Jeanne Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 25 minutes ago, Tacenda said: Well when you put it that way Jeanne, you make an awesome point. Thanks! I so love my spelling...someone send me a AARP 101 class on how to spell for Seniors...😋 Edited July 31, 2018 by Jeanne
Jeanne Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 Wouldn't let me edit...but to the post above, I had been outside and I could not see the letters on the computer while my eyes were adjusting from the sun...I thought I did pretty good.
MiserereNobis Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) On 7/29/2018 at 10:00 PM, Judd said: When there’s a threat of... absolutely nothing, it leaves little reason to respond or acknowledge. I haven't read further, so perhaps this addressed later in the thread, but there have been instances of hunger strikes causing change, but the circumstances have to be just right. Gandhi's hunger strikes in India ended some terrible violent strife. They worked because he was so respected by both sides of the violence and enough people did not want to feel like they contributed to his death. They also worked because he was viewed as an incredible moral person so he was coming from a place of moral strength (yes, I know whether or not he was actually moral is a source of controversy for some, but it was the perception that worked and let's not derail and talk about his personal life). It's another example of non-violent protest, where the protester agrees to accept violence (in this case the suffering of hunger) to end something worse. Like any non-violent protest, it has to have the proper context, including the reputation of the person involved and the overall situation. ETA: I'm not commenting on this particular situation and I rather doubt the situation is right for this hunger strike to work. I was just commenting on hunger strikes in general. Edited July 31, 2018 by MiserereNobis 3
Tacenda Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 10 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Wouldn't let me edit...but to the post above, I had been outside and I could not see the letters on the computer while my eyes were adjusting from the sun...I thought I did pretty good. I knew it, and kind of shouldn't have replied until you saw clearly, haha! Are you out on a walk?
Jeanne Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 43 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I knew it, and kind of shouldn't have replied until you saw clearly, haha! Are you out on a walk? 43 minutes ago, Tacenda said: I knew it, and kind of shouldn't have replied until you saw clearly, haha! Are you out on a walk? Going on my second big one today...been busy..I get up early early...clean house..and then set out before it gets hot...ime for my second one. I had been outside reading when I wrote to you...can;t see a darn thing.
Popular Post USU78 Posted July 31, 2018 Popular Post Posted July 31, 2018 5 hours ago, Jeanne said: Such courage. Nay, arrogance. Here's the issue, Jeanne: If I am a shareholder in a public company and you are the CFO, you owe me a duty defined by statute to act in a certain way when engaged in your duties for the company. If I think you've breached that duty in some fashion, I have statutorily defined remedies at my disposal to hold you to account. The same holds true for elected/appointed officials in government at all levels. You as voter are owed certain duties and are entitled to certain remedies. The remedies for misconduct, as well as the opportunities for expression of approval or disapproval, are laid out for each shareholder and each voter. In the Church our duties when called to leadership positions are prescribed in scripture and in the directives from 50 E So Temple. If you have problems with a practice, you have the right and perhaps duty to communicate those problems to your local, then regional, then general leadership. Our opportunity so speak up, especially presently, also exists in the councils that have been established. At least once a month we are seeing these councils. And it is at the time when these councils exist, and when we have the other avenues for expressing our concerns, where our arrogant former bishop takes it on himself to go outside the established procedures and councils, and makes a public play to attempt to shame the Church into taking an action. Who elected him? I wasn't asked to vote for him as judge of the Church's established procedures. Were you? This is not a public corporation. It is not a secular government. The rules that may well obtain for such entities simply don't apply. And, no, it is not remotely brave to take a public position before a very friendly press audience at odds with an ecclesiastical entity that your friendly press especially despises. 5
Jeanne Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 1 hour ago, USU78 said: Nay, arrogance. Here's the issue, Jeanne: If I am a shareholder in a public company and you are the CFO, you owe me a duty defined by statute to act in a certain way when engaged in your duties for the company. If I think you've breached that duty in some fashion, I have statutorily defined remedies at my disposal to hold you to account. The same holds true for elected/appointed officials in government at all levels. You as voter are owed certain duties and are entitled to certain remedies. The remedies for misconduct, as well as the opportunities for expression of approval or disapproval, are laid out for each shareholder and each voter. In the Church our duties when called to leadership positions are prescribed in scripture and in the directives from 50 E So Temple. If you have problems with a practice, you have the right and perhaps duty to communicate those problems to your local, then regional, then general leadership. Our opportunity so speak up, especially presently, also exists in the councils that have been established. At least once a month we are seeing these councils. And it is at the time when these councils exist, and when we have the other avenues for expressing our concerns, where our arrogant former bishop takes it on himself to go outside the established procedures and councils, and makes a public play to attempt to shame the Church into taking an action. Who elected him? I wasn't asked to vote for him as judge of the Church's established procedures. Were you? This is not a public corporation. It is not a secular government. The rules that may well obtain for such entities simply don't apply. And, no, it is not remotely brave to take a public position before a very friendly press audience at odds with an ecclesiastical entity that your friendly press especially despises. Look at what you have written...so on point and yet his has nothing to do with living people and the care of them. This is just document that you have tried to scripture. 1
ALarson Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, USU78 said: If you have problems with a practice, you have the right and perhaps duty to communicate those problems to your local, then regional, then general leadership. Which Sam Young has done and he continues to make attempts at communicating regarding an issue that is important to many members. Just because you disagree with his manner of communication doesn't mean that he doesn't have every right to keep trying. It takes courage to put your face on an issue and speak out publicly. IMO. I really don't get doing this hunger strike, but it is drawing attention to what Young is addressing You disagree and see it as arrogance and that's your right to form your own opinion. But others see it as courage. Edited July 31, 2018 by ALarson 2
USU78 Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Which Sam Young has done and continues to make attempts to do so. Just because you disagree with his manner of communication doesn't mean that he doesn't have every right to keep trying. The issue isn't whether one has a right to say/do whatever fool thing one wishes. That is inarguable. The issue is, rather, whether the sayer/doer has, by saying/doing as he has said/done in the way he said/did has said/done what he said/did in a manner and under circumstances where he has honorably and in consonance with his covenantal obligations. Put another way: is SY more like the Laws or is he more like the thousands who expressed over so many years and decades their frustration with, for example, the priesthood ban without seeking public shaming of the Church? 1
USU78 Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 19 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Look at what you have written...so on point and yet his has nothing to do with living people and the care of them. This is just document that you have tried to scripture. You just personalized this. Stop it. You have accused me of heartlessness. You don't know squat about me. Stop it. Were I to accuse you of being a kneejerk antiMormon, for which I could list quite a bit of evidence from your posting history and not only in this here thread, you would go run to teacher. I won't. Just stop it. 1
ALarson Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 8 minutes ago, USU78 said: The issue isn't whether one has a right to say/do whatever fool thing one wishes. That is inarguable. The issue is, rather, whether the sayer/doer has, by saying/doing as he has said/done in the way he said/did has said/done what he said/did in a manner and under circumstances where he has honorably and in consonance with his covenantal obligations. Put another way: is SY more like the Laws or is he more like the thousands who expressed over so many years and decades their frustration with, for example, the priesthood ban without seeking public shaming of the Church? There are varying opinions regarding all that you state above. That's just simply how it is. There are not many ways a member can communicate with the general leaders in SLC (we've been instructed not to contact them). This is one way Sam Young can communicate with them. You see it as arrogance and others see it as courage. You can argue all day about it, but it comes down to the fact that Sam Young has a right to do what he's doing. Now he may have to face consequences for his actions (ie. church discipline) and the leaders may also have some negative blow back over this issue (even more than has already taken place). But Young has chosen this manner of communication and he is within his rights. Just because this is possibly an issue you are not concerned about does not change the fact that many members are and that's why some are attempting to communicate their feelings to their leaders. (Once again, I'm not real keen on this hunger strike angle.....). Edited July 31, 2018 by ALarson
USU78 Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 1 minute ago, ALarson said: There are varying opinions regarding all that you state above. That's just simply how it is. There are not many ways a member can communicate with the general leaders in SLC (we've been instructed not to contact them). This is one way Sam Young can communicate with them. You see it as arrogance and others see it as courage. You can argue all day about it, but it comes down to the fact that Sam Young has a right to do what he's doing. Now he may have to face consequences for his actions (ie. church discipline) and the leaders may also have some negative blow back over this issue (even more than has already taken place). But Young has chosen this manner of communication and he is within his rights. And I have the right to call him on being dishonorable and a pawn of Godbeite antiMormons who will drop him once his usefulness as once-bishop plays out. He gets to pay the consequences for being used and being induced to act dishonorably. For that I pity him. And his family. And I shudder to consider the long-term consequences of acts taken in furtherance of evanescent issues. 1
ALarson Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 (edited) 3 minutes ago, USU78 said: And I have the right to call him on being dishonorable and a pawn of Godbeite antiMormons who will drop him once his usefulness as once-bishop plays out. He gets to pay the consequences for being used and being induced to act dishonorably. Pretty much what I stated, but much more colorful (I do disagree that he's being "used" or acting "dishonorably"....otherwise, we're good!!) Edited July 31, 2018 by ALarson
USU78 Posted July 31, 2018 Posted July 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: Pretty much what I stated, but much more colorful (I do disagree that he's being "used" or acting "dishonorably"....otherwise, we're good!!) 😎
Calm Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 6 hours ago, Jeanne said: Wouldn't let me edit...but to the post above, I had been outside and I could not see the letters on the computer while my eyes were adjusting from the sun...I thought I did pretty good. If you refresh the page, sometimes it will let you edit where it wouldn't before. 1
Calm Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) Quote (Once again, I'm not real keen on this hunger strike angle.....). Is it ahunger strike if one is taking nutritional supplements to counteract any damage not eating solid foods might have? Is it a strike or a protest if there is a time limit? (I did a Google on "I fasted for two weeks", quite a number of hits on that, bragging on how much weight was lost or moaning how little) I think a "protest partial fast" is a more appropriate label than "hunger strike". Edited August 1, 2018 by Calm
ALarson Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 13 hours ago, Calm said: Is it ahunger strike if one is taking nutritional supplements to counteract any damage not eating solid foods might have? Is it a strike or a protest if there is a time limit? (I did a Google on "I fasted for two weeks", quite a number of hits on that, bragging on how much weight was lost or moaning how little) I think a "protest partial fast" is a more appropriate label than "hunger strike". You are probably right I don't know the details of what he's actually doing, but if he's doing what you state, I agree that it's more of a partial fast than a hunger strike.
provoman Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 26 minutes ago, ALarson said: You are probably right I don't know the details of what he's actually doing, but if he's doing what you state, I agree that it's more of a partial fast than a hunger strike. He is drinking water and taking vitamins, on his live stream yesterday he slipped up a few times calling it a diet then quickly corrected himself 1
ALarson Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 1 minute ago, provoman said: He is drinking water and taking vitamins, on his live stream yesterday he slipped up a few times calling it a diet then quickly corrected himself That type of fast is used as a diet to loose weight by many (my sister and her friends were all on one that sounds like this). So, it probably is a diet program he's following for the fast. I actually think that's wise compared to an actual "hunger strike". So I have no issue with that at all.
The Nehor Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 2 hours ago, provoman said: He is drinking water and taking vitamins, on his live stream yesterday he slipped up a few times calling it a diet then quickly corrected himself So he is like those crazies who say they can live off the power of the sun? A liar.
ALarson Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: A liar. No, not according to this: https://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/rules-hunger-striking-radicals/ Quote Hunger strikes and fasting have very distinct characteristics — although both are based on voluntarily not eating or drinking. Fasting is often thought of as a personal religious or spiritual practice. Add a political or activist context and fasts become hunger strikes — embodied petitions, protests and interventions to policies and actions of the authorities. Quote Gandhi’s daily intake included water, salt and some lemon juice. Today’s hunger-strikers have used a wide variety of sustenance, from water only, to water and coconut water, vitamins, salt and even “low calorie” fasts. Edited August 1, 2018 by ALarson
The Nehor Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 17 minutes ago, ALarson said: No, not according to this: https://wagingnonviolence.org/feature/rules-hunger-striking-radicals/ That is a pathetic kind of hunger strike. Amateurs.
ALarson Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, The Nehor said: That is a pathetic kind of hunger strike. Amateurs. Are you calling Gandhi an Amateur???? Edited August 1, 2018 by ALarson
Calm Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 7 hours ago, ALarson said: That type of fast is used as a diet to loose weight by many (my sister and her friends were all on one that sounds like this). So, it probably is a diet program he's following for the fast. I actually think that's wise compared to an actual "hunger strike". So I have no issue with that at all. I have no issue with him doing it that way, just calling it something else can be misleading. From what I have read, there are many who are not understanding he is doing a partial fast as opposed to starving himself. They are afraid he is going to die. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 1, 2018 Posted August 1, 2018 On 7/31/2018 at 11:18 AM, clarkgoble said: There's a story at M* suggesting he's only doing it as long as his wife lets him. No idea if that is true. I call that a "diet"
Recommended Posts