And This Pope Rocks On

[Calm]

Let's be honest.

simply because someone views something differently than you does not mean they are lacking in honesty.

[The Nehor]

I hate bringing this up but if the church ever reads this, haha maybe it'll do some good.  The church could do even more for the poor.  It gives way more than most, but with what it brings in, we need to remember the Widow's Mite story here. 

 

And you could too. So could I. Once I am maximizing my own potential to do good I will have more time to spend recommending how others can improve. I expect that to happen approximately two and a half eons after my death.

[mormonnewb]

It's interesting that we don't seem to have this kind of concern for privacy of the recipients of our help, after say, a hurricane. A quick Google Images search will reveal DOZENS of pictures of saints helping in those situations. So why is it only an invasion of privacy if the recipient of the help is not a saint or the helper is a church leader?

Let's be honest. We are more than comfortable with demonstrating our largesse. I'm simply suggesting that we see leaders doing just that -- leading by example.

  

simply because someone views something differently than you does not mean they are lacking in honesty.

May I ask on what basis do you HONESTLY believe that the lack of pictures showing our apostles with the sick, needy, etc. is the result of privacy concerns when there are NUMEROUS pictures of the needy being helped by missionaries and other church members? Are the only recipients of aid who deserve privacy those who are served by GAs and above?

Or perhaps, it's because some of us think it would be unseemly to see an apostle in such an act of service? Sure, they do it, but it should be done behind closed doors, right? Otherwise, we cheapen the moment by using it as a photo op, right?

Well, how do explain our eagerness to cheapen the moment of those valiant church members who respond to humanitarian crises? If it isn't unseemly to show them in acts of service, then why is it so with our leaders?

I HONESTLY want to know.

[Calm]

You have constructed an either or situation out of my words that does not exist. I have never cared to defend arguments I have not made and I won't here.

[mormonnewb]

DELETED BY AUTHOR

Edited December 28, 2013 by mormonnewb

[mormonnewb]

Because it uses the privacy of that member which is significantly different than using a public event.

Perhaps it is just a generational difference, but not everyone wants their lives to be made into a reality show even if it makes them look good and if it is in a time of trouble, it makes the desire for privacy even stronger. It is hard enough for many to even accept help without everyone learning about it. In our wards we keep most of the service given to families very private, even when it is announced in RS and PH there is an expected respect for the family's boundaries, sometimes made explicit, other times not. I suspect as the population of the Church ages and our leaders and majority of members become those who don't remember what life was like before the internet and vid cams and now phones that can double as documenting every aspect of our lives, if this is the reason we will end up seeing more personal type photo ops (it would be interesting to have the stats on those who participate in the I am a Mormon videos by age)...or there may be a public reaction to too much intrusion and privacy becomes even more treasured.

I admit this is my personal prejudice and perhaps it has nothing to do with it, I am just thinking about how my family and most of my older friends would react if someone showed up with a camera at their home along with those who came to helped them in need. They don't want their weakness to become entertainment for others. I see the Church leaders as both respecting and likely sharing that attitude.

Please tell me how I mischaracterized your position. Believe it or not, I actually have a great amount of respect for how you conduct yourself on this board and do not want to abuse your fairness by unfairly ascribing to you a position you have not taken.

As I read your post, it seems that you are concerned for the person who wouldn't want their weakness to become entertainment for others when an apostle showed up at their home with a camera crew. I can certainly understand that, but what about all of the people who are pictured being helped by LDS members in natural disasters? Shouldn't they be granted that same right?

Now, perhaps your opinion is that the church shouldn't be taking pictures in any of these situations. In that case, I may not agree, but I can admire such a consistent stand on principle.

I'm really just trying to understand your position on this "vital" issue

[Yirgacheffe]

I don't see this board as church or typical LDS, I meant to mention that as I wrote this probably thinking of the same thing as you are discreetly and gently pointing out. I was trying to remember if I had heard conversations following this line 'in real life' and then I was focusing so hard on the one I forgot to draw that distinction...I believe this environment brings out a combative and defensive side that would be lacking hopefully otherwise...though now that I am thinking about it in a more general sense, one incident jumps out at me reminding me I have seen defensiveness not uncommonly, but it wasn't with other churches but within our own community. So perhaps I have just been lucky or perhaps most often we are more concern with finding error in those closest to us as often occurs in families or perhaps it is something I have no clue about....it wouldn't be the first time.

But I do agree that such behaviour does appear on the board.

I agree that message boards seem to free people to say things they more than likely would not say to a person standing in front of them and I don't see it as typical of LDS though when I first started reading boards that was what I was looking for.  Many of the cues we use in conversation are missing, it's much harder to say cutting things to a person when you can see their reaction to your harshness.  I wound up on religious boards because of astoundingly rude and disrespectful treatment from religious people who knocked on my door, interuped my life, to deliver their arrogant message.  I thought I'd find more reasonable people, people willing to discuss things in a dispassionate and deep way, I found very very few .  So in order to prop up my rosy view of my fellow man I view the exhanges on boards like this similar to the exchange with people who have drunk enough to have their inhabitions dramatically lowered and the rude ones at my door are simply clueless abberations.  While it works for keeping a better view of my fellow man it doesn't work at all in the area of religious discussion.  At this point I will not in any way discuss religion with anyone I don't already like and trust, though the conversations end predictably.

[Yirgacheffe]

Maybe so. But people do forget about the size of the lds church in terms of members. it is a small church. And it seems that critics both big and small seem not to read what the GAs are saying and have said in the past. Not much different from Pope Francis. So, the claim that GAs should be like pope francis is way off the mark. The messages about love and charity are the same. But the cultures of the two churches are different. And in the lds church, the idea of sin is still in the conversation.

Why do you think that the pope has taken sin out of his conversation, that strikes me as more a media thing than something you'd hear from a pope.  My neighbors who are Catholic have said that he (Francis) has said nothing new and he has reiterated that what is wrong is still wrong.  Me I'd like to see an expansion of the discussion of what constitues sin in tiny ways in our lives, somebody mentioned earlier letting someone cut in front of you in traffic, it made me think of a link someone sent to me to an article by an Italian (I think) Catholic clergy who talked about driving in a Christian manner.  I can't count the times I've had bad experiences with other drivers who have that fishy thing on their car, my kids can atest to my snarky remarks in response their actions (probably need to work on the snarky outloud comments )I think in general people rack up a whole lot of little sins more often than the big ones, IMO it is an important function of religious leaders to remind people to be kind and thoughtful in their everyday interactions with people.

[Calm]

Please tell me how I mischaracterized your position. Believe it or not, I actually have a great amount of respect for how you conduct yourself on this board and do not want to abuse your fairness by unfairly ascribing to you a position you have not taken.

As I read your post, it seems that you are concerned for the person who wouldn't want their weakness to become entertainment for others when an apostle showed up at their home with a camera crew. I can certainly understand that, but what about all of the people who are pictured being helped by LDS members in natural disasters? Shouldn't they be granted that same right?

Now, perhaps your opinion is that the church shouldn't be taking pictures in any of these situations. In that case, I may not agree, but I can admire such a consistent stand on principle.

I'm really just trying to understand your position on this "vital" issue

Alright, you are persuasive enough I will break my rule...

I believe that those people if they are in their homes or other areas they would expect privacy to some degree should be asked permission before sharing their pictures just like I would hope would be done in more one on one settings. I have no clue if the Church actually does this. I hope they do at least when they go on to private property, it would be very nice if they did it for all situations...at least announce that they were taking pictures to give people a chance to get out of the shot or ask that their possesions or themselves not be photographed. I doubt that many have the expectation of privacy when in public these days, it would be nice if it were otherwise but I am not sure it is even possible.

I also believe that when it is a community disaster and not a personal one, people will be more prone to be comfortable with being made part of a PR effort because it is obvious they are not personally lacking, it is easier to accept help when you see others accepting it (which is one good reason to advertise such events, whether large or small scale), and their life has also been so completely turned over, their usual concerns don't seem all that important to them anymore. And the same thing for those helping...they won't be as likely to feel that any promotion is promotion of them personally, but rather of the group as a whole and thus they may be more comfortable being showcased.

Our church does both a lot PR photo ops and holds confidentiality sacred enough that in some cases if broken, it can result in being released from callings and I have heard but know of no cases possible disciplinary action. I assume at times it can be a fine balancing act to achieve. Due to people having different levels of needs for privacy plus the need to promote humanitarian works in order to encourage people to get involved as well as the efforts to get nonmembers to look on the Church in more positive ways, I highly doubt anyone will be happy with all the decisions made.

I have no way of knowing if a particular church leader is reluctant or not in any given situation to be part of a photo op. Given that being so publicly visible so easily is a relatively recent social development, it would not surprised me at all if it played into some decisions not to take advantage of the PR value of some service/interaction.

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

I agree that message boards seem to free people to say things they more than likely would not say to a person standing in front of them and I don't see it as typical of LDS though when I first started reading boards that was what I was looking for.  Many of the cues we use in conversation are missing, it's much harder to say cutting things to a person when you can see their reaction to your harshness.  I wound up on religious boards because of astoundingly rude and disrespectful treatment from religious people who knocked on my door, interuped my life, to deliver their arrogant message.  I thought I'd find more reasonable people, people willing to discuss things in a dispassionate and deep way, I found very very few .  So in order to prop up my rosy view of my fellow man I view the exhanges on boards like this similar to the exchange with people who have drunk enough to have their inhabitions dramatically lowered and the rude ones at my door are simply clueless abberations.  While it works for keeping a better view of my fellow man it doesn't work at all in the area of religious discussion.  At this point I will not in any way discuss religion with anyone I don't already like and trust, though the conversations end predictably.

I came on to message boards because I could never get anyone interested in talking religion with me save family members, I was even looking forward to all the rude behaviour others told me about...nothing, zippo. People would ask me about my beliefs and then change the subject when I asked about theirs, they wouldn't even make any more comments then "that's interesting"...no criticism. Sometimes I wondered if I had a sign on me that said "be nice or else". I never got teased in high school either when I've heard horror stories from other people.

[Yirgacheffe]

I came on to message boards because I could never get anyone interested in talking religion with me save family members, I was even looking forward to all the rude behaviour others told me about...nothing, zippo. People would ask me about my beliefs and then change the subject when I asked about theirs, they wouldn't even make any more comments then "that's interesting"...no criticism. Sometimes I wondered if I had a sign on me that said "be nice or else". I never got teased in high school either when I've heard horror stories from other people.

Yeh, I was never teased in high school or grade school or even middle school, to this day people apologize if they swear in front of me or tell off color jokes.  My former roommate and I both worked part-time at the same restaraunt where the owner would tell people to watch their language around me.  She'd say "you think she's so nice, you don't really know her" we are dear friends to this day, but neither one of us can figure out why I get this treatment.  People in general have always treated me well and for some reason those who I spend time with treat me even better, sometimes I feel like the Sally Field award thing.  She says "you like me, you really like me" I feel like that but I don't understand why, I am not in least aceptional so I don't get it.  I suppose that's why I was so startled by the aggresive and hostile people who knocked on my door though the people who really put me off of all religious folks were the ones who hounded me at my part time job in high school.  After a number of encounters I don't see me joining even the most of hands off believe what you want churches.

[why me]

It's interesting that we don't seem to have this kind of concern for privacy of the recipients of our help, after say, a hurricane. A quick Google Images search will reveal DOZENS of pictures of saints helping in those situations. So why is it only an invasion of privacy if the recipient of the help is not a saint or the helper is a church leader?

Let's be honest. We are more than comfortable with demonstrating our largesse. I'm simply suggesting that we see leaders doing just that -- leading by example.

After a hurricane there are many organizations helping the unfortunate. And these organizations are wearing some sort of identification. Likewise for the lds. This needs to be done for security reasons to separate genuine helpers from possible looters. Since the world media is not following lds leaders we have no idea just what they are doing each and every day. Can you say that they do not lead by example?

 

When the hurricane happened in asia, the exmormons were out in force on another board criticizing the lds church for withdrawing the missionaries. It was only when I showed them that the missionaries and the church were actively helping the unfortunate that they became more quiet.

 

Nothing will satisfy a person who wishes to find fault with the lds church. My point on this thread is quite simple: what the pope is saying about love and charity is the same that lds leaders have said in the past and now. The messages are not different. The critics have no case when they compare unfavorably the lds church with what the pope is now doing or saying.

[why me]

Why do you think that the pope has taken sin out of his conversation, that strikes me as more a media thing than something you'd hear from a pope.  My neighbors who are Catholic have said that he (Francis) has said nothing new and he has reiterated that what is wrong is still wrong. 

And I have said the same thing. However, he is abandoning the issues that brought the catholic church into conflict with the values that now constitute the west and other parts of the world. The issues that gave the catholic church bad press. And he is focusing on a message that is more inclusive. Very few could argue with stressing love and charity or even a direct criticism of what Noami Klein has termed disaster capitalism,  a particular brand of capitalism. However he is not stressing what is wrong is still wrong. He is changing the lead conversation.

[mormonnewb]

Nothing will satisfy a person who wishes to find fault with the lds church. My point on this thread is quite simple: what the pope is saying about love and charity is the same that lds leaders have said in the past and now. The messages are not different. The critics have no case when they compare unfavorably the lds church with what the pope is now doing or saying.

I suspect the only thing different is that the Pope is, at least in small ways, walking the walk. That image of the Pope kissing the man with the boils was downright Biblical. I know I couldn't have done that. I could barely look at the pictures of him doing that. And forgive me, but I can't see my beloved prophet doing that either. He probably can (and has) but once again, I've never even seen him in the same picture with anyone but the high and mighty, so it's hard for me to make the mental leap of him actually holding a person who has been scorned and an outcast.

Also, in fairness, I can't see any of our church leaders taking on the US for being so militaristic or capitalists for being so "greedy." As a church, we seem to believe in "American exceptionalism" and that trickle down economics originated somewhere on a mountaintop. Of course, I'm new here so I could be misreading the situation totally (in fact, I really hope that I am).

[Calm]

Yeh, I was never teased in high school or grade school or even middle school, to this day people apologize if they swear in front of me or tell off color jokes.  My former roommate and I both worked part-time at the same restaraunt where the owner would tell people to watch their language around me.  She'd say "you think she's so nice, you don't really know her" we are dear friends to this day, but neither one of us can figure out why I get this treatment.  People in general have always treated me well and for some reason those who I spend time with treat me even better, sometimes I feel like the Sally Field award thing.  She says "you like me, you really like me" I feel like that but I don't understand why, I am not in least aceptional so I don't get it.  I suppose that's why I was so startled by the aggresive and hostile people who knocked on my door though the people who really put me off of all religious folks were the ones who hounded me at my part time job in high school.  After a number of encounters I don't see me joining even the most of hands off believe what you want churches.

I am so sorry you've had these experiences. Your reaction is very understandable, though saddening. Those responsible for treating you in this way will be held accountable and learn intimately to their regret what hurt they have caused, I believe. I also believe that those who repent of this evil (and it is a sin, a great sin to turn someone from the truth...even if it turns out you were wrong about having the truth when you were out preaching as the intent was there...and if you are right...or at least the message you should have been teaching was the pure gospel...one of the things the heavens weep over I suspect when we could have help healed and wounded instead), they will have the chance to come to you and show that they understand what they were responsible for and are truly sorry for it. This is the way I've learned to deal with all the unnecessary pain around me caused by foolishness and pride, including what I've caused myself. It gives me comfort and hope...and I hope very much that it is true for you.

If this is too personal I am sorry, I am so sleep deprived right now and I sometimes cross lines and say things I wouldn't when my judgment is better, I may have these feelings but I don't think others are obligated to engage with them if they don't want to or dont share them so most of the time I keep quiet except when it feels right...but I am not sure in this case. Feel free to just smile, pat me on my head and shoo me away.

[why me]

Now, perhaps your opinion is that the church shouldn't be taking pictures in any of these situations. In that case, I may not agree, but I can admire such a consistent stand on principle.

I'm really just trying to understand your position on this "vital" issue

No one is interested in what mormon leaders are doing. The press is not following them around the globe. What is the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church doing for the poor? What is he saying these days? No one really cares outside the orthodox church. So, can we also criticize him for not doing enough if the press does not report it? The pope is in a different situation. The catholic church PR department knows how to get good publicity. Photo ops on the pope's tour with the media helping out with good press is one way to do it. Millions of catholics come out to greet him on the streets. Pope John II was also called a people's pope. He was out and about the crowds too until he was shot. But the message of pope john was also to beware of sin in the world and the values that were encouraging sin. This was his main message. He spoke out against such trends and values. And he was a very prolife pope and a friend of opus dei.

[why me]

Also, in fairness, I can't see any of our church leaders taking on the US for being so militaristic or capitalists for being so "greedy." As a church, we seem to believe in "American exceptionalism" and that trickle down economics originated somewhere on a mountaintop. Of course, I'm new here so I could be misreading the situation totally (in fact, I really hope that I am).

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=203

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/2002/10/whats-in-it-for-me?lang=eng&query=capitalism+and+greed

 

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=488

 

I think that what you wrote is a myth. One really does need to read just what the leaders are saying and what is the basic foundation of the lds church. I can list several articles that could name the unfairness of the system of greed.

[why me]

I suspect the only thing different is that the Pope is, at least in small ways, walking the walk. That image of the Pope kissing the man with the boils was downright Biblical. I know I couldn't have done that. I could barely look at the pictures of him doing that. And forgive me, but I can't see my beloved prophet doing that either.

 

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1996/10/be-thou-an-example?lang=eng&query=president+and+the+poor

 

Should you be in Salt Lake City, visit the Sort Center, where millions of pounds of contributed clothing are received, sorted, packed, and shipped to the needy throughout the world as well as to pockets of poverty situated closer to home. One is reminded of the statement made by the Prophet Joseph: “A man filled with the love of God is not content with blessing his family alone, but ranges through the whole world, anxious to bless the whole human race.”¹⁰

Most of you are home teachers. You are the eyes and ears of the bishops in seeking out the poor and the afflicted. While doing their duty, vigilant home teachers have observed unemployed fathers anxious to obtain work; distraught mothers seeing their tiny broods suffer; children crying from hunger, inadequately clothed to protect them from the cold of winter. In one instance, all of the family members were sleeping on the floor because they had no beds. Without delay, needed help was provided.

Remember the counsel from King Benjamin described in Mosiah: “Ye yourselves will succor those that stand in need of your succor; ye will administer of your substance unto him that standeth in need; and ye will not suffer that the beggar putteth up his petition to you in vain, and turn him out to perish.”¹¹

Fortunately and commendably, the Church is doing more than it has ever done to relieve suffering, to satisfy hunger, to prevent and cure illness, and to bless those in need. There is more to do.

 

Again, I think that you are misunderstanding just what the GAs have been saying and doing. No one is supporting a greedy system.

Edited December 28, 2013 by why me

[Calm]

Also, in fairness, I can't see any of our church leaders taking on the US for being so militaristic or capitalists for being so "greedy." As a church, we seem to believe in "American exceptionalism" and that trickle down economics originated somewhere on a mountaintop. Of course, I'm new here so I could be misreading the situation totally (in fact, I really hope that I am).

There is a very strong concentration in the US of a certain political train of thought that has taken the "American Experience" (especially the vision of the independent, self sufficient pioneer setting off for unknown lands in search of a better future, but also the conservatism born of fear of being without due to the Great Depression) and melded it with certain unique aspects of LDS experience (such as the first century and longer of being seen as the outsider, one of the disliked of society that continued up to at least 5 years ago) and theology (service towards others being our "pure religion) and the result doesn't always look logical because it's mixed some compounds that had unmixable elements in them. And because part of the American experience in the past has been to so strongly bind one's faith with one's politics...to the point that people are more likely to change their religion to accommodate their politics iirc the American Grace study...this weird concoction of mostly good, but unbalanced approach has become too closely identified with what it means to be LDS when if you take a few steps out of the country you see it isn't so. It is very unfortunate that smaller parties don't work in the US given the tendency from the very beginning for LDS to vote as a bloc in the US. If there had been other options, I wonder how different the political landscape for the US LDS would be given it is not unknown for the group to shift political mounts from time to time but there has never been any significant success when theyve tried to create their own brand of politics, the US political scene has only worked for the Church when connected with others...which is good in that I don't think we should be politically isolated, but bad when we don't really examine whether or nor we want the whole package of the party's platform...and there has been little reason for them to try and adapt for us (some are so sure of us they can call us a cult and nonchristian and more offensive stuff because they know we will still vote what we've limked ourselves to, so it seems to me we've been drawn further into the so called conservative side away from the more moderate positions I heard around growing up.

[Calm]

No one is interested in what mormon leaders are doing. The press is not following them around the globe. What is the leader of the Russian Orthodox Church doing for the poor? What is he saying these days? No one really cares outside the orthodox church. So, can we also criticize him for not doing enough if the press does not report it? The pope is in a different situation. The catholic church PR department knows how to get good publicity. Photo ops on the pope's tour with the media helping out with good press is one way to do it. Millions of catholics come out to greet him on the streets. Pope John II was also called a people's pope. He was out and about the crowds too until he was shot. But the message of pope john was also to beware of sin in the world and the values that were encouraging sin. This was his main message. He spoke out against such trends and values. And he was a very prolife pope and a friend of opus dei.

Worldwide I would agree interest is limited, too many have negative views, photo ops are often downplayed or 'balance' with criticism. Don't see that as an issue in the US now, tons of Mormon jokes in the media, some even funny, a number of reality show participants are known for their 'mormonness'...David Archuleta sp? He would have been followed around on his mission if allowed. It would take some time but it could be developed...it is being developed in a lot of ways...but it may be they are going for the mass effect so it is less about the individuals involved and more the Church. Tons of stories about hundreds of different ordinary members doing even extraordinary things still end up making the Church the celebrity. I would be interested to hear how outsiders responded to Pres. Kimball and Hinckley who I see as the best know modern prophets. With the Pope it is almost as if in reading some stuff the RCC is just a background set for a great actor to work his magic on, rather than encouraging Catholics to be better Catholics and nonCatholics to consider joining the Body of Christ. I am in no way saying this is what the Pope is trying to achieve, just that some of the press think they have a right to rewrite the script. The Church loses control of the story the more they get involved with the press, perhaps they chooses stories to publicise based on this problem, perhaps the very stories that paint leaders so well as human are the ones that take on their own life.

I think a question that might get to the core of the issue would to be to ask the PR guys if a story going viral about President Monson be seen as more likely a good or bad thing and what kind of effects, short and long, expected.

Edited December 28, 2013 by calmoriah

[Scott Lloyd]

I freely acknowledged that there are several other plausible explanations for Joseph Smith's institution of polygamy, including that it was inspired by The Lord. However, how do you reject "out of hand" the POSSIBILITY that a 30-something MAN might have been motivated by lust?

Take it from someone who was a 30-something man for about a decade, lust is ALWAYS a possibility.

I don't reject out of hand the possibility of being motivated by lust. I reject the conclusion-jumping that just because it's possible, it's what actually happened.

Moreover, I refuse to give any man a pass on unrighteously succumbing to his appetites, including those you mentioned as being among those you admire. Like you, I was a 30-something man for a decade. But I was not just a 30-something man, I was a single 30-something man who controlled his lusts to the point of de facto celibacy. Thus, I am in a position to say that if I can exercise control over lusts, other men can as well, particularly those who are married and presumably have a proper outlet for their passions.

Edited December 29, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I have no way of knowing if a particular church leader is reluctant or not in any given situation to be part of a photo op. Given that being so publicly visible so easily is a relatively recent social development, it would not surprised me at all if it played into some decisions not to take advantage of the PR value of some service/interaction.

I have interacted with enough Church leaders at the General Authority level to know that at least some of them don't much care for being highly visible, but they tolerate it because they know it goes with the calling.

[Yirgacheffe]

I am so sorry you've had these experiences. Your reaction is very understandable, though saddening. Those responsible for treating you in this way will be held accountable and learn intimately to their regret what hurt they have caused, I believe. I also believe that those who repent of this evil (and it is a sin, a great sin to turn someone from the truth...even if it turns out you were wrong about having the truth when you were out preaching as the intent was there...and if you are right...or at least the message you should have been teaching was the pure gospel...one of the things the heavens weep over I suspect when we could have help healed and wounded instead), they will have the chance to come to you and show that they understand what they were responsible for and are truly sorry for it. This is the way I've learned to deal with all the unnecessary pain around me caused by foolishness and pride, including what I've caused myself. It gives me comfort and hope...and I hope very much that it is true for you.

If this is too personal I am sorry, I am so sleep deprived right now and I sometimes cross lines and say things I wouldn't when my judgment is better, I may have these feelings but I don't think others are obligated to engage with them if they don't want to or dont share them so most of the time I keep quiet except when it feels right...but I am not sure in this case. Feel free to just smile, pat me on my head and shoo me away.

Nothing you've said strikes as too personal at all I would be uncomfortable with a tearful apology though don't know why I just would.  I'm not all that interested in their being regretful either, people are people and sometimes we sting each other, at this point I've decided that I'm the one who decides the conversation I will participate in and what direction the conversation takes.  I don't see that as sad, though I can understand how a person of faith could view it as sad.  On that note I'm going to bow out of the thread, just can't get over the irony of "if our prophet did this people would say it was just a pr stunt" while calling others actions pr stunts, need to leave before I ruin my rosy view. Happy new year if I don't get into any other threads

[thesometimesaint]

To suggest that a Leader "can" have serious flaws does not say they actually do, rather it teaches that a leader can be extremely fallible and still be an instrument in the hands of God. 

 

We can say leaders are imperfect and fallible till we are blue in the face.  If we actually acknowledge it on specific instances, we are asking for trouble.  I disagree with that but so be it.  Being told a leader's shortcomings helps me to see that I am still saveable.  For me it is a positive to hear the Church actually internalize fallibility rather then just pay it lip service.

 

It is one thing to say that all men sin, and quite another to say you personally committed "X" sin.

SEE Woman taken in adultery.

[thesometimesaint]

Many give up on that same path when they feel it is to much an incline and combine that with feeling others are more capable to climb it.  TElling people George Albert Smith had very sever Depression (Elder Holland finally did that), that some have forced their views in spite of it not being Doctrinal and some even being flat out wrong.  That President Benson had sever dementia and was not acting as Prophet even when we claimed he was doing ok and still leading the Church.  These kinds of things when not talked about make prophets to almost become near perfect and it makes it harder for the the strugglers on the fringe to see how they will ever make it.  There are others.  But yes some of these venture off into posing some risk of hurting the faith of others more then helping it.  That said that alone does not make it wrong to be honest about such things.

 

Having severe Depression/Dementia/mental illness isn't a sin any more than having a funky Gall Bladder is.