Callings given to imperfect human beings

[Meerkat]

On 8/30/2019 at 2:11 PM, Meadowchik said:

Good question

What is good about believing in God, specifically, what is inherently good about it? 

Would you say this is inherently good:

”10 And now I ask of you on what conditions are they saved? Yea, what grounds had they to hope for salvation? What is the cause of their being loosed from the bands of death, yea, and also the chains of hell?
11 Behold, I can tell you—did not my father Alma believe in the words which were delivered by the mouth of Abinadi? And was he not a holy prophet? Did he not speak the words of God, and my father Alma believe them?
12 And according to his faith there was a mighty change wrought in his heart. Behold I say unto you that this is all true.
13 And behold, he preached the word unto your fathers, and a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God. And behold, they were faithful until the end; therefore they were saved.”  Alma 5:10-13

It sounds good to me, and confirms the experiences I have been having the past forty plus years.  But that could be just me. 😃

[Meadowchik]

3 hours ago, Meerkat said:

Would you say this is inherently good:

”10 And now I ask of you on what conditions are they saved? Yea, what grounds had they to hope for salvation? What is the cause of their being loosed from the bands of death, yea, and also the chains of hell?
11 Behold, I can tell you—did not my father Alma believe in the words which were delivered by the mouth of Abinadi? And was he not a holy prophet? Did he not speak the words of God, and my father Alma believe them?
12 And according to his faith there was a mighty change wrought in his heart. Behold I say unto you that this is all true.
13 And behold, he preached the word unto your fathers, and a mighty change was also wrought in their hearts, and they humbled themselves and put their trust in the true and living God. And behold, they were faithful until the end; therefore they were saved.”  Alma 5:10-13

It sounds good to me, and confirms the experiences I have been having the past forty plus years.  But that could be just me. 😃

Their hearts were changed, they humbled themselves, they trusted God to the end where they were presumably "saved." So basically, they believed in God and they felt good. I agree that that is a significant good.

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Their hearts were changed, they humbled themselves, they trusted God to the end where they were presumably "saved." So basically, they believed in God and they felt good. I agree that that is a significant good.

Thank you for your thoughts here Meadowchik.  You ask some very good and thought provoking questions, from my point of view  Yes, they felt good because they experienced a mighty change of heart.  What was that change?  I believe it was the change from sin and sorrow, carrying around the big bag of regrets that many of us carry, to the joy of having that burden physically removed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  It was a real experience with several lifelong payoffs for those who endured (and endure.)

1.  Because they made an effort to live virtuous lives, they became sources of light, improving the lives of other people.

2.  Because they turned away from sin, they left the people they met in better shape than they would have had they not had the mighty change of heart.

3.  They left people they would have offended with fewer regrets and greater happiness.  Think of their parents, siblings, children and friends all associating with a better person than the one they knew before that person experienced the mighty change.  (Very similar to point #2.)

4.  The mighty change saved them for their mortal lives.  The hope of eternal life gave them more peace and purpose than they could have had without experiencing the mighty change of heart.  They do significantly more good in their lives for the world around them than they otherwise would have.

I would say that believing in God is more than an experience that makes one feel good.  It is more than “a significant good.”  I believe it is The most significant good that one obtains in this life.

Speaking of our great Mother Eve in Moses 5:11: “And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.”

Thats what mortality is all about in my opinion: making mistakes, recognizing our desperate need for the Savior, and experiencing the mighty change of heart.  That is the most significant good in life, in my opinion.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Meerkat

[Meadowchik]

38 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Thank you for your thoughts here Meadowchik.  You ask some very good and thought provoking questions, from my point of view  Yes, they felt good because they experienced a mighty change of heart.  What was that change?  I believe it was the change from sin and sorrow, carrying around the big bag of regrets that many of us carry, to the joy of having that burden physically removed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  It was a real experience with several lifelong payoffs for those who endured (and endure.)

1.  Because they made an effort to live virtuous lives, they became sources of light, improving the lives of other people.

2.  Because they turned away from sin, they left the people they met in better shape than they would have had they not had the mighty change of heart.

3.  They left people they would have offended with fewer regrets and greater happiness.  Think of their parents, siblings, children and friends all associating with a better person than the one they knew before that person experienced the mighty change.  (Very similar to point #2.)

4.  The mighty change saved them for their mortal lives.  The hope of eternal life gave them more peace and purpose than they could have had without experiencing the mighty change of heart.  They do significantly more good in their lives for the world around them than they otherwise would have.

I would say that believing in God is more than an experience that makes one feel good.  It is more than “a significant good.”  I believe it is The most significant good that one obtains in this life.

Speaking of our great Mother Eve in Moses 5:11: “And Eve, his wife, heard all these things and was glad, saying: Were it not for our transgression we never should have had seed, and never should have known good and evil, and the joy of our redemption, and the eternal life which God giveth unto all the obedient.”

Thats what mortality is all about in my opinion: making mistakes, recognizing our desperate need for the Savior, and experiencing the mighty change of heart.  That is the most significant good in life, in my opinion.

That lifelong learning and increase in knowledge that repentence enables, and also the kindness that develops and expands with this learning, this is in my opinion, approaching the divine! 

It's a wonderful process and it is good!  

On that note, this is why I believe the church as an institution would also benefit from an opnely-acknowledged repentence process. I believe as I member, I will help enable this process by expecting the leaders and the representatives of the institution to engage in it. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

[Meerkat]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

On that note, this is why I believe the church as an institution would also benefit from an opnely-acknowledged repentence process. I believe as I member, I will help enable this process by expecting the leaders and the representatives of the institution to engage in it. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

Are you referring to issues such as the revelation on priesthood, or the sins of individual members who served in leadership positions?  Regarding the first part, I believe the Church is moving in that direction with mea culpa for past policy or mistakes.  I believe individual transgression should be handled privately.  Church discipline can include excommunication that local members are often aware of.   Things that are illegal should be referred to the authorities and tried and their shame shouted from the rooftops.  The problem with calling out Church leaders and others publicly is that some or even many accusations are wrong.  There was a time in the 80’s when therapy elicited vivid but false memories of severe childhood events that destroyed families.  Look up “False Memory Syndrome.”  

“False memory syndrome, also called recovered memory, pseudomemory, and memory distortion, the experience, usually in the context of adult psychotherapy, of seeming to remember events that never actually occurred. These pseudomemories are often quite vivid and emotionally charged, especially those representing acts of abuse or violence committed against the subject during childhood.

We had a wonderful family in our ward devastated by accusations by adult daughters on opposite sides of the world.  They remembered their father participating in evil rituals in a stake center cultural hall involving human sacrifice.  The memories were false, of course.  But the idea “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” prevailed.  “Two or more witnesses.”  The family was torn apart by divorce and alienation.  I saw the father 30 years later in the Temple.  He said his life had been destroyed.  We also had a truly wonderful stake president with two children who suffered from false memory syndrome during that time.  Very devastating while accusations are flying.  Should there be discipline where serious sin exists?  Of course.  Most should be private, in my opinion.  I sustain the First Presidency in the way they handle controversy.  Where they err, (as human beings can do sometimes,) God will bring it to light at the appropriate time and place, in my opinion.  Otherwise, the focus is to preach Christ and Him crucified and the things that are appendages to that.

Edited September 2, 2019 by Meerkat

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

That lifelong learning and increase in knowledge that repentence enables, and also the kindness that develops and expands with this learning, this is in my opinion, approaching the divine! 

It's a wonderful process and it is good!  

On that note, this is why I believe the church as an institution would also benefit from an opnely-acknowledged repentence process. I believe as I member, I will help enable this process by expecting the leaders and the representatives of the institution to engage in it. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

 

12 minutes ago, Meerkat said:

Are you referring to issues such as the revelation on priesthood, or the sins of individual members who served in leadership positions?  Regarding the first part, I believe the Church is moving in that direction with mea culpa for past policy or mistakes.  I believe individual transgression should be handled privately.  Church discipline can include excommunication that local members are often aware of.   Things that are illegal should be referred to the authorities and tried and their shame shouted from the rooftops.  The problem with calling out Church leaders and others publicly is that some or even many accusations are wrong.  There was a time in the 80’s when therapy elicited vivid but false memories of severe childhood events that destroyed families.  Look up “False Memory Syndrome.”  

“False memory syndrome, also called recovered memory, pseudomemory, and memory distortion, the experience, usually in the context of adult psychotherapy, of seeming to remember events that never actually occurred. These pseudomemories are often quite vivid and emotionally charged, especially those representing acts of abuse or violence committed against the subject during childhood.

We had a wonderful family in our ward devastated by accusations by adult daughters on opposite sides of the world.  They remembered their father participating in evil rituals in a stake center cultural hall involving human sacrifice.  The memories were false, of course.  But the idea “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” prevailed.  The family was torn apart by divorce and alienation.  I saw the father 30 years later in the Temple.  He said his life had been destroyed.  We also had a truly wonderful stake president with two children who suffered from false memory syndrome during that time.  Very devastating while accusations are flying.  Should there be discipline where serious sin exists?  Of course.  Most should be private, in my opinion.  I sustain the First Presidency in the way they handle controversy.  Where they err, (as human beings can do sometimes,) God will bring it to light at the appropriate time and place, in my opinion.  

I definitely think it would do great harm if the Church were to insist everyone publicly air all their sins in their repentance process. Further, being wrong is not necessarily a sin. A sin is breaking a commandment. If we are trying to follow Yeshua's instructions, but honestly misinterpret a scripture, maybe it is not so horrible a sin. If we get some new revelation wrong, where is the sin? If, however, it is against prior revelation, I think a case can be made of sin occurring. If that sin is to a body of people, I think part of the repentance process is to make amends for it, which seems to make a public apology appropriate. The issue would then be did such a transgression occur? I'm not at all sure the body of the Church feels, for example, that the priesthood ban violated scriptural instruction, although I think a case can be made for it. The brethren have already broken the presumption of infallibility by alleging predecessors were wrong (e.g. Adam-God "theory"). But, there doesn't seem to be any acknowledgment for a process of correction in current presidencies. In any event I believe members should try to follow leaders as best they can, and should not seek to try to "force their hand." If they have a beef with the Presidency, they should first approach the Presidency privately so that the Presidency has a chance to explain or reconsider a position. I think this should hold true for all Presidencies in the Church.

[Meadowchik]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

Are you referring to issues such as the revelation on priesthood, or the sins of individual members who served in leadership positions?  Regarding the first part, I believe the Church is moving in that direction with mea culpa for past policy or mistakes.  I believe individual transgression should be handled privately.  

I'm talking about harm that is caused by leaders from their positions as leaders and harm by the institution. Sometimes the personal transgression seeps into the leadership and institution, like in my opinion, polygamy did.

I would like to see institutional apologies for coercive polygamy, and discrimination against blacks: real, candid apologies. That would be a good start. I really bristle at Oaks saying that the church does not issue apologies.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm talking about harm that is caused by leaders from their positions as leaders and harm by the institution. Sometimes the personal transgression seeps into the leadership and institution, like in my opinion, polygamy did.

I would like to see institutional apologies for coercive polygamy, and discrimination against blacks: real, candid apologies. That would be a good start. I really bristle at Oaks saying that the church does not issue apologies.

Standing on a soapbox and demanding apologies for others before one will believe or comply is not the best choice. Did any authority coerce you to enter polygamy? Or deny your spouse the priesthood? If so, then an apology to you would be warranted. Otherwise, I think you are somewhat subject to the lens of presentism. Our mission is not to be social justice warriors. It is to help Christ save souls. Those who did these things you allege are no longer alive to make an apology - it is not some sin Pres Nelson should be coerced into apologizing for - even if he believes it was wrong. Institutional bodies don't sin. People do.

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Standing on a soapbox and demanding apologies for others before one will believe or comply is not the best choice. Did any authority coerce you to enter polygamy? Or deny your spouse the priesthood? If so, then an apology to you would be warranted. Otherwise, I think you are somewhat subject to the lens of presentism. Our mission is not to be social justice warriors. It is to help Christ save souls. Those who did these things you allege are no longer alive to make an apology - it is not some sin Pres Nelson should be coerced into apologizing for - even if he believes it was wrong. Institutional bodies don't sin. People do.

Institutional bodies still harm. What is it, then, when a leader who can acknowledge and make corrections does not do so? What is it called when a person does not choose the right?

It think it is far to easy to squash a point by labelling a person a  "social justice warrior." It's a facile reduction of what is happening. Maybe, awkward and uncomfortable that movements toward social justice can be, they are part of that epidemic of kindness that you have asked me about. People are wanting to do good. They are wanting to do what's right. They are wanting to see what they cannot see and so they are listening to people they weren't hearing before. My telling you that the church and leaders as leaders have harmed people is a kindness. Me telling the world that I expect the church and leaders to repent is a kindness, because that is what I expect of people and institutions of integrity. 

 

[smac97]

On 9/2/2019 at 5:59 AM, Meadowchik said:

On that note, this is why I believe the church as an institution would also benefit from an opnely-acknowledged repentence process. I believe as I member,

I assume there's a typo here.  That "I believe as I member" should be "I believe as a member..."  Is that correct?

I do not understand how you can, in good faith, presently affirm your membership in the Church here while elsewhere designate yourself as an "apostate." 

{SNIP QUOTES OF MEADOWCHIK DESCRIBING HERSELF AS AN APOSTATE}

What am I missing?

(FWIW, I generally don't really pay much attention to an individual's status vis-à-vis membership in the Church.  Here, however, since you are specifically invoking your membership status, my curiosity was piqued.)

Quote

I will help enable this process by expecting the leaders and the representatives of the institution to engage in it. I hope to see it in my lifetime.

Are you advancing the idea of "collective guilt" here?

How do you reconcile your position with the AoF 1:2 ("We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression")?

Also, are you calling for some sort of public "repentance" here?  I don't know how else to interpret your call for an "openly-acknowledged repentance process."

What is it that you have in mind that "the leaders and the representatives" of the Church should do?  "Repent" of what?  Apologize and seek forgiveness from whom?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 3, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Institutional bodies still harm.

Sure.  But how does an "institution" repent?  Who confesses to whom?  Confesses to what?  

Quote

What is it, then, when a leader who can acknowledge and make corrections does not do so? What is it called when a person does not choose the right?

I have never thought of repentance as a collective thing.  Nor guilt, either.

Quote

It think it is far to easy to squash a point by labelling a person a  "social justice warrior." It's a facile reduction of what is happening.

Okay.  But perhaps you can appreciate the reasonable skepticism arising from seeing random anonymous people who go online and call other people to repentance.  This is particularly so where the call to repentance is not presented in good faith, and/or is presumptuous.

Quote

Maybe, awkward and uncomfortable that movements toward social justice can be,

I reject the premise.  I rather strongly dislike the phrase "social justice" and its connotations.  It is, to borrow a phrase, a "facile reduction."  It's a blatantly political and partisan ploy.  To the extent this phrase previously had moral or sociological legitimacy, those days are long gone.  The phrase has been co-opted.  Hijacked.

Quote

they are part of that epidemic of kindness that you have asked me about. People are wanting to do good. They are wanting to do what's right. They are wanting to see what they cannot see and so they are listening to people they weren't hearing before. My telling you that the church and leaders as leaders have harmed people is a kindness.

Meh.  I don't really keep track of individual posters.  Too many online handles, too much anonymity.  And there's generally no real reason to do it.  However, I've read your postings on MormonDiscussions, and on this board.  "Kindness" is not the descriptor that comes to mind.

SNIP MEADOWCHIK'S VARIOUS INSULTS AND SLANDERS AGAINST THE CHURCH.

And on and on and on. 

Are you really expecting us to construe as a "kindness" a call to repentance coming from the same person who endlessly and publicly profanes our beliefs, slanders and insults us, etc.?

Put another way...

Quote

Me telling the world that I expect the church and leaders to repent is a kindness, because that is what I expect of people and institutions of integrity. 

Repent of what?  Repent how?  To whom?

And lastly, to be candid, who are you to call anyone else to repentance?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 3, 2019 by smac97

[JLHPROF]

19 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Sometimes the personal transgression seeps into the leadership and institution, like in my opinion, polygamy did.

I would like to see institutional apologies for coercive polygamy

If the Church ever apologized for practicing polygamy or making it a requirement I think I'd lose all respect for the institution.  Calling following a command of God a sin or a mistake is morally weak.

And I completely disagree with the current tendency to expect people today to beg forgiveness or provide reparations for actions of those long dead.  

[Meadowchik]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Sure.  But how does an "institution" repent?  Who confesses to whom?  Confesses to what?  

I have never thought of repentance as a collective thing.  Nor guilt, either.

Okay.  But perhaps you can appreciate the reasonable skepticism arising from seeing random anonymous people who go online and call other people to repentance.  This is particularly so where the call to repentance is not presented in good faith, and/or is presumptuous.

I reject the premise.  I rather strongly dislike the phrase "social justice" and its connotations.  It is, to borrow a phrase, a "facile reduction."  It's a blatantly political and partisan ploy.  To the extent this phrase previously had moral or sociological legitimacy, those days are long gone.  The phrase has been co-opted.  Hijacked.

Meh.  I don't really keep track of individual posters.  Too many online handles, too much anonymity.  And there's generally no real reason to do it.  However, I've read your postings on MormonDiscussions, and on this board.  "Kindness" is not the descriptor that comes to mind.

((ETA to remove quotes from other board.))

Repent of what?  Repent how?  To whom?

And lastly, to be candid, who are you to call anyone else to repentance?

Thanks,

-Smac

First, regarding any of the quotes from me, it wasn't hard for you to figure out who I was there, was it? Why? Because I post under the same name. I do believe in kindness, and if I haven't lived up to it, I am willing to own up.

I will either back up what I have said, or try to correct myself and apologize when appropriate. If you'd like to start a thread on something I have said there, go ahead.

Second, do you want to also quote your responses to me at that board when I said those specific things? Did you engage? Did you try to understand? I don't recall it, please feel free to refresh my memory. I have engaged here, and I do respond to others and I try to live up to a standard of kindness as a poster on this board as well. So, um, yes, I can feel the love. I totally get it if you don't. YMMV. 

Regarding social justice, I didn't bring up the phrase itself, I belief Rev Testament did. There's no need to throw away the legitimate pieces of the concept just because it is difficult.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Are you advancing the idea of "collective guilt" here?

How do you reconcile your position with the AoF 1:2 ("We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression")?

Also, are you calling for some sort of public "repentance" here?  I don't know how else to interpret your call for an "openly-acknowledged repentance process."

What is it that you have in mind that "the leaders and the representatives" of the Church should do?  "Repent" of what?  Apologize and seek forgiveness from whom?

Thanks,

-Smac

My position is that when I learn I have done something wrong, to try to correct it when I can, including repairing harm and making amends. I also expect others to do it, it is  basic decency. And if I am indirectly responsible for harm, or if I am part of a group that harms, or if I am represented by someone who harms someone else, I will try to correct it when I can, including repairing harm and making amends. And I expect that of the church and its leaders, its just decency. It's obviously complex, and my abilities, and the church's, and anyone's abilities are limited, but that's normal. But it is important to try. To the point of the thread, if there is such a thing as inspiration, or divine revelation, both or either will flow more freely when one is kind.

Edited September 3, 2019 by Meadowchik

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume there's a typo here.  That "I believe as I member" should be "I believe as a member..."  Is that correct?

I do not understand how you can, in good faith, presently affirm your membership in the Church here while elsewhere designate yourself as an "apostate." 

"He already seems to be very considerate of me as an apostate..."

"After I left, I allowed my mind to walk through plenty of dangerous, forbidden scenarios ... What a shock! My unbelieving, bitter apostate heart had no lingering desire for sin ..."

What am I missing?

Are those posts (quotes) from another board or forum?  I didn't think that was allowed here?

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are those posts (quotes) from another board or forum?  I didn't think that was allowed here?

They are from another board. 

[Meadowchik]

 

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume there's a typo here.  That "I believe as I member" should be "I believe as a member..."  Is that correct?

I do not understand how you can, in good faith, presently affirm your membership in the Church here while elsewhere designate yourself as an "apostate." 

 

I am Mormon. I am officially a member of the church, I was born in the covenant and was given a name and a blessing by my father as an infant. I am also an apostate. I have not resigned nor have I yet been excommunicated.

 

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

They are from another board. 

He should edit his post and remove them, IMO.  That's against board rules (iirc).

Also, it comes across as if he's stalking you and isn't right to do to any members here, IMO. 

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

First, regarding any of the quotes from me, it wasn't hard for you to figure out who I was there, was it?

I figured the anonymously-going-by-the-online-handle-"Meadowchik" elsewhere is the same person as the anonymously-going-by-the-online-handle-"Meadowchik" person on this board.

I think there is nothing admirable or impressive about using an anonymous online handle to hide behind while endlessly slandering and profaning the Church to which one claims membership.  YMMV.

Quote

Why? Because I post under the same name. I do believe in kindness, and if I haven't lived up to it, I am willing to own up to it.

Ah.  So you retract your various calumnies against the Church, its leaders, and so on?

Or are you simply admitting that you have made these statements, and not retracting them?

Quote

I will either back up what I have said, or try to correct myself and apologize when appropriate. If you'd like to start a thread on something I have said there, go ahead.

Nah.  I would certainly prefer to see you not endlessly disparage the Church, particularly if you continue to claim membership within it.  But I'm not really into the anonymous-stranger-presuming-to-call-others-to-repentance thing.

I have spent a lot of time in the Church.  I did not have an ideal experience with it growing up, but nor was it the horrible place you make it out to be.  And to the extent I had unpleasant experiences in it, such things were attributable almost entirely to my own weaknesses, or my peers.  However, later I served in the military, and was away from home and family and friends.  I had the choice to either live the Gospel and claim membership and discipleship of my own free will, or not.  Up to that point I had gone to church every week, attended four years of seminary, had an active family, and so on.  But in the end, the catalyst for me was the gifts of the Spirit.  I had prayed about the Book of Mormon and received an inchoate witness of it.  While in the military I continued to try to build on it.  Then I served a mission, and learned more, and felt the Spirit more.  Then I returned home, went to school, met my wife, and started a family.  Again, more learning, and more Spirit. 

Now, a few decades later, I have had a number of experiences in the Church.  Lots of callings.  Lots of opportunities to serve.  Lots of study and effort to understand.  Lots of interactions with local leaders, and with friends who are struggling, and friends who are remaining firm.  I also draw upon the experience of my extended family, many of whom have had extensive and substantial experience and/or familiarity with the Church, its leaders, members, doctrines, history, and so on.

In the end, my experience is that the Church is overwhelmingly good.  It is not perfect, but it is what it claims to be.  It has what it claims to have.  I love it a lot.  

Quote

Second, do you want to also quote your responses to me at that board when I said those specific things? Did you engage? Did you try to understand?

No.  I don't think much of that board, nor do I spend much time there.

Quote

I don't recall it, please feel free to refresh my memory. I have engaged here, and I do respond to others and I try to live up to a standard of kindness as a poster on this board as well. So, um, yes, I can feel the love. I totally get it if you don't. YMMV. 

Right.  Nothing says "kindness" like publicly describing the Church (your church, even) as "profane" and "illegitimate," and publicly declaring how "embarrassed" you are of it, that you characterize sexual grooming as "essential to its existence," and so on.

If a family member made such horrible public statements about me, I would not appreciate it.  And if that family member then proceeded to insult my intelligence by saying "Hey, it's a kindness that I am saying such things about you publicly," well, I'm not sure I would take such a justification very seriously.

🤨

Quote

Regarding social justice, I didn't bring up the phrase itself, I belief Rev Testament did. There's no need to through away the legitimate pieces on the concept just because it is difficult.

I find "social justice" to be a corruption and distortion and misuse of the concept of "justice."

And not because it's "difficult," but because the distortion masks something bad.  I think this comment from Ben Shapiro is apt:

Quote

We're going to be in a much better position to do "Justice" when we stop focusing on the perversion known as "Social Justice."   Social Justice stands in direct contravention and opposition to Justice. 
Justice is about you tak{ing} action and you get{ting} what you deserve.  Social Justice is about you tak{ing} action, and we may or may not give you what you deserve, based on what we think your social group deserves.  And that's evil.  That really is.  The idea that we're not going to judge the individual, and we're instead going to judge what is most apropos for society based on the group to which you belong, and in some cases {in} which we arbitrarily place you, that's actually evil. 
...
Justice doesn't need a modifer.  {If} you add "social" to it, you are detracting from the original word.

Yep.

And interestingly, here we have someone presuming to call an entire group to repentance.  As if collective guilt, collective sin, is a thing.  

It's not.

Quote

My position is that when I learn I have done something wrong, to try to correct it when I can, including repairing harm and making amends.

Dandy.  But I doubt you do so because some anonymous person who despises and constantly denigrates your social group has presumed to hector you into "try{ing} to correct" such things.

In fact, I think you, like me, would have a hard time accepting such hectoring as being presented in good faith.  Someone who constantly denigrates and maligns and insults, then presumes to tell the target{s} of such abuse that he/she/they should "repent," and then tries to tell the target{s} that all of this is, somehow, a "kindness," well, that's hard to accept.

🤨

Quote

I also expect others to do it, it is  basic decency.

Right.  Nothing says "basic decency" better than publicly describing the Church (your church, even) as "profane" and "illegitimate," and publicly declaring how "embarrassed" you are of it, and that you characterize sexual grooming as "essential to its existence," and so on.

The needle on my Irony Meter is deep into the red right now.  

Quote

And if I am indirectly responsible for harm, or if I am part of a group that harms, or if I am represented by someone who harms someone else, I will try to correct it when I can, including repairing harm and making amends.

That's nice.

Quote

And I expect that of the church and its leaders, its just decency.

The leaders of the Church are overwhelmingly "decent."

Quote

It's obviously complex, and my abilities, and the church's, and anyone's abilities are limited, but that's normal. But it is important to try. To the point of the thread, if there is such a thing as inspiration, or divine revelation, both or either will flow more freely when one is kind.

Then why on earth do you say such awful, unkind things about us?  All the time, apparently?

-Smac

Edited September 3, 2019 by smac97

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I am Mormon. I am officially a member of the church, I was born in the covenant and was given a name and a blessing by my father as an infant. I am also an apostate.

Okay.  That was my general surmise.

15 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have not resigned nor have I yet been excommunicated.

Okay.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

29 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are those posts (quotes) from another board or forum?  I didn't think that was allowed here?

Ah.  Perhaps not.  I've removed the quotes.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then why on earth do you say such awful, unkind things about us?  All the time, apparently?

Are you sure you don't have Meadowchik mixed up with another poster here?  She's one of the most civil and kind members here in her interactions with others, IMO.  She may not be an active member of the church and has different views or feelings regarding some topics, but she is still a member and has a right to voice her opinion.  It's an important perspective much of the time too from what I've observed.

I have to say smac, this feels personal against her and not like your usual fair posts.

Edited September 3, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Are you sure you don't have Meadowchik mixed up with another poster here?  She's one of the most civil and kind members here in her interactions with others, IMO. 

I guess I'm conflating her posts here with posts elsewhere (which are not "civil and kind," to say the least).

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

She may not be an active member of the church and has different views or feelings regarding some topics, but she is still a member and has a right to voice her opinion. 

Yes.  As do we all.

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's an important perspective much of the time too from what I've observed.

I have to say smac, this feels personal against her and not like your usual fair posts.

Perhaps so.  I admit that I have a hard time with members of the Church who use online anonymity to publicly say awful, and often false, things about us.

But perhaps I should not publicly respond to such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, ALarson said:

He should edit his post and remove them, IMO.  That's against board rules (iirc).

Also, it comes across as if he's stalking you and isn't right to do to any members here, IMO. 

"Stalking" seems a bit overwrought.  But I'll withdraw as a precaution.

Thanks,

-SMac

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I'm conflating her posts here with posts elsewhere (which are not "civil and kind," to say the least).

If you're referring to her posts that you've now removed, I didn't see that they fit your description above.  She did refer to herself as an apostate but we don't know if that was tongue in cheek or if she was serious.  It's still not right to bring them here though, IMO....thanks for removing them 👍

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If you're referring to her posts that you've now removed, I didn't see that they fit your description above.  She did refer to herself as an apostate but we don't know if that was tongue in cheek or if she was serious.  It's still not right to bring them here though, IMO....thanks for removing them 👍

So after pressuring him into removing the quotes, you now have plausible deniability because there is no convenient way for a typical reader to find the quotes and judge their nature for him/herself. 

Let no one say you are not shrewd, ALarson.