Does Our Choice Of Profession Affect Our Worthiness?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It isn't my place to draw the line. Rather, it is to be drawn by the person being INTERVIEWED (as opposed to interrogated) and God. How did you not know this?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

You read my mind. I was going to say something very similar.

[jwhitlock]

What destroys more families, purveying porn or booze?

 

Yes.

[mormonnewb]

 

I am of the disposition to let God inspire his chosen leader as to what he thinks we should be warned about, and this because I am constantly and painfully aware that I am far from being as smart and knowledgeable and capable as God and his chosen leaders. You, of course, evidently don't suffer from those human limitations--at least in your "self-important mind.". [thumbs up]

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

 

All of our witty banter aside, this is the crux of our disagreement.  You believe that the Prophets are God's chosen leaders and that you should defer to their choice on all Church matters.  That's a perfectly valid position to take and I imagine that it makes for an easier life when others do the thinking for you.  And that wasn't meant to be snarky.

 

I have the same exact attitude when I fly on an airplane.  I'm not constantly trying to peak into the cockpit to see if they're flying the plane "correctly."  I don't know the first thing about keeping an airplane aloft and therefore, I keep my nose out of their business and just hope that I get to my destination safely.

 

And there's one thing that I also don't do -- I don't go onto pilotdiscussion.com and yell at everybody for second guessing other pilots.  If they want to argue that, say, Sully (from Hudson River fame) could have landed the plane better, I let them.  Who knows?  They might be right.  They also might be wrong, but because I acknowledge that I'm not in a position to judge, I don't try to stop others from doing so.

 

On other hand, if I thought I knew something about piloting, I might go onto the site and take Sully's side.  However, if I did, I wouldn't argue that "The Lord anointed Sully to land the plane and so you should all shut up about it."  I'd actually try to use logical THOUGHT to make my point.

 

Now, to translate for you ... What I'm saying is that if you have an opinion about something, that's fine.  But if your only opinion is that no one but the Brethren should have an opinion, then your input serves no useful purpose on a DISCUSSION board.

[Stone holm]

All of our witty banter aside, this is the crux of our disagreement.  You believe that the Prophets are God's chosen leaders and that you should defer to their choice on all Church matters.  That's a perfectly valid position to take and I imagine that it makes for an easier life when others do the thinking for you.  And that wasn't meant to be snarky.

 

I have the same exact attitude when I fly on an airplane.  I'm not constantly trying to peak into the cockpit to see if they're flying the plane "correctly."  I don't know the first thing about keeping an airplane aloft and therefore, I keep my nose out of their business and just hope that I get to my destination safely.

 

And there's one thing that I also don't do -- I don't go onto pilotdiscussion.com and yell at everybody for second guessing other pilots.  If they want to argue that, say, Sully (from Hudson River fame) could have landed the plane better, I let them.  Who knows?  They might be right.  They also might be wrong, but because I acknowledge that I'm not in a position to judge, I don't try to stop others from doing so.

 

On other hand, if I thought I knew something about piloting, I might go onto the site and take Sully's side.  However, if I did, I wouldn't argue that "The Lord anointed Sully to land the plane and so you should all shut up about it."  I'd actually try to use logical THOUGHT to make my point.

 

Now, to translate for you ... What I'm saying is that if you have an opinion about something, that's fine.  But if your only opinion is that no one but the Brethren should have an opinion, then your input serves no useful purpose on a DISCUSSION board.

Ah but to abdicate thought or not to abdicate thought that is the question is it not. If you have your son upon the sacrificial altar do you abdicate thought and plunge the knife?

[The Nehor]

If you have your son upon the sacrificial altar do you abdicate thought and plunge the knife?

 

Depends.....did the kid wreck the car lately? If so thought might help you plunge the knife.

[Stone holm]

Depends.....did the kid wreck the car lately? If so thought might help you plunge the knife.

True, you cut to the chase...

[wenglund]

All of our witty banter aside, this is the crux of our disagreement.  You believe that the Prophets are God's chosen leaders and that you should defer to their choice on all Church matters.  That's a perfectly valid position to take and I imagine that it makes for an easier life when others do the thinking for you.  And that wasn't meant to be snarky.

 

I have the same exact attitude when I fly on an airplane.  I'm not constantly trying to peak into the cockpit to see if they're flying the plane "correctly."  I don't know the first thing about keeping an airplane aloft and therefore, I keep my nose out of their business and just hope that I get to my destination safely.

 

And there's one thing that I also don't do -- I don't go onto pilotdiscussion.com and yell at everybody for second guessing other pilots.  If they want to argue that, say, Sully (from Hudson River fame) could have landed the plane better, I let them.  Who knows?  They might be right.  They also might be wrong, but because I acknowledge that I'm not in a position to judge, I don't try to stop others from doing so.

 

On other hand, if I thought I knew something about piloting, I might go onto the site and take Sully's side.  However, if I did, I wouldn't argue that "The Lord anointed Sully to land the plane and so you should all shut up about it."  I'd actually try to use logical THOUGHT to make my point.

 

Now, to translate for you ... What I'm saying is that if you have an opinion about something, that's fine.  But if your only opinion is that no one but the Brethren should have an opinion, then your input serves no useful purpose on a DISCUSSION board.

 

Our disagreement goes well beyond deference to Church leaders vs self, and also includes humility vs. pride, and minding one's own business vs minding other people's business, as well as distinguishing between vertical vs horizontal lines of authority, and offering support/sustainings vs complaints, not to mention expressing the positive vs. the negative, or figuring everyone is entitled to their opinion vs. everyone is entitled to your opinion, etc.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[mormonnewb]

Our disagreement goes well beyond deference to Church leaders vs self, and also includes humility vs. pride, and minding one's own business vs minding other people's business, as well as distinguishing between vertical vs horizontal lines of authority, and offering support/sustainings vs complaints, not to mention expressing the positive vs. the negative, or figuring everyone is entitled to their opinion vs. everyone is entitled to your opinion, etc.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

What would we have to DISCUSS if I was deferential to leaders, humble, minded my own business, offered support, expressed the positive, and thought you were entitled to your own (i.e., the Brethren's) opinion? This board would be an Internet version of the kiddy portion of F&T. "I know the Church is true. I love my family. I know that Monty S Thompson is a true prophet ..."

Now, don't get me wrong. Our babies are adorable when they give these types of testimonies. However, middle-aged apologists are not so cute when they follow suit. From them, I expect more than the message board equivalent of "follow the Prophet."

And if some of them can't muster logical (or even theological) arguments in support of Church policies/doctrines, then perhaps they can get out of the way and let us ADULTS do some actual THINKING.

[The Nehor]

And if some of them can't muster logical (or even theological) arguments in support of Church policies/doctrines, then perhaps they can get out of the way and let us ADULTS do some actual THINKING.

 

CFR that you have actually ever done any thinking.

[stemelbow]

Our disagreement goes well beyond deference to Church leaders vs self, and also includes humility vs. pride, and minding one's own business vs minding other people's business, as well as distinguishing between vertical vs horizontal lines of authority, and offering support/sustainings vs complaints, not to mention expressing the positive vs. the negative, or figuring everyone is entitled to their opinion vs. everyone is entitled to your opinion, etc.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It's probably fair to point out that he is saying yours is a "perfectly valid position to take" while you impose the notion that the difference between the two of you puts you in some haloed vaulted position while he plays something akin to the devil on someone's shoulder. I say its good to consider other people's thoughts, find value in their way of thinking, perhaps even let their thoughts help inspire and motivate others to do good. Its not as if the worlds only resource to God is found in 15 men. I would suggest we can all find value in searching for ourselves, asking questions, perhaps offer challenges to discuss. After all we're all a little imperfect and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.

[wenglund]

What would we have to DISCUSS if I was deferential to leaders, humble, minded my own business, offered support, expressed the positive, and thought you were entitled to your own (i.e., the Brethren's) opinion? This board would be an Internet version of the kiddy portion of F&T. "I know the Church is true. I love my family. I know that Monty S Thompson is a true prophet ..."

 

Now, don't get me wrong. Our babies are adorable when they give these types of testimonies. However, middle-aged apologists are not so cute when they follow suit. From them, I expect more than the message board equivalent of "follow the Prophet."

And if some of them can't muster logical (or even theological) arguments in support of Church policies/doctrines, then perhaps they can get out of the way and let us ADULTS do some actual THINKING.

 

 Off-topic personal attack removed.

[wenglund]

It's probably fair to point out that he is saying yours is a "perfectly valid position to take" while you impose the notion that the difference between the two of you puts you in some haloed vaulted position while he plays something akin to the devil on someone's shoulder. I say its good to consider other people's thoughts, find value in their way of thinking, perhaps even let their thoughts help inspire and motivate others to do good. Its not as if the worlds only resource to God is found in 15 men. I would suggest we can all find value in searching for ourselves, asking questions, perhaps offer challenges to discuss. After all we're all a little imperfect and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.

 

I doubt the fairness of your perception, particularly considering that newb compared my alleged "haloed vaulted position" to the "kiddie portion of F&T"

 

Nevertheless, you and he clearly are missing my point. I am in no way discouraging people from generally sharing their thoughts. Also, as previously indicated, I am painfully aware of my own imperfections and i do find value in other ways of thinking. Nothing I have said can be reasonably interpreted to suggest otherwise.

 

In fact, I am here sharing my thought in regards to newb's imperfections, hoping he will find value therein.   

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[stemelbow]

Interesting. I and other members and participants on this board are deferential to leaders and so forth, and yet for decades we haven't been at a loss for things to DISCUSS well beyond the "kiddy portion of F&T." So, I am not sure what your problem is.

 

Actually, I think I do understand your problem. I suspect that you have been steeped in a religious culture that was decentralized and devoid of living prophets and with minimal guidance from God. And, so, naturally, for years you and your fellow parishioners have had to compensate for that sizable deficiency through heavy reliance on the sheep of the local flock. You have been accustomed to mutual bleating and following sheeple trends as the means for guidance and direction. Of necessity in your religious culture, though presumptuously, the sheep have elevate themselves to the station of shepherd, and become more inclined to lead than to follow, to speak rather than listen, to criticize rather than compliment, to look externally rather than internally for correction, etc.

 

It isn't that you are a bad guy with ill intents. It is just that now, as a new member of the legitimate shepherd-lead Church, you are experiencing cultural shock, and are having a real challenge letting go of your old ways. You are struggling to off-load of the illegitimate mantle of authority and trust in legitimate authority.

 

Either that and/or your's is a case of arrested development. In religious faith, as with many other aspects of human growth, there are at least three major phases of growth. There is childhood, where there is significant levels of authoritarian dependency that may diminish over time. This phase is marked by a need for substantial compliance and authoritarian input across all aspects of the child's life. Then there is the teen phase, which is marked by a false sense of independence born of an arrogant and exaggerated sense of self. This phase often consists of a need to rebel and speak out and reject authoritarian input (thinking it is childish) and to save the world, figuring they know better than their parents and adults what is best for themselves and others, while also ironically determined to follow the crowd and fit in and be a part of the "in" group, And, finally, there is the adult phase, which is marked with a need for inter-dependency born of the realization that the more one knows the less one really knows, as well as a healthy acknowledgement of one's own limitation, which engenders a focus on self-improvement and stewardship and measured reliance on trade and specialization, trusting pragmatically in those with admitted greater experience, knowledge, and authority.

 

I see you as a spiritual teen on the cusps of becoming an adult. I hope that I and others can be of help in enabling your maturation.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Ahh the condescending approach. Very helpful.

And its a wonder that you don't consider you are the one in the teen phase while he is in the adult phase. After all adults normally understand differing opinions does not equate to someone prefers to criticize than compliment, or would rather look externally rather than internally, or speak rather than listen. Not really. Christ is the ultimate Shepherd and it doesn't hurt to step back and evaluate we, as sheep, have our priorities right.

[stemelbow]

I doubt the fairness of your perception, particularly considering that newb compared my alleged "haloed vaulted position" to the "kiddie portion of F&T"

He did suggest, indeed, that he expects more from adults than that. I don't think he said you are stuck in the kiddie portion of F&T, though. Seems like some misunderstanding on your part.

 

Nevertheless, you and he clearly are missing my point. I am in no way discouraging people from generally sharing their thoughts. Also, as previously indicated, I am painfully aware of my own imperfections and i do find value in other ways of thinking. Nothing I have said can be reasonably interpreted to suggest otherwise.

 

In fact, I am here sharing my thought in regards to newb's imperfections, hoping he will find value therein.   

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Alright. I'll take it as it comes.

[wenglund]

Ahh the condescending approach. Very helpful.

And its a wonder that you don't consider you are the one in the teen phase while he is in the adult phase. After all adults normally understand differing opinions does not equate to someone prefers to criticize than compliment, or would rather look externally rather than internally, or speak rather than listen. Not really. Christ is the ultimate Shepherd and it doesn't hurt to step back and evaluate we, as sheep, have our priorities right.

 

Accusations of condescension are often hypocritically condescending, particularly when followed by smug and disingenuous declarations of "very helpful."

 

It also doesn't help that such an accusation is couched in a lecture on lack of self awareness and non-sequiturs from someone whose comments are anything but self-aware and accurately comprehending.

 

It does, however, make for a humorous object lesson on motes and beams. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Poster removed. Do not derail threads.

[stemelbow]

Accusations of condescension are often hypocritically condescending, particularly when followed by smug and disingenuous declarations of "very helpful."

 

It also doesn't help that such an accusation is couched in a lecture on lack of self awareness and non-sequiturs from someone whose comments are anything but self-aware and accurately comprehending.

 

It does, however, make for a humorous object lesson on motes and beams. 

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

lol. Fine. Have fun.

[mormonnewb]

wenglund, on 15 May 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Interesting. I and other members and participants on this board are deferential to leaders and so forth, and yet for decades we haven't been at a loss for things to DISCUSS well beyond the "kiddy portion of F&T." So, I am not sure what your problem is.
 
Actually, I think I do understand your problem. I suspect that you have been steeped in a religious culture that was decentralized and devoid of living prophets and with minimal guidance from God. And, so, naturally, for years you and your fellow parishioners have had to compensate for that sizable deficiency through heavy reliance on the sheep of the local flock. You have been accustomed to mutual bleating and following sheeple trends as the means for guidance and direction. Of necessity in your religious culture, though presumptuously, the sheep have elevate themselves to the station of shepherd, and become more inclined to lead than to follow, to speak rather than listen, to criticize rather than compliment, to look externally rather than internally for correction, etc.
 
...
 
Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I am never offended by your presumptions about my character, maturity, etc.  I tend to "throw elbows" quite a bit myself, so it goes with the territory.  However, when you throw elbows at the people who cared for me, raised me and loved me first, then I do take exception.  This is particularly true when, at the very same time, this "legitimate" Church would not even allow my KIND into its temples.  So, excuse me, if I have some loyalty for those "bleating sheeples."

 

And, for the record,  those sheep were facing down water hoses, attack dogs and violent thugs for equality for all (yes, even Mormons) at the time when this "legitimate shepherd-lead church" decided to valiantly sit on the fence.

 

Wade, you need not respect me or ANYTHING I have to offer to this community.  I'm perfectly okay with that.  But your contempt for the "sheeple" who displayed more moral conviction and Christian love than you will EVER exhibit is pathetic.  I would expect that a "mature" Christian like yourself, one raised in a church with a "legitimate mantel of authority" would know better.  I admit that I was wrong.

Edited May 16, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Everyone who sells MLM garbage is going to hell.

I am okay with this.

Sounds fair.

[daren]

 In my point of view mlm is good than considering other investment product. But this process run based upon who recruit referral members below down line.  Investors earn money along with their recruit members. It is best option for online investors.  

[The Nehor]

[Buzzard]

 In my point of view mlm is good than considering other investment product. But this process run based upon who recruit referral members below down line.  Investors earn money along with their recruit members. It is best option for online investors.  

Spoken like a true MLM believer.  (snark on) Maybe you can start an MLM company teaching proper grammar. (snark off).

Nehor, I laughed so hard, I wished I could have given you multiple rep points.  Funniest thing I've seen today.  

[Silhouette]

I'm tempted to agree that participation in sin is sin except that "participation" is tricky.

One cannot be a producer of porn, but what about a silent partner in a porn producer? Or what about a distributor of films in general, some of which are porn? Or what about operating a hotel chain that offers in-room porn to its customers? Or what about being an executive at, say, Showtime Cable, that shows soft-core porn late at night?

More generally, what about participating on violations of the Law of Chastity in other ways? For instance, what about running a motel where you KNOW that a good percentage of your weekend room rentals are to unmarried couples (well, at least, not married to EACH OTHER)?

Where does one draw the line?

I dunno, for me it's pretty black and white. My opinion (and that's all it is) is that being involved in any way, in any of the scenarios you mentioned, would be a sin, because the people doing so, no matter how insignificant a roll they play, are helping bring to pass a sin. It's providing support and means for others to sin, therefore it's a sin itself.

Now, if a person is well-established in a position such as you mentioned, and then converts to the Church, I don't have an answer as to how they should then proceed. Should they drop everything they have worked for? I don't know. If they pay tithing on the money they earn doing something unsavory, is that money considered " filthy lucre"? I don't know. If a person has been trained as a bartender and that's all they know how to do, should they give up that profession and start from scratch? I don't know.

I do feel these types of jobs are wrong, however, I have no answers on how they might be dealt with by a member finding himself in such a position.

[The Nehor]

Spoken like a true MLM believer. (snark on) Maybe you can start an MLM company teaching proper grammar. (snark off).

Nehor, I laughed so hard, I wished I could have given you multiple rep points. Funniest thing I've seen today.

Thanks, I aim to please.

And yeah, there are only two ways to win at MLM schemes. Be behind the whole thing and exploit the desperate, the gullible, and those as greedy as you are but not quite as bright or not play at all.

Edited November 14, 2014 by The Nehor

[Guest]

To the OP...I spent 8 years I spent 8 years in the Army, and 23 years in Law Enforcement and Inspections. Sadly some social liberals believe that both were evil. The whole gun thing ya know. Even now those who know I own and collect guns

[bdouglas]

No.  One can not intentionally sin and be worthy and the pornography industry, no matter how you participate, is sin.

 

I used to work for a company that required traveling to California every week. With 2-3 co-workers, I'd fly out of the Salt Lake airport on Sunday night and then return home late Thursday night. The owner of the company I worked for was good LDS and so he always insisted we stay at the local Marriott Hotel in CA. There were two things I could always expect to find in my room when I arrived late every Sunday night: one was a mini-bar, stocked with the finest liquors; and two, in-room streaming blue movies, i.e., porn. This was in the early 1990s when cable porn was a big deal.

 

After 2-3 months of this traveling one of my co-workers complained about having to stay at Marriott. Apparently he'd been flipping through the channels one night on the TV and came upon porn. The previous occupant of the room had subscribed to the porn channel during his stay and the Front Desk had inadvertently kept it on in the room. So he said to the owner:

 

"Why can't we stay at Double-Tree, just a mile away? They don't offer in-room streaming porn and I'd feel better about staying there than Marriott."

 

But the owner said he preferred to support Marriott since the Marriotts were good Mormons.

 

Marriott Hotels penchant for offering not only in-room porn but mini-bars in their finest hotels all across the world has been the subject of at least one piece of investigative journalism, by the Wall Street Journal, and it was brought up in 2008 when Mitt Romney——a member of the Marriott board——was running for prez.

 

The point I'm making is, where do you draw the line? (Marriott Hotel, in defense of their practice of offering in-room porn and mini-bars said they needed to do this in order to be competitive.)

 

And then there are the LDS who made a whole bunch of money on their Google stock during the times when Google was minting new millionaires (and even billionaires) every day. At least 50% of Google searches are for ... guess what? Porn. Somebody clicks on a porn site, the stockholders get paid. Only those good LDS millionaires who were pocketing those Google checks ... well let me put it this way: those checks didn't come with PORN stamped on them. But that is in fact where 50% of the money, or profits, came from.

 

So personally, I dunno what the answer to this question is.

Edited November 14, 2014 by bdouglas