have several young Mormon friends some of whom have lived at our house for a year or two -- and they all treat them very well, in fact some like family. These young couples are in very interesting ways having an impact on their communities -- but have to confess it is not actually because of their Mormon upbringing, and perhaps in spite of their Mormon upbringing. But I don't know what the missing ingredient is in the Church programs or aura or whatever, but something is missing and I doubt the Lord is well pleased.

[Calm]

Ghandi, Mother Teresa and Dorothy Day had support systems in place that allowed them to devote their lives to their causes. Not everyone is able to find the same sort of connection even if they have the same level of devotion to their cause.

[Stone holm]

Ghandi, Mother Teresa and Dorothy Day had support systems in place that allowed them to devote their lives to their causes. Not everyone is able to find the same sort of connection even if they have the same level of devotion to their cause.

Really? I don't know that much about Mother Teresa, but it seems like both Ghandi and Dorothy Day created their own support systems. She and the Catholic Worker were often at odds with the administrative officer of the Roman Catholic Church.

[Calm]

Really? I don't know that much about Mother Teresa, but it seems like both Ghandi and Dorothy Day created their own support systems.

Being able to connect with people in this way is a gift, not everyone has the ability to catch people up in their own visions. Often they make sacrifices of their personal connections for the cause. I don't think people should be faulted because they might lack the charismatic ability to attract others to their causes.

[Calm]

I who am simply a noticer and a hypocrite.

My difficulty is that people who are just "noticers" quite often are not aware of what is actually going on, either in the group or person they admire or the group or person they are finding fault with. We only get to be truly familiar and aware of something we are involved in on a day to day basis. You have no way of knowing individuals in the Church that have made service a vocation but have not managed to attract public attention due to lacking that particular quality that the public desires for that day. Is the person who has given their life quietly in a vocation any less deserving of praise and admiration than the one who has managed to get noticed by others for whatever reason?

I find it highly unlikely that Dorothy Day, a journalist who used a newspaper to promote her cause, wouldn't have used the best website she could manage to promote her work. Or that Ghandi wasn't a master of propaganda for his cause.

And as far as changing the entire world...do you really think these three managed to do that? I think they had a great impact and both admire and respect them themselves as well as their accomplishments, but Ghandi was assassinated and his country still has massive unrest and bigotry, there are still poor in Calcutta and I wonder how many people even recognize the name of Dorothy Day these days, let alone know what she is known for. If they had truly changed the world, there would be no further need for Days, Ghandi or Mother Teresas.

There are plenty of admirers of these three who are "noticers". There are likely plenty of individuals in all walks of lives and faith who are barely aware of them who go out and help their neighbours whenever the call goes forth and then go back to the daily toil of making the lives of their near and dear a heaven on earth. Which is living a higher spiritual or more ethical life?

Edited July 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

It is simply, what happens when you are confronted with someone who has structured and oriented their life in a manner which is ethically and in a sense spiritually superior to what you normally encounter in the Church.

I find these types of judgment presumptuous. Some of the most charitable and loving people I know look from the 'outside' like someone who just occupies the pew at church, maybe collects the hymnbooks or rolls or helps clean up after an event. When one looks closer, one can find that their every free moment is spent in concern for others and the moments that aren't free are spent in setting up their lives so they can give to others freely, both in resource and time. They, however, do their charity in quiet, teaching by example to those who are willing to pay attention as opposed to taking the time and effort to debate their causes.

Just as the widow's mite was worth more than all the rich could supply because she gave all she was able to give with a free heart, a few moments of charity given in a life that is full of necessities of survival can be as valuable in my view as someone who has devoted their entire life to charitable works because they have managed to attract others to support them in their cause.

The world needs all of the faceless masses, the efficient organizers and the Mother Teresas in order to spiritually progress. I see no reason to discount one in the favour of the others when all are needed by each other if anything is to be accomplished long term.

Edited July 4, 2013 by calmoriah

[Stone holm]

I find these types of judgment presumptuous. Some of the most charitable and loving people I know look from the 'outside' like someone who just occupies the pew at church, maybe collects the hymnbooks or rolls or helps clean up after an event. When one looks closer, one can find that their every free moment is spent in concern for others and the moments that aren't free are spent in setting up their lives so they can give to others freely, both in resource and time. They, however, do their charity in quiet, teaching by example to those who are willing to pay attention as opposed to taking the time and effort to debate their causes.

Just as the widow's mite was worth more than all the rich could supply because she gave all she was able to give with a free heart, a few moments of charity given in a life that is full of necessities of survival can be as valuable in my view as someone who has devoted their entire life to charitable works because they have managed to attract others to support them in their cause.

The world needs all of the faceless masses, the efficient organizers and the Mother Teresas in order to spiritually progress. I see no reason to discount one in the favour of the others when all are needed by each other if anything is to be accomplished long term.

Presumptious and possibly unfair, yet unfortunately true.

[Calm]

Presumptious and possibly unfair, yet unfortunately true.

How can they be unfair but true?