Glenn101 Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 Haven't read all of the posts and I really hope that someone has beat me to it, but if I had an hour with the first presidency I think that I would really want to listen to them. Glenn 3
cinepro Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 hour ago, rodheadlee said: Bernie Sanders is 76 Hillary Clinton is 70 these people could have been your president of the entire nation, the president is 72 years old. If you're trying to argue that old age shouldn't be a hindrance for massive responsibility in leadership, I can't find anything in your comment that would point my thoughts in that direction...
SouthernMo Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: For one who intended “no offense,” your subsequent comments on this thread have been markedly offensive. “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” -Brigham Young No insults please.
Atheist Mormon Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Could it be that most people prefer to enjoy retirement when they are in a position to do so? No one currently occupying a General Authority position in the Church of Jesus Christ sought or applied for that position. That’s not how things work. For one who intended “no offense,” your subsequent comments on this thread have been markedly offensive. I don't see any offense in his response at all, perhaps you can pinpoint his offensive words that I lack to see.... There's a very good reason big institutions are not run by older people. But you are right that most people do not want to work most of their life....The Professional life is full of failures of people overstay their tenure, No need to give examples, but of course when Prophets appointed by God, Church's hand is severely limited, as it was in ETB's case.
hope_for_things Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Could it be that most people prefer to enjoy retirement when they are in a position to do so? I'm sure thats a factor, but as mentioned earlier in the thread many boards of directors impose age limits. The market is the largest determining factor though, if people of this age were typically just as competent then I'm sure the market would continue to demand their services. Its not surprising to me that we don't often see many people in their 20s leading large corporations, you also don't see many people in their 70s leading large corporations.
hope_for_things Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 8 hours ago, rodheadlee said: Bernie Sanders is 76 Hillary Clinton is 70 these people could have been your president of the entire nation, the president is 72 years old. It does seem like this last election cycle we had one of the oldest groups of candidates that we've had in my lifetime. I know some people were concerned about this as it was talked about with the election cycle. Hey, if we had a maximum age in order to be eligible for President, this might have been one way we could have avoided Trump being elected. At this point I'm open to any ideas.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm sure thats a factor, but as mentioned earlier in the thread many boards of directors impose age limits. The market is the largest determining factor though, if people of this age were typically just as competent then I'm sure the market would continue to demand their services. Its not surprising to me that we don't often see many people in their 20s leading large corporations, you also don't see many people in their 70s leading large corporations. That "many boards of directors" and other participants in "the market" indulge in ageism (perhaps the last socially acceptable form of discrimination), combined with the refusal of many older Americans to continue to put up with the grind after they are financially stable enough to take retirement, is perhaps reason enough to explain why "you ... don't see many people in their 70s leading large corporations." It's not axiomatic that it's a matter of competence. Edited August 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Jeanne Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 23 hours ago, Duncan said: if that were true then how would they hear about Sam Young, Kate Kelly and OW, LGBTQ, John Dehlin, your critic of the week, gospel topic essays et al.? someone must be telling them otherwise there would not be responses to these issues. How come you put Sam Young in this group...he is just as devoted an LDS as you are.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, SouthernMo said: “He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool.” -Brigham Young No insults please. You left out the last part of the quote: Quote He who takes offense when offense was not intended is a fool, yet he who takes offense when offense is intended is an even greater fool for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary. Emphasis mine. If one is going to use this quote as a verbal weapon, one needs to be aware that it implies an intentional giving of offense, whether or not the intended recipient chooses to take offense. Edited August 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 1
Gray Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I'm sure thats a factor, but as mentioned earlier in the thread many boards of directors impose age limits. The market is the largest determining factor though, if people of this age were typically just as competent then I'm sure the market would continue to demand their services. Its not surprising to me that we don't often see many people in their 20s leading large corporations, you also don't see many people in their 70s leading large corporations. It's actually not that uncommon to have a CEO in his or her 70s leading a company, especially if they've been very successful and well-loved. Granted maybe not so common in some of the mega corps. It's also pretty common to have people in their 70s or 80s even on boards of director. Granted it's very rare to have people in their 90s in either position, usually due to health or mortality issues. Or just people wanting to spend their last years with their family. Aging has been a factor for church leadership, to be sure. We've had two presidents in my lifetime who were severely compromised due to age-related illness. But I think it's important to be careful not to discount someone's ability simply because of their age. Edited August 28, 2018 by Gray 1
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jeanne said: How come you put Sam Young in this group...he is just as devoted an LDS as you are. I took it that Duncan was listing critics. Is Sam Young not a critic?
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 13 minutes ago, Gray said: It's actually not that uncommon to have a CEO in his or her 70s leading a company, especially if they've been very successful and well-loved. Granted maybe not so common in some of the mega corps. It's also pretty common to have people in their 70s or 80s even on boards of director. Granted it's very rare to have people in their 90s in either position, usually due to health or mortality issues. Or just people wanting to spend their last years with their family. Aging has been a factor for church leadership, to be sure. We've had two presidents in my lifetime who were severely compromised due to age-related illness. But I think it's important to be careful not to discount someone's ability simply because of their age. Hear hear! And even in the instances you mention, in which the Church presidents suffered from age-related illness, the Church continued to function just fine by virtue of the leadership structure. In theory, the Church president could be totally incapacitated and that would not be severely debilitating to the Church. Edited August 28, 2018 by Scott Lloyd 2
Jeanne Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I took it that Duncan was listing critics. Is Sam Young not a critic? No...he just wants a change. Other than the point he was trying to put across., He never said anything against the apostles and the church. I was/is an attending member and on the first day of his fast, he attended Sacrament meeting to renew his covenants. He just doesn't sit on his duff...he actually does something!
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Jeanne said: No...he just wants a change. A distinction without a difference. He is being critical because he wants a a change. Quote Other than the point he was trying to put across., He never said anything against the apostles and the church. I was/is an attending member and on the first day of his fast, he attended Sacrament meeting to renew his covenants. He just doesn't sit on his duff...he actually does something! Is he not critical of the current policies and procedures of the Church? It certainly seems to me he is. One can be ostensibly active in the Church and still be a critic. 1
Jeanne Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: A distinction without a difference. He is being critical because he wants a a change. Is he not critical of the current policies and procedures of the Church? It certainly seems to me he is. One can be ostensibly active in the Church and still be a critic. And you, too, then are a critic when you critic other membets...
Duncan Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: How come you put Sam Young in this group...he is just as devoted an LDS as you are. that's right, all devoted members make a yearly pilgrimage to SLC, starve themselves and seek attention anyway that they can get it. I don't do that or know anybody who does that. I am supposed to be transformed into Christ's image, not other way around Edited August 28, 2018 by Duncan 2
SouthernMo Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: one needs to be aware that it implies an intentional giving of offense, whether or not the intended recipient chooses to take offense. Explain this more. I don't understand or see what you mean is implied.
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 14 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: Explain this more. I don't understand or see what you mean is implied. I will elaborate if you explain why you left off the last portion of the quote.
SouthernMo Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I will elaborate if you explain why you left off the last portion of the quote. I didn’t even know there was a last part of the quote until you showed me! I got the quote from this source: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/103014-he-who-takes-offense-when-no-offense-is-intended-is
Duncan Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 https://www.ldschurchnews.com/leaders-and-ministry/2018-08-28/president-oaks-talks-church-history-lgbt-issues-mental-illness-at-los-angeles-devotional-47877 I think this article is interesting and what we are talking about here “Brothers and sisters, we know much more than you suppose,” he said. “You know we are constantly traveling to be with our members all over the world. What you may not know is that every week we receive reports from the most knowledgeable professionals in every field of concern in a worldwide Church — economics, politics, social sciences, legal requirements, diplomacy, the latest thinking on social issues, etc.” The Brethren are informed “about the world in which we live,” but “we are even more intensely informed about our own members — the challenges they face in medical care, mental health, public schools, higher education, employment, the market place, retirement, and in their personal relations such as marriage, childbearing, adoption, child-rearing, challenges to faith such as questions about Church history, same-gender attraction, transgender issues, etc.,” he said. “We struggle to be informed. We struggle to be close to our members who number about 16 million in about 150 nations.” 1
Avatar4321 Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 On 8/27/2018 at 2:25 PM, hope_for_things said: Can you imagine working at a business where the people you are presenting to and are in charge of making decisions are in their 70s, 80s and even and 90s? Yikes! And in better shape than you are? That’s what would throw me
Bernard Gui Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) On 8/27/2018 at 12:32 PM, hope_for_things said: Sorry, no offense intended. People of this age have much they can contribute to society, but there is a reason that they typically aren't running large institutions at this age on average. Oh. I hadn't realized that. Edited August 28, 2018 by Bernard Gui
SouthernMo Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: I will elaborate if you explain why you left off the last portion of the quote. Few things: Still waiting for your explanation. Would love the source for your version of his quote. Did Marion D. Hanks get it wrong?: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1974/01/forgiveness-the-ultimate-form-of-love?lang=eng Edited August 28, 2018 by SouthernMo
Scott Lloyd Posted August 28, 2018 Posted August 28, 2018 55 minutes ago, SouthernMo said: I didn’t even know there was a last part of the quote until you showed me! I got the quote from this source: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/103014-he-who-takes-offense-when-no-offense-is-intended-is OK. This is the portion that was left out: Quote ... for he has succumbed to the will of his adversary. This presupposes that there is an adversary, one whose intent was to give offense. The fact that the target chose not to take offense does not change the fact that offense was intended, nor does it remove the onus from the one intending to give the offense. Those who undertake to use this Brigham Young quote to shame others for taking offense ought to bear the above in mind.
SouthernMo Posted August 28, 2018 Author Posted August 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: This presupposes that there is an adversary, one whose intent was to give offense. The fact that the target chose not to take offense does not change the fact that offense was intended, nor does it remove the onus from the one intending to give the offense. I think I see what you’re saying. Those who intend offense should be nicer. But I don’t see anything in the expanded quote or in your interpretation that gives the offended one justification to be offended and not foolish. Can you provide the source for your expanded quote?
Recommended Posts