Mormon Church denounces Peaceful Coexistence Report

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

 

 

Which movie are you referring to?

This one.  Not an official Church production, but close enough to show the dangers of good intentions outweighing production values:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_390500&feature=iv&src_vid=ijknQ5qJWkc&v=A9pYcLqzn2I

 

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

I don't want to start a political debate, but the election and if Hillary serves 2 terms she can shape the Supreme Court 7-2 leaning liberal with young justices to shape an entire generation of Supreme Court decisions and that could impact votes on religious issues. Imagine a 7-2 liberal leaning Supreme Court making decisions on religious freedom for a whole generation.

[carbon dioxide]

16 hours ago, cdowis said:

I think it is obvious that the church will lose its ability to perform marriages in the temple, only to do sealings after a civil  marriage ceremony has been performed.

Perhaps we can do sealings without the civil part or do the civil part afterwards.

[carbon dioxide]

48 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't want to start a political debate, but the election and if Hillary serves 2 terms she can shape the Supreme Court 7-2 leaning liberal with young justices to shape an entire generation of Supreme Court decisions and that could impact votes on religious issues. Imagine a 7-2 liberal leaning Supreme Court making decisions on religious freedom for a whole generation.

The odds of Hillary going two terms is very low.  Not just the age issue but she is going to be so weak going into office with all this wikileaks stuff. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I guess you're saying there's a chance.  I think its highly unlikely that someone would go through the vetting process to become an employee and move up to a position where they could subtly try to undermine the spirituality of a production through changing the doctrines or mixing in some philosophies of men into the content.  Just seems to paranoid to me.  I guess thats to be expected with all the us vs. them talk in conference these days.  

No, more likely they would lose their belief or change moral standards (or perhaps just not live up to the ones they had made to themselves).

[Danzo]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Just to be clear, so that everyone knows what I mean by slippery slope arguments.  It is a fallacy in reasoning, and it shouldn't be used as a valid argument.  Small change A does not necessarily lead to large significantly negative B.   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

However, according to your link, it is not always a fallacy

 

"if an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not be identified as the slippery slope fallacy,^[2] and the term "slippery slope" may be used without an implying faulty argument. Non-fallacious usage acknowledges the possibility of a middle ground between the initial condition and the predicted result, while providing an inductive argument for the probability of that result versus a middle-ground one, usually based on observation of previous comparable circumstances. This form of the argument is prevalent, under the actual name slippery slope, in United States First Amendment case law, for example.

By definition, any case involving a valid establishment of a positive feedback mechanism constitutes a non-fallacious use of the slippery slope argument, since the slippery slope argument precisely describes a positive feedback mechanism.^[3] The argument is fallacious when it is assumed that a certain action behaves with positive feedback without any prior evidence or logical reasoning that it does, but if evidence of a positive feedback mechanism is found, the slippery slope argument may be an accurate description. Positive feedback mechanisms are common in sociology, including positive network effects, and the bandwagon effect.

Both fallacious and valid forms of slippery slope are prevalent in political and public policy debate generally;^[4] distinguishing which one is operating in any given argument can be challenging."

[thesometimesaint]

8 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't want to start a political debate, but the election and if Hillary serves 2 terms she can shape the Supreme Court 7-2 leaning liberal with young justices to shape an entire generation of Supreme Court decisions and that could impact votes on religious issues. Imagine a 7-2 liberal leaning Supreme Court making decisions on religious freedom for a whole generation.

Sounds good to me.

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Perhaps we can do sealings without the civil part

Seal couples who are not married?  Well, that is already possible, but both parties have to be deceased.  (that is another way to get around the polygamy restriction)

Edited October 14, 2016 by cdowis

[cdowis]

10 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The odds of Hillary going two terms is very low.  Not just the age issue but she is going to be so weak going into office with all this wikileaks stuff. 

You are very uninformed on recent events on the reason why the borders have been opened up, and the whole voter ID situation (Motor Voter registration).  

But that is political.

Edited October 14, 2016 by cdowis

[stemelbow]

15 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I don't want to start a political debate, but the election and if Hillary serves 2 terms she can shape the Supreme Court 7-2 leaning liberal with young justices to shape an entire generation of Supreme Court decisions and that could impact votes on religious issues. Imagine a 7-2 liberal leaning Supreme Court making decisions on religious freedom for a whole generation.

Eh...help present the case so well that the "liberal" court will be compelled by sound reasoning and logic.  I maintain the fear of losing religious freedom in this country is silly. 

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, bsjkki said:

You are naive.  College life in these mandatory dorms is like forcing your kids to live in a bar/brothel and hoping they survive the year.  Some can do it but it isn't pleasant either.  I don't think dorm life is so bad at Utah schools but in my state, it is particularly bad.  My peer group  is in the thick of this and I have heard too many stories that would be completely inappropriate here.  All dorm building are now coed but wings and floors can be segregated by gender but the rules are not enforced.  In the last few years, they've added an option for open housing so all bedrooms and bathrooms are also coed.  The reasoning for this is it is non discriminatory.  Give it 10 years and segregating students by gender at all could be considered discriminatory.  (bathrooms are a major issue--who saw that coming.) 

Religious institutions need to retain their autonomy.  I am happy BYU has independent rules and their right to set their own rules should be defended.  

Then by your admission, the church is intentionally sending students to environments similar to bars/brothels because there aren't nearly enough openings at church schools or Utah schools for all the students entering higher education.  I guess its time for the tent cities somewhere in the dessert to protect our kids.  More slippery slope and conspiracy paranoia... 

[hope_for_things]

16 hours ago, ksfisher said:

What part of what I said do have no reason to believe is correct?

The part where you said that all employees of the LDS church must be temple recommend holding members. 

[ksfisher]

11 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The part where you said that all employees of the LDS church must be temple recommend holding members. 

You don't believe I know this?  I've been employed by the church twice.  Both times I was asked by human resources to show them my temple recommend.  My wife is currently employed by the church.  In order to continue her employment she needs to maintain a current temple recommend.  I've conducted temple recommend interviews with church employees where they have mentioned the need for a current temple recommend to as a condition of employment.  I know what I'm talking about.

[cdowis]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Then by your admission, the church is intentionally sending students to environments similar to bars/brothels because there aren't nearly enough openings at church schools or Utah schools for all the students entering higher education.  I guess its time for the tent cities somewhere in the dessert to protect our kids.  More slippery slope and conspiracy paranoia... 

And great was the multitude that did enter into that [large and spacious] building.....they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit.

Edited October 14, 2016 by cdowis

[bsjkki]

51 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Then by your admission, the church is intentionally sending students to environments similar to bars/brothels because there aren't nearly enough openings at church schools or Utah schools for all the students entering higher education.  I guess its time for the tent cities somewhere in the dessert to protect our kids.  More slippery slope and conspiracy paranoia... 

I don't know of a lot of Mormon kids who can't get into BYU Idaho. I feel this is one of the reasons BYU Idaho was turned into a 4 year institution and has radically increased its enrollment.  Also, all states don't struggle with freshman dorm requirements.  Many freshmen students can live off campus in apartments. I was unaware/naive about how bad the dorm environment was in my state until I had to deal with it and that is why I am so much more concerned with exposing my other children to that environment.  I don't think this makes me a conspiracy theorist.  Why would I want my children to live in the midst of an R/NC 17 rated movie?

I don't always agree with how BYU enforces its honor code or how they treat students who have stumbled. I've been very critical of how they deal with sexual assault/rape victims but they should retain the right to set their own rules/standards on housing and who attends their campus.  

Edited October 14, 2016 by bsjkki

[cdowis]

A young man in my ward related an experience when he first attended a small public college in south Georgia.  The school required all of the new students to attend an orientation session.  I don't remember his exact words, but basically they told the students that they were no longer living with their parents, and that sexual activity was not only allowed but expected of all students.

[rongo]

32 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I was unaware/naive about how bad the dorm environment was in my state until I had to deal with it and that is why I am so much more concerned with my other children to that environment.  I don't think this makes me a conspiracy theorist.  Why would I want my children to live in the midst of an R/NC 17 rated movie?

I went to ASU for two semesters back in 2006 as a 30+ year old post-baccalaureate student. At the time, ASU and Ohio St. kept trading spots for the largest university in the country (75,000+ students). There was a massive campaign on campus for HPV vaccinations (HPV causes genital warts in men and cervical cancer in women; no cure; transmitted even with condom use), and we were told all over the place that 3 out of every 4 Arizona St. students has HPV. 75% of 75,000+ students!. And do the kids change their casual sex habits, knowing that the only real way not to contract it is to not have sex until married to someone else who doesn't have it? No --- that's why there is such a high incidence. 

Yeah, non-BYU-approved housing is a nightmare. Yes, violations occur in honor code housing, too, but at least a serious effort is made to foster a clean and safe environment. 

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, cdowis said:

A young man in my ward related an experience when he first attended a small public college in south Georgia.  The school required all of the new students to attend an orientation session.  I don't remember his exact words, but basically they told the students that they were no longer living with their parents, and that sexual activity was not only allowed but expected of all students.

I would treat that with extreme skepticism. 

[cdowis]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I would treat that with extreme skepticism. 

I know him very well, and he was not "just telling a tale" but was visibly shaken by the experience.  I gave him my observation on what he could have done, and he appreciated my advice.

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, cdowis said:

A young man in my ward related an experience when he first attended a small public college in south Georgia.  The school required all of the new students to attend an orientation session.  I don't remember his exact words, but basically they told the students that they were no longer living with their parents, and that sexual activity was not only allowed but expected of all students.

A former neighbor's daughter went to Weber college many years ago and had a professor that practically brainwashed her and her boyfriend, turned husband, into thinking the world had too many people on it. This couple were married in the temple, but soon went inactive, lived on a commune for a few years and don't have children for the reasons they learned from this professor. 

Kind of scary what students might be taught in college.

[Sleeper Cell]

19 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Just to be clear, so that everyone knows what I mean by slippery slope arguments.  It is a fallacy in reasoning, and it shouldn't be used as a valid argument.  Small change A does not necessarily lead to large significantly negative B

Just so I am clear, I never said that the alleged “small change” advocated by the “Commission on Civil Rights” would necessarily lead to a larger changes.  Nor, IIRC, did any other poster.

Just because “Small change A” does not necessarily lead to “large significantly negative B” does not mean that it won’t, or even that it isn’t reasonably likely to do so.  Especially when the very document that proposes “Small change A”  also says that further changes in that direction  are “likely.“  as society changes its mind about what religious practices are “acceptable.”  

BTW, who are you or I (or even the “Commission on Civil Rights) to tell somebody else that a particular “change” (i.e., a loss of some of  his religious liberty) is a “small change?”  It may well be a very significant change to him.  

[thesometimesaint]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

A former neighbor's daughter went to Weber college many years ago and had a professor that practically brainwashed her and her boyfriend, turned husband, into thinking the world had too many people on it. This couple were married in the temple, but soon went inactive, lived on a commune for a few years and don't have children for the reasons they learned from this professor. 

Kind of scary what students might be taught in college.

"How Ya Gonna Keep 'em Down on the Farm (After They've Seen Paree?)

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

And great was the multitude that did enter into that [large and spacious] building.....they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit.

Is the church pointing its finger of scorn towards the families who's college kids can't get into a church owned school?  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You don't believe I know this?  I've been employed by the church twice.  Both times I was asked by human resources to show them my temple recommend.  My wife is currently employed by the church.  In order to continue her employment she needs to maintain a current temple recommend.  I've conducted temple recommend interviews with church employees where they have mentioned the need for a current temple recommend to as a condition of employment.  I know what I'm talking about.

I'm not denying that many church positions require these things.  I said I wouldn't be surprised if there were exceptions to your universal application.  Unless you have access to information that proves that all church employees are required to meet those standards, (and I already shared two examples in BYU and BYUtv that were exceptions), then I have no reason to take your personal experiences as proof positive.  

[hope_for_things]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I don't always agree with how BYU enforces its honor code or how they treat students who have stumbled. I've been very critical of how they deal with sexual assault/rape victims

Thanks for this, I have been concerned as well!