Jeanne Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Are you saying you were discriminated against because you were up against Missionaries for interviews? What kind of job? I lost a professional position (Masters and 15 years experience) because the employer with Kennecott in Wyoming didn't like his bosses in Utah. If I were hiring for a sales position or an entry level customer service position return Missionaries would get a second look because of their practice serving and working with a variety of cultures. The same goes for Veterans, Eagle Scouts, and Gold Star Girl Scouts...All kinds of jobs..but I had several years experience in accounting and environmental studies..ran a complete new recycling program as well as payroll clerk for 5 years with the government...granted ..I would make it to the final 3 or 4...but if you were being interviewed by LDS..and I knew I was...then the missionaries and RS women would get it first. Many interviews were group interviews because of so many people looking for work. In those interviews..my fellow interviewees always mentioned what involvement they had in the church...worked every time. I am talking Cache Valley,
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Yet people know of your opinions and you are in the Bishopric. Why couldn't you speak to that Elder's quorum president? hah...years ago our bishop told me I wasn't his brother in the gospel, but somehow he asked me to serve with him in the bishopric? No. I'm not. I was recently in the EQ presidency, until last month. NOw I'm just a youth SS instructor--a calling I"ve held for a few years now.
KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 All kinds of jobs..but I had several years experience in accounting and environmental studies..ran a complete new recycling program as well as payroll clerk for 5 years with the government...granted ..I would make it to the final 3 or 4...but if you were being interviewed by LDS..and I knew I was...then the missionaries and RS women would get it first. Many interviews were group interviews because of so many people looking for work. In those interviews..my fellow interviewees always mentioned what involvement they had in the church...worked every time. I am talking Cache Valley, You need to expand your search. Also follow up with recruiters and get some feedback. I have been #2 or #3 in many interviews because I was not an internal candidate, or the one person with familiar background and references. People will hire those they are familiar with.
Deborah Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 We may start seeing women ordained to the priesthood, gay couples married at church's, infant baptisms, etc. These are extreme examples but if we take Otterson at his word that CH1 is open to interpretation and direction from the spirit to local leaders, then everything is on the table. I'm simply stating that I don't think these things are on the table. The church will not accept variations to these policies. Good grief. Talk about exaggeration and over-reacting. 1
ERayR Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) I clearly know that the church thinks my lifestyle is wrong. Quite honestly I have no idea how God feels about me having a boyfriend. I don't know whether the church leaders got it right or not. You are right about most people not knowing what led me to the choices I made. But a large part of that decision weighed the eternal nature of my choice. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not commenting on your lifestyle or passing judgement. My comments were to get you to look at your pointing out to members of the LDS church, what you consider as errors, in the same way as you look at others when they point out what they perceive as the errors of your lifestyle. In other words just turn your question around and ask it to yourself. Edited November 16, 2015 by ERayR
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Pick a view, any view, and I can easily already tell you that the opposite view will be to the contrary. Your first reply proved what I was saying by simply showing that you don't agree with my view, but you can use another example if you think it might help. It was mentioned yesterday in Church too--we must accept black and white thinking in the church. I disagree. There is always gray. Take the issue of SSM, for instance.
KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 It sounds to me like there is more to the story then he was fired for mention God. But the article you linked can't identify what happened exactly. Sounds pretty fishy. A small backward college compared to the diversity of thought and opinion at the vast Universities across the nation doesn't say much. He apologized and took the blame for the failures. "I take full responsibility for this frustration, and I take full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred"I will say the amount of protesting and such on college campuses gets out of hand. The amount of objecting to comedians and stupid things people say it out of hand. No doubt. That's not really the point, though. I'm saying the amount of diversity of thought at public Universities is far more expansive than the diversity of thought at the LDS Church. Whether legal action is taken or not, matters not--although I'd wager there are plenty who feel like they were excommunication because of their personal opinions. But we don't know because excommunication proceedings are not made public. hah...years ago our bishop told me I wasn't his brother in the gospel, but somehow he asked me to serve with him in the bishopric? No. I'm not. I was recently in the EQ presidency, until last month. NOw I'm just a youth SS instructor--a calling I"ve held for a few years now. Hmmm... I might have got you mixed up with another poster who was opposed to the new handbook instructions and serves in a Bishopric.
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Hmmm... I might have got you mixed up with another poster who was opposed to the new handbook instructions and serves in a Bishopric. That's rockpond, I believe. and I'm flattered. Although don't be surprised if he ups and leaves altogether after hearing someone mixed us up. Edited November 16, 2015 by stemelbow
jaberwocky Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 It was mentioned yesterday in Church too--we must accept black and white thinking in the church. I disagree. There is always gray. Take the issue of SSM, for instance. How is the issue of SSM a gray area for the Church? The policies are pretty straight forward.
KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 That's not really the point, though. I'm saying the amount of diversity of thought at public Universities is far more expansive than the diversity of thought at the LDS Church. Whether legal action is taken or not, matters not--although I'd wager there are plenty who feel like they were excommunication because of their personal opinions. But we don't know because excommunication proceedings are not made public. You read that Atlantic article pretty fast to draw a conclusion. But back to your point. The orthodoxy on campuses may be more to your liking, but it does not mean that it is less insular and prone to group-think than any religious group.
KevinG Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 That's rockpond, I believe. and I'm flattered. Although don't be surprised if he ups and leaves altogether after hearing someone mixed us up. Thanks.
Zakuska Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) Those who advocate for SSM simply don't understand the doctrine of the church.Or perhaps they see scriptures a little differently and think church Doctrine and Policy actually goes against the Gospel and might be mistaken. Riddle me this. What was the sin of Sodom and Gamorah according to scripture? Hint: it wasn't homosexuality. Ezekiel 16:49 Edited November 16, 2015 by Zakuska
ERayR Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 It was mentioned yesterday in Church too--we must accept black and white thinking in the church. I disagree. There is always gray. Take the issue of SSM, for instance. Some people only think in black and white and some issues are black and white (right or wrong). One who doesn't agree with them can and do claim shades of gray.
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 How is the issue of SSM a gray area for the Church? The policies are pretty straight forward. Wait and see. In years things will change. It used to be the Church leaders harshly condemned homosexuals. Now they speak more loving and caringly. It used to be so white that gay people could change. But as time has passed leaders have realized and accepted that change is not likely, a grayer area. I won't be surprised when in time leaders start to realize how wrong they are about many things and the white and blackness of things fade away into a sea of gray. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Good grief. Talk about exaggeration and over-reacting.Please explain. Why would I expect a Bishop or SP could make exception on allowing the child of a gay parent to be blessed, baptized, ordained etc without getting first presidency approval but not make exceptions to other policies in the same handbook?
jaberwocky Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Wait and see. In years things will change. It used to be the Church leaders harshly condemned homosexuals. Now they speak more loving and caringly. It used to be so white that gay people could change. But as time has passed leaders have realized and accepted that change is not likely, a grayer area. I won't be surprised when in time leaders start to realize how wrong they are about many things and the white and blackness of things fade away into a sea of gray. So in your mind the Church will eventually accept homosexuality as acceptable?
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Some people only think in black and white and some issues are black and white (right or wrong). One who doesn't agree with them can and do claim shades of gray. Murder seems black and white. But in some cases, like Nephi murdering laban for instance, it seems to be ok. The bestest black and white I can think of is sexually abusing children. Of course then we have a prophet marrying young teenagers. It's much easier to think Joseph never consummated with his teenage brides because of that, even if we'll never know. it just feels like with every strict rule there are exceptions and that's how God tends to like it.
Deborah Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Please explain. Why would I expect a Bishop or SP could make exception on allowing the child of a gay parent to be blessed, baptized, ordained etc without getting first presidency approval but not make exceptions to other policies in the same handbook? Exceptions have been made to other policies, with the approval of the First Presidency.
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 So in your mind the Church will eventually accept homosexuality as acceptable? Sure, the Church will accept it as acceptable. Years ago it would have been crazy to think SSM was possible. Things change. Leaders ideas and level of acceptance change too.
Ahab Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 (edited) I clearly know that the church thinks my lifestyle is wrong. Quite honestly I have no idea how God feels about me having a boyfriend. I don't know whether the church leaders got it right or not. You are right about most people not knowing what led me to the choices I made. But a large part of that decision weighed the eternal nature of my choice.I think you should make it a priority to find out how God our Father feels and what he thinks about you having a "boyfriend". Not just a boy who is your friend but a boy/man you have sexual relations with. I'll tell you right now that he wants you to love everybody, and to try a be a friend to everybody whether a boy/man or girl/woman, and that he is also okay with each sex thinking and feeling that everyone is sexually attractive in their own way whether a boy/man or girl/woman with their "sex" being male or female, but even so there are still some things he doesn't want anyone to do sexually with someone of the same sex, and it would be best if you learned from our Father what you should not be doing. Edited November 16, 2015 by Ahab
Jeanne Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 You need to expand your search. Also follow up with recruiters and get some feedback. I have been #2 or #3 in many interviews because I was not an internal candidate, or the one person with familiar background and references. People will hire those they are familiar with. Thank you for your advice. As it is, I check papers and job things all the time but those positions don't seem to be available..I don't have a degree..just a lot of experience. If I could afford schooling, I guess that would help. I have now been a darn good baker for Walmart for almost 7 years. I will pat myself on the back anyways..doing the best I can to make things work. I wish you great success! Hugs, Jeanne
Gray Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 In case you didn't know most of the world's religions do not support gay marriage. Because the church doesn't ban gays, and it never banned blacks, and because the church believes in being kind and fair to those it disagrees with this is not an issue. The religious restriction is not meant to be unfair but to establish parameters to protect religious beliefs and avoid conflict in families. I know some would like acceptance of their lifestyle but given all they have won in the laws of the land I don't know why they have to continue to pursue and persecute religious people for wanting to adhere to their beliefs. The tide of opinions, including among religious people, is rapidly changing. That's not something anyone can control or put the brakes on.
stemelbow Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 You read that Atlantic article pretty fast to draw a conclusion. But back to your point. The orthodoxy on campuses may be more to your liking, but it does not mean that it is less insular and prone to group-think than any religious group. I don't think my liking has anything to do with it. Just saying diversity of thought is more broad on University campuses than at an LDS Church. I dont' think that's even debatable, but I am often surprised when people who disagree chime in. Thanks for disagreeing. It helps my perspective.
Ahab Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 It was mentioned yesterday in Church too--we must accept black and white thinking in the church. I disagree. There is always gray. Take the issue of SSM, for instance.All we need to know about SSM is that it is either right/good or wrong/evil. There is no alternative view. I know which side I am on. Do you?
HappyJackWagon Posted November 16, 2015 Posted November 16, 2015 Exceptions have been made to other policies, with the approval of the First Presidency.True. So we accept that the First Presidency can make exceptions to the policy. I agree. The confusion is about whether or not local leaders have the ability to make exceptions to CH1 policies. You jumped on my post where I suggested local leaders don't have that authority and I shared some examples of policies they cannot make exceptions to. You disliked my assertion so I'm asking you to explain.
Recommended Posts