General Conference Commemorating First Vision Bicentennial

[pogi]

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am glad that you have finally cited some actual sources, pogi, but I do not share your faith in totalitarian systems and their contempt for fact.

If this was limited to China, I might agree with you - but probably not.  We have no reason to believe there is a conspiracy to hide infant and child deaths.  Their data matches what is being reported all over the world.  Do you not trust data from Italy?  The rest of Europe?  

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You at the same time carefully ignored my previous observation that no babies were on any of the cruise ships, nor in the homes for elderly in Washington State, and that is where most of the infections first showed themselves for Americans.   

I didn't ignore it.  I addressed it.  It is a moot fact.  In case you weren't aware, the virus has spread.  This is a world-wide pandemic, why limit it to what is happening in the US?  And why limit data in the US even further to where "it first showed up" in isolated incidents in the US?  There have been 366 positively identified cases in Washington State alone.  Over 1,000 cases nationwide (that only includes sever cases as we are not even testing mild-moderate cases, so it is WAY more wide spread in the US than is being reported).  Why the heck are you focusing on one nursing home?  We are at pandemic proportions now and limiting data to such arbitrary cases and scale is not helpful.  What do you want me to say about it, other than suggest that you look at the big picture instead of isolated incidents?    Please look at these numbers from Washington and compare them to the world-wide data.  Crazy how it matches exactly as far as age distribution, right?

https://www.doh.wa.gov/emergencies/coronavirus

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are putting the cart before the horse in supposing that babies are not vulnerable.

By me, you mean the CDC and WHO, right?

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I want to see what happens stateside, after a decent interval.

Ok.  The rest of us can rest assured that having reached pandemic proportions with not one single childhood death reported under 10 years old (reports coming from more than just China, and they all paint the EXACT same picture of who is at greatest risk) - our kids our safe! 

53 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I sure hope you're right, but am amazed that you have such unquestioning faith in foreign stats. 

I am right, and I am amazed at your unquestioning faith in, well, you know who. Why aren't we testing here like everywhere else?  Why would you trust our stats over European stats?

Lets get real Robert, we are at pandemic proportions now and not one single reported death under 10.  If babies were at “greater risk” as you suggest, we would know by now.  You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist over this.  I think it is time to just admit that you were wrong to suggest that babies are at greater risk and move on.

Edited March 11, 2020 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are putting the cart before the horse in supposing that babies are not vulnerable. 

I said they are not at greater risk, in counter of your claim that they are.  I didn't say they are never vulnerable.  I think you are the one who put the cart before the horse in supposing that "babies are at greater risk because of their weak immune systems".  I am simply protesting that comment based on the substantial amount of data to suggest otherwise.  But for some reason, you won't give it up.

Edited March 11, 2020 by pogi

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/9/2020 at 12:37 AM, Calm said:

Danger is mostly for 75 and older, I believe.

Excellent! I have 2 years before I have to start worrying.

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/10/2020 at 4:31 PM, Navidad said:

Ok . . . . you're right! I went to church Sunday morning to listen for things that make me uncomfortable. I crave being uncomfortable. No you're not and no I didn't! 😀 But thanks for listening with curiosity anyway. As I said earlier I do find that sometimes I learn best by being uncomfortable. It causes me to try and figure out why and whether the discomfort is more coming from me or from the external stimulus. I often find it is a mixture of the two. That is what I tried to say in my initial statement.

You are 73 and have had a long and faithful life. I am 71 and have had a long and faithful life. My wife and I have embarked on a new adventure to try and back up my reading about Mormonism with actually living with Mormons and spending lots of time on this forum. One of the primary reasons we moved to the colonies from San Diego when I retired was. . . well because of the colonies! Part of the adventure of living in a complex new environment is an inevitable discomfort. I voiced that discomfort on this forum yesterday. That is probably something I should not do here. In the future I will keep it to myself.

Even as you said in your most recent reply, "I have pretty much heard it all, including the stuff piled on by disgruntled family members." I guess that just reinforces my sense that you believe you know everything I am going to say in advance. You can predict the motives for what I say, and can see into my heart for why I am even here or in the ward to begin with! I didn't realize you had interacted with a 71 year old Mennonite/Baptist in the past who moved to a foreign country to live near LDS colonies, who attends the ward faithfully, who speaks about LDS history at least 10 times a year, and who as a non-member has actually survived 2.5 years on this forum (just barely sometimes), and who has an absolute belief in the certainty of the Christian faith of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am pretty sure there are a lot me hanging around who altogether provide you an accurate perspective from which to stereotype me with all those you have heard before. Hey, take heart, let me encourage you that at 73 years of age you are not too old to meet someone unlike anyone you have ever met before! 

Please allow me to say one more thing in the hopes of helping you (collectively) understand us (my wife and I). My wife is pretty strong. Yesterday she apparently broke down in Relief Society and sobbed because someone reminded her specifically and in person that she cannot possibly be filled with the Holy Ghost and have the gifts of the Holy Ghost since she is not a LDS church member. After a long and faithful life of spiritual maturity beyond almost anyone I know, she finally broke down from the discomfort of that encounter.  Several of the kind ladies gathered around her after the meeting as she opened up to them. They assured her that the Church does not teach that only LDS church members are filled with and have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. That confused her because she reads a lot too.

That was yesterday. Today her two ministering sisters came by the house. Nothing was said about yesterday. But this time her dear friend and sister broke down and sobbed in our living room. Apparently the end of last week they found out her husband, another dear friend of ours in the ward is full of cancer that he has no chance of survival outside of the Lord working a miracle. I wasn't in the room (in fact I was on this forum), but apparently she and her dear friend hugged and cried together over this unexpected news and potential loss. So, in a sense we are deeply involved in the ward from the perspective that it can hurt us; while we also deeply feel the hurt of those we love when they hurt as well. It is complex, and yes, at times uncomfortable. It is also an ongoing lesson in spiritual growth. I won't share my discomfort here anyone. First, it pales in comparison to what my wife felt yesterday and what her friend felt today. My discomfort is pretty much irrelevant and inconsequential compare to those. Please just don't prejudge us from what you have heard before. Please. 

Thanks. That’s a lot to respond to.

Much of it seems off the topic of being offended by the singing of a hymn. Stereotyped? Prejudged?

I’m not following you, especially with the references to Sunday School comments, the Holy Ghost, ministering sisters, cancer, hurting, and sobbing.
 

You speak of some hymns and talks that are disturbing and inappropriate in our services while at the same time report on your extensive knowledge of and experience with the Church. I don’t understand. I would not attend another church out of curiosity to discover what disturbed me or to declare what I think is inappropriate about what they say or sing there and then to call them out for what they do. That seems to me to be prejudging and stereotyping. 
 

But I agree with what you said, I am not you and you are not me, and we are both getting old. You are not the first person I have heard criticize our feelings about Joseph Smith. I just don’t understand why that would be surprising or discomforting to you at this point in your experience with the Church. It’s what we do and have done for 200 years. With all due respect, I wonder if you fully grasp the significance of what we are celebrating at this year's General Conference....the First Vision.

Where can I read some of your many presentations at LDS gatherings?

Edited March 12, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Raingirl]

10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. That’s a lot to respond to. Much of it seems off the topic of being offended by the singing of a hymn. Stereotyped? Prejudged? I’m not following, especially with the references to hurtin and sobbing. 

That poster continues to baffle me. He complains, criticizes, and judges the church and its members unceasingly. 

He enjoys telling us over and over how superior he and his wife are.  He unendingly criticizes our beliefs and enjoys telling we’re wrong - frequently and specifically. He has no interest in being baptized and becoming a member, but wants to be looked on as such.

Why would anyone attend a church whose teachings and members they hold in such contempt?

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, pogi said:

I said they are not at greater risk, in counter of your claim that they are.  I didn't say they are never vulnerable.  I think you are the one who put the cart before the horse in supposing that "babies are at greater risk because of their weak immune systems".  I am simply protesting that comment based on the substantial amount of data to suggest otherwise.  But for some reason, you won't give it up.

Using sketchy data in which you deeply believe could place babies at risk.  Of course you trust the data from outside the USA, and you may even be right, but there is no actual reason for you to be so freewheeling in your judgments at this stage.  Better safe than sorry, and I will be happy to admit that you have been correct a couple of months from now, should it turn out that my concern is groundless.  Your contempt for the views of others could be high risk.  Doesn't seem to matter to you.

Cancelling attendance at Conference may likewise be too aggressive, but I am glad the Brethren made that decision.  I thought they would.  Of course, you may even agree, and that has nothing directly to do with babies.  But it does indicate the better-safe-than-sorry approach which I recommend.

[Robert F. Smith]

10 hours ago, pogi said:

If this was limited to China, I might agree with you - but probably not.  We have no reason to believe there is a conspiracy to hide infant and child deaths.  Their data matches what is being reported all over the world.  Do you not trust data from Italy?  The rest of Europe?  

Of course not.  This pandemic is only just getting started.

Quote

.............. - our kids our safe! 

I am right, and I am amazed at your unquestioning faith in, well, you know who. Why aren't we testing here like everywhere else?  Why would you trust our stats over European stats?

I trust Tony Fauci, not the nameless fools who are running amuck elsewhere -- including in the White House.  I have already placed a copy of horrific USA projections on this thread -- from the American Hosp Assoc.  Do you concur with those projections?  Or do you dismiss them out of hand?

Quote

Lets get real Robert, we are at pandemic proportions now and not one single reported death under 10.  If babies were at “greater risk” as you suggest, we would know by now.  You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist over this.  I think it is time to just admit that you were wrong to suggest that babies are at greater risk and move on.

Your automatic trust in foreign stats and your notion that "If babies were at 'greater risk' as you suggest, we would know by now" is putting the cart before the epidemiological horse.  You miss my cautious point, and (as I have repeatedly said) I'll be happy to eat crow in a couple of months when proven wrong.  Meantime, unlike you, I call for caution.  You need what is called in Spanish paciencia.

Edited March 12, 2020 by Robert F. Smith

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Raingirl said:

That poster continues to baffle me. He complains, criticizes, and judges the church and its members unceasingly. 

He enjoys telling us over and over how superior he and his wife are.  He unendingly criticizes our beliefs and enjoys telling we’re wrong - frequently and specifically. He has no interest in being baptized and becoming a member, but wants to be looked on as such.

Why would anyone attend a church whose teachings and members they hold in such contempt?

Yes, and all in the name of curiosity, empathy, and gaining greater understanding. Is a puzzlement. 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Ahab]

On 3/10/2020 at 4:31 PM, Navidad said:

My wife and I have embarked on a new adventure to try and back up my reading about Mormonism with actually living with Mormons and spending lots of time on this forum. One of the primary reasons we moved to the colonies from San Diego when I retired was. . . well because of the colonies! Part of the adventure of living in a complex new environment is an inevitable discomfort. I voiced that discomfort on this forum yesterday. That is probably something I should not do here. In the future I will keep it to myself.

This info helps me to understand you a bit better. I had been thinking you had lived most if not all of your life in those colonies in Mexico. I'm now curious why you wanted to learn about "Mormons" from those colonies rather than from the mainstream Church?

Is that ward you attend part of the mainstream Church or is it a fringe group?  Do you know how to tell the difference?  And do you realize that even members of the mainstream Church can be off on some doctrine because they do not fully understand it themselves?

Quote

Please allow me to say one more thing in the hopes of helping you (collectively) understand us (my wife and I). My wife is pretty strong. Yesterday she apparently broke down in Relief Society and sobbed because someone reminded her specifically and in person that she cannot possibly be filled with the Holy Ghost and have the gifts of the Holy Ghost since she is not a LDS church member. After a long and faithful life of spiritual maturity beyond almost anyone I know, she finally broke down from the discomfort of that encounter.  Several of the kind ladies gathered around her after the meeting as she opened up to them. They assured her that the Church does not teach that only LDS church members are filled with and have the gifts of the Holy Spirit. That confused her because she reads a lot too.

Just another instance of mainstream members not fully understanding some of our doctrine, if that is a mainstream branch of the Church you are attending.  Best to go to our official source for doctrine rather than rely on what some members may tell you.

Click here to see some of our official doctrine explaining why only members of the Church are given the gift of the Holy Ghost, even though the Holy Ghost can and does visit with people who are not members of the Church:

          https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-21-the-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

 

Edited March 12, 2020 by Ahab

[pogi]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Using sketchy data in which you deeply believe could place babies at risk.  Of course you trust the data from outside the USA, and you may even be right, but there is no actual reason for you to be so freewheeling in your judgments at this stage.  Better safe than sorry, and I will be happy to admit that you have been correct a couple of months from now, should it turn out that my concern is groundless.  Your contempt for the views of others could be high risk.  Doesn't seem to matter to you.

Cancelling attendance at Conference may likewise be too aggressive, but I am glad the Brethren made that decision.  I thought they would.  Of course, you may even agree, and that has nothing directly to do with babies.  But it does indicate the better-safe-than-sorry approach which I recommend.

So you think it is ok to go around telling people that babies are at high risk because of their weak immune systems?  Is that your "better-safe-than-sorry approach" - to create unnecessary hysteria which goes contrary to all the evidence that we have?  I do have contempt for those views.  They will cause more harm than good.  They are not grounded in good science or any data whatsoever.

On the contrary to what you say, there is no good reason not to trust data coming in from Europe and other nations.  They all corroborate each other in who is at high risk.  Why should I not trust it?

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course not.  This pandemic is only just getting started.

So, it's not that you think they are manipulating numbers, its that you don't think we have enough data yet?  Do we have to wait for it to be over before we can warn people who is at greatest risk?  Data from 100,000 cases world wide is not enough?  At what point is enough enough Robert? 

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I trust Tony Fauci, not the nameless fools who are running amuck elsewhere --

Are you seriously going to denigrate the entire European medical establishment like that by calling them "fools".  I never figured you for an American elitist, Robert.  What are you basing your callous judgments on?  What evidence do you have to suggest that their surveillance efforts are inferior to ours?  Please give me evidence to back up your mocking.

Who the heck is Tony Fauci, and what is his role in American surveillance of Covid-19? Is the the one responsible for the embarrassing role out and surveillance in our country?  Is he the one responsible for letting this virus spread undetected in our communities?  If not, then why do you trust him to fix it or give more accurate numbers and better surveillance than the European nations are doing?  

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I have already placed a copy of horrific USA projections on this thread -- from the American Hosp Assoc.  Do you concur with those projections?  Or do you dismiss them out of hand?

I haven't seen those projections.  Would you mind posting them again.  I do find it curious however that you think we have enough reliable data to calculate accurate projections even while complaining that we don't have enough data to know who is at risk.  What data do you think they are calculating these projections from if not foreign data?  The only people we are testing in the US are severe cases - we are not really testing anyone else and therefore have no good surveillance of the spread of this virus in the US.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Your automatic trust in foreign stats and your notion that "If babies were at 'greater risk' as you suggest, we would know by now" is putting the cart before the epidemiological horse.  You miss my cautious point, and (as I have repeatedly said) I'll be happy to eat crow in a couple of months when proven wrong.  Meantime, unlike you, I call for caution.  You need what is called in Spanish paciencia.

On the contrary, epidemiology always relies on foreign stats in pandemic situations.

I am curious, can you show me one reliable US institution which suggests that it is too early to determine if children are at greater risk?   On one hand, you seem to only trust American scientists, but on the other hand, you denigrate the CDC in suggesting that children are not at greater risk.  Wo which is it, do you trust them or not?  Who is more reliable than the CDC?  You keep making this about  me, saying I need patience, I am not being cautious enough, etc. but I am only reporting what the CDC and WHO organizations are saying.  Quit making this about me! 

I am backing up my words with reliable sources.  You have not yet provided anything to back up your flat out false statements that children are at greater risk. Nothing.  You have not even been able to show me one institution which agrees with you that children might be at risk and that we need continued patience. Back it up, or stop spreading unnecessary fear. 

 

 

 

[Navidad]

10 hours ago, Raingirl said:

That poster continues to baffle me. He complains, criticizes, and judges the church and its members unceasingly. 

He enjoys telling us over and over how superior he and his wife are.  He unendingly criticizes our beliefs and enjoys telling we’re wrong - frequently and specifically. He has no interest in being baptized and becoming a member, but wants to be looked on as such.

Why would anyone attend a church whose teachings and members they hold in such contempt?

Hi Raingirl:

I probably have complained. I don't deny that. Can you point to one of my posts out of the hundreds I have posted where I criticized and judged the church? And I guess if I have criticized and judged unceasingly, you should find many. Is, in your interpretation my sharing my discomfort criticizing and judging? Superior? Hmmm. I will have to think about that. I don't feel superior to anyone. I have certainly tried to inform you all of our activities in the ward so you don't think we are simply on the sidelines peering in over the transom, as someone said the other day. I actually knew what that meant. I feel in no way superior to anyone, especially in the ward. In fact I have repeatedly said quite the opposite about LDS Christians, haven't I? "

Unendingly criticizes and tells you, you are wrong?" Examples please. If I share something I believe that is different from what you believe, is that being received as telling you, you are wrong? I certainly don't mean it that way. You all disagree, debate, and dialogue all the time, don't you? Perhaps it is because I am an identified non-member that gets me in trouble? Is that true?

The most recent post about the Praise to the Man was all I statements. I was uncomfortable. I even said I want to learn from that because often when we are uncomfortable it comes from something inside us instead of something external. "Frequently and specifically." I need some examples of all this from my posts so I can better understand what you think is frequent and specific criticism so I can avoid it.

I have no interest in being baptized and becoming a member? That is true right now. Should I leave the forum because of that? I have a great interest in learning, not in joining. Does that make no sense to you? I want to be looked on as a member? Nope! I want to be looked on as a faithful non-member. Nothing more. We are as faithful as we are allowed to be. I will and have said on here that I do wish the church had a category for faithful non-member. Is that being critical? If you live in SLC area, come to the meeting on Aug 5 (I think it is) where we could meet face to face so we can get to know each other better. I am not sure if I am allowed to post the details on here of a future meeting or not. I would love to meet some of you. I will be speaking about the joys and discomforts of being a faithful non-member in a LDS ward. If that sounds silly or stupid to you, I am sorry. It is what I have been invited to do and will do barring meetings being canceled because of the virus. I got an email yesterday indicating that MHA may be cancelled depending on a bunch of things. That would be sad. 

Oh, ooops. is that being superior? I really don't think so, but I am willing to think that through, if that is what you consider coming across as superior. Everyone in our ward takes a turn cleaning the chapel. So do we. Is my saying that what you consider being superior? I have no contempt for the teachings and members of the LDS church. None, not even a little bit. They are confusing and I am trying to figure them out. When I share my discomfort as I did about the Praise the Man, that is part of me trying to figure it out, not criticizing it. 

[Navidad]

44 minutes ago, Ahab said:

This info helps me to understand you a bit better. I had been thinking you had lived most if not all of your life in those colonies in Mexico. I'm now curious why you wanted to learn about "Mormons" from those colonies rather than from the mainstream Church?

Is that ward you attend part of the mainstream Church or is it a fringe group?  Do you know how to tell the difference?  And do you realize that even members of the mainstream Church can be off on some doctrine because they do not fully understand it themselves?

Just another instance of mainstream members not fully understanding some of our doctrine, if that is a mainstream branch of the Church you are attending.  Best to go to our official source for doctrine rather than rely on what some members may tell you.

Click here to see some of our official doctrine explaining why only members of the Church are given the gift of the Holy Ghost, even though the Holy Ghost can and does visit with people who are not members of the Church:

          https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-21-the-gift-of-the-holy-ghost?lang=eng

 

Hi Ahab: We chose to come here because I am a Mexican historian and have a great interest in religion in Mexico, focusing on religion during the revolutionary time frame and in the LDS and Mennonite Mexican colonies. Some of the folks on this forum also have connections to the colonies as well. I assure you they (Dublan and Colonia Juarez) are mainstream Church members. Some say the colony folks have a different perspective on things because of their isolation; in fact some of them say that too. I have sometimes been asked why I don't have a "colony accent" when speaking English. I find that interesting. Our ward is the historic first ward of the LDS church in Colonia Juarez. It is certainly a history-laden place. We have tons of Romneys, Whettens, Jones, Farnsworths, Johnsons, Calls, etc in the two wards. I have enjoyed very much having opportunity to go up into the mountains and to all the old colony sites. I have taken folks from the church history department up there and enjoyed working with them on colony history specifically and on the history of the Mexican Mission generically. I won't say more about what I enjoy or what I do, because I don't want to come across as "superior." I have a lot of friends in the church history department and when they come down here; I have often met with them. Oops, I hope that isn't too much information. 

Yes, I do know the difference between fringe and mainstream. I will speaking at MHA this year (If it is held) on the history of that very subject. I often go down to the LeBaron colonies to interview and visit folks. Oops, sorry, there I go again! I regret that when I try and help you folks understand us better, by telling you about our activities, it comes across as thinking we are superior. I regret that. Speaking of the Holy Ghost; I read an article this morning that said that LDS Christians believe the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit are two different entities. I have not heard that before. Now I am afraid to ask about it! Take care.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Ahab: We chose to come here because I am a Mexican historian and have a great interest in religion in Mexico, focusing on religion during the revolutionary time frame and in the LDS and Mennonite Mexican colonies. Some of the folks on this forum also have connections to the colonies as well. I assure you they (Dublan and Colonia Juarez) are mainstream Church members. Some say the colony folks have a different perspective on things because of their isolation; in fact some of them say that too. I have sometimes been asked why I don't have a "colony accent" when speaking English. I find that interesting. Our ward is the historic first ward of the LDS church in Colonia Juarez. It is certainly a history-laden place. We have tons of Romneys, Whettens, Jones, Farnsworths, Johnsons, Calls, etc in the two wards. I have enjoyed very much having opportunity to go up into the mountains and to all the old colony sites. I have taken folks from the church history department up there and enjoyed working with them on colony history specifically and on the history of the Mexican Mission generically. I won't say more about what I enjoy or what I do, because I don't want to come across as "superior." I have a lot of friends in the church history department and when they come down here; I have often met with them. Oops, I hope that isn't too much information.

You're safe with me not thinking of you as a superior person. I admit your level of knowledge on some things is better than mine and some other people who don't know as much as you do about those things, but I consider all of us to be equal as persons even though some of us know more about some things that some others of us do, which is generally true of everyone.  

13 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 Yes, I do know the difference between fringe and mainstream. I will speaking at MHA this year (If it is held) on the history of that very subject. I often go down to the LeBaron colonies to interview and visit folks. Oops, sorry, there I go again! I regret that when I try and help you folks understand us better, by telling you about our activities, it comes across as thinking we are superior. I regret that. Speaking of the Holy Ghost; I read an article this morning that said that LDS Christians believe the Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit are two different entities. I have not heard that before. Now I am afraid to ask about it! Take care.

Words are funny things, aren't they.  Have you ever noticed how you can use the same words to talk about different things, or people?  The words spirit and ghost, for example.  Sometimes they refer to the same thing and sometimes they do not.  And holy, too.  Do you think you know what it means to be holy?  Do you understand that our Father in heaven is holy and that he has a spirit, his own spirit, which can be referred to as a holy spirit incorporated within his glorious body of flesh and bone?  And yet we usually do not refer to our Father in heaven as the Holy Spirit, do we, because we wouldn't want to confuse his person and being with another person and being we refer to as the Holy Spirit who we know does not have a glorious body like that of our Father in heaven.  And sometimes we might just use the word Spirit to refer to God without specifying which God person we are talking about, knowing that all 3 of them have spirits which are holy as they are holy regardless of which person we are talking about.

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I am glad that you have finally cited some actual sources, pogi, but I do not share your faith in totalitarian systems and their contempt for fact.

You at the same time carefully ignored my previous observation that no babies were on any of the cruise ships, nor in the homes for elderly in Washington State, and that is where most of the infections first showed themselves for Americans.  You are putting the cart before the horse in supposing that babies are not vulnerable.  I sure hope you're right, but am amazed that you have such unquestioning faith in foreign stats.  I want to see what happens stateside, after a decent interval.  This is no time for a blind, devil-may-care approach to COVID-19. 

Caution is called for, not automatic, free-wheeling assumptions.  I am glad that Americans are beginning to get the message that large gatherings are a very bad idea.  Let's check in on this in a couple of months.  I'll happily eat crow then, if necessary.

Virtually every male in China has smoked most of his life, and still does. Women not so much

That cannot help the statistics.

[Navidad]

16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks. That’s a lot to respond to.

Much of it seems off the topic of being offended by the singing of a hymn. Stereotyped? Prejudged?

I’m not following you, especially with the references to Sunday School comments, the Holy Ghost, ministering sisters, cancer, hurting, and sobbing.
 

You speak of some hymns and talks that are disturbing and inappropriate in our services while at the same time report on your extensive knowledge of and experience with the Church. I don’t understand. I would not attend another church out of curiosity to discover what disturbed me or to declare what I think is inappropriate about what they say or sing there and then to call them out for what they do. That seems to me to be prejudging and stereotyping. 
 

But I agree with what you said, I am not you and you are not me, and we are both getting old. You are not the first person I have heard criticize our feelings about Joseph Smith. I just don’t understand why that would be surprising or discomforting to you at this point in your experience with the Church. It’s what we do and have done for 200 years. With all due respect, I wonder if you fully grasp the significance of what we are celebrating at this year's General Conference....the First Vision.

Where can I read some of your many presentations at LDS gatherings?

You're not following me. I can see and understand that. I don't think you have any interest in following me. You put words in my mouth (keyboard) that I never used. I never talked about being offended. I said I was uncomfortable. I tried to share our reality. It isn't yours, you don't understand it, you couldn't care less, so let's just let it be done. I spoke of no hymns that are disturbing and inappropriate. I said I was uncomfortable. I never talked about my extensive knowledge and experience. I shared my reality. It isn't yours, you don't believe it, so let's just let it be done. You characterized my  attendance at our ward as being out of curiosity to discover what disturbs me or to declare what I think is inappropriate. You have no idea what you are talking about. How many times have you read and ignored my posts that we have grown spiritually through our time in the ward? Has it ever dawned on you that one does not have to join the LDS church in order to grow spiritually from it? You said I criticized your feelings about Joseph Smith. That is simply untrue. I have never criticized anything about Joseph Smith on this forum or anywhere else. I happen to enjoy his letters from the Liberty Jail and have posted about them on this forum. 

I agree with you that I do not grasp the significance of what you are celebrating . . . . . The First Vision. I never claimed to grasp it. That is why I ask so many questions.  Finally, you want me to show you where to read my "many presentations at LDS gatherings." That sounds sarcastic. Why would I share with you my work when you have distorted and mischaracterized virtually everything I have said the past few days because you are reading my posts through your own lens of 1. A certainty that you have heard it all before I even say anything and 2. A certainty that I am somehow anti-. . . . aren't all non-members of the church? After all you have heard it all. I am sure there is nothing that would interest you in anything I have had to say. After all; you have heard it all before.

However, I fear I would probably validate your skepticism if I didn't provide you anything or any names within the church who you could contact about my work, so if you truly want to read some of my things, or contact someone you trust about my work, message me and I will attach some files or names to you privately.  Is that fair? You clearly don't trust me; I have read your many posts with great interest, but I am beginning not to trust you after your mischaracterization and twisting of my words in my recent posts. I will leave it with you.   

Edited March 12, 2020 by Navidad

[Robert F. Smith]

7 hours ago, pogi said:

So you think it is ok to go around telling people that babies are at high risk because of their weak immune systems?  Is that your "better-safe-than-sorry approach" - to create unnecessary hysteria which goes contrary to all the evidence that we have?  I do have contempt for those views.  They will cause more harm than good.  They are not grounded in good science or any data whatsoever.

On the contrary to what you say, there is no good reason not to trust data coming in from Europe and other nations.  They all corroborate each other in who is at high risk.  Why should I not trust it?

So, it's not that you think they are manipulating numbers, its that you don't think we have enough data yet?  Do we have to wait for it to be over before we can warn people who is at greatest risk?  Data from 100,000 cases world wide is not enough?  At what point is enough enough Robert? 

Are you seriously going to denigrate the entire European medical establishment like that by calling them "fools".  I never figured you for an American elitist, Robert.  What are you basing your callous judgments on?  What evidence do you have to suggest that their surveillance efforts are inferior to ours?  Please give me evidence to back up your mocking.

Who the heck is Tony Fauci, and what is his role in American surveillance of Covid-19? Is the the one responsible for the embarrassing role out and surveillance in our country?  Is he the one responsible for letting this virus spread undetected in our communities?  If not, then why do you trust him to fix it or give more accurate numbers and better surveillance than the European nations are doing?  

I haven't seen those projections.  Would you mind posting them again.  I do find it curious however that you think we have enough reliable data to calculate accurate projections even while complaining that we don't have enough data to know who is at risk.  What data do you think they are calculating these projections from if not foreign data?  The only people we are testing in the US are severe cases - we are not really testing anyone else and therefore have no good surveillance of the spread of this virus in the US.

On the contrary, epidemiology always relies on foreign stats in pandemic situations.

I am curious, can you show me one reliable US institution which suggests that it is too early to determine if children are at greater risk?   On one hand, you seem to only trust American scientists, but on the other hand, you denigrate the CDC in suggesting that children are not at greater risk.  Wo which is it, do you trust them or not?  Who is more reliable than the CDC?  You keep making this about  me, saying I need patience, I am not being cautious enough, etc. but I am only reporting what the CDC and WHO organizations are saying.  Quit making this about me! 

I am backing up my words with reliable sources.  You have not yet provided anything to back up your flat out false statements that children are at greater risk. Nothing.  You have not even been able to show me one institution which agrees with you that children might be at risk and that we need continued patience. Back it up, or stop spreading unnecessary fear.

Once again you miss the point:  Caution.  You falsely claim that everything is already known, that all the data is in.  I certainly hope so, but I have strong doubts.  You want to play roulette with babies lives.  I don't.  Pretending is what you are doing, just like the Pres.  You have no sense of restraint and patience.  Just smug assumptions.

And you see me as "callous," and deliberately turn my critique of foolish politicians around and falsely claim I am speaking of scientists -- which I was obviously not.  You admit your contempt for views which don't match your own gullibility.  We will in fact see what happens by the time a couple of months have gone by.  Unlike me, you appear unwilling to admit that you will eat crow if you are wrong.

[Bernard Gui]

On 3/10/2020 at 7:33 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

Thanks for these suggestions. 
 

Not sure whether this one is ever sung in worship services, but it did come to mind:

Intro 1 Ezekiel connected dem dry bones, Ezekiel connected dem dry bones, Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones, Now hear the word of the Lord.   Verse 1 Toe bone connected to the foot bone Foot bone connected to the heel bone Heel bone connected to the ankle bone Ankle bone connected to the shin bone Shin bone connected to the knee bone Knee bone connected to the thigh bone Thigh bone connected to the hip bone Hip bone connected to the back bone Back bone connected to the shoulder bone Shoulder bone connected to the neck bone Neck bone connected to the head bone Now hear the word of the Lord.   Chorus Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around. Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around. Dem bones, dem bones gonna walk around. Now hear the word of the Lord.

Intro 2 Ezekiel disconnected dem dry bones, Ezekiel disconnected dem dry bones, Ezekiel in the Valley of Dry Bones, Now hear the word of the Lord.   Verse 2 Head bone (dis)connected from the neck bone Neck bone connected from the shoulder bone Shoulder bone connected from the back bone Back bone connected from the hip bone Hip bone connected from the thigh bone Thigh bone connected from the knee bone Knee bone connected from the shin bone Shin bone connected from the ankle bone Ankle bone connected from the heel bone Heel bone connected from the foot bone Foot bone connected from the toe bone Now hear the word of the Lord.   Chorus Dem bones, dem bones gonna rise again. Dem bones, dem bones gonna rise again. Dem bones, dem bones gonna rise again. Now hear the word of the Lord.   Finale Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones. Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones. Dem bones, dem bones, dem dry bones. Now hear the word of the Lord.

My nickname in high school was Bones. Thanks for posting my song.

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Once again you miss the point:  Caution.  You falsely claim that everything is already known, that all the data is in.  I certainly hope so, but I have strong doubts.  You want to play roulette with babies lives.  I don't.  Pretending is what you are doing, just like the Pres.  You have no sense of restraint and patience.  Just smug assumptions.

And you see me as "callous," and deliberately turn my critique of foolish politicians around and falsely claim I am speaking of scientists -- which I was obviously not.  You admit your contempt for views which don't match your own gullibility.  We will in fact see what happens by the time a couple of months have gone by.  Unlike me, you appear unwilling to admit that you will eat crow if you are wrong.

I think you are way overblowing what Pogi has said.   Maybe both of you should just drop it for now and Scott can do a countdown clock of  3 or 6 months? to revisit to see who is most accurate on the statistics.  Reporting posts seems to get threads locked down recently rather than just posters banned, so unless you want the thread locked, seems a good reason to step away since both are making personal comments.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

16 hours ago, Navidad said:

You're not following me. I can see and understand that. I don't think you have any interest in following me. You put words in my mouth (keyboard) that I never used. I never talked about being offended. I said I was uncomfortable. I tried to share our reality. It isn't yours, you don't understand it, you couldn't care less, so let's just let it be done. I spoke of no hymns that are disturbing and inappropriate. I said I was uncomfortable. I never talked about my extensive knowledge and experience. I shared my reality. It isn't yours, you don't believe it, so let's just let it be done. You characterized my  attendance at our ward as being out of curiosity to discover what disturbs me or to declare what I think is inappropriate. You have no idea what you are talking about. How many times have you read and ignored my posts that we have grown spiritually through our time in the ward? Has it ever dawned on you that one does not have to join the LDS church in order to grow spiritually from it? You said I criticized your feelings about Joseph Smith. That is simply untrue. I have never criticized anything about Joseph Smith on this forum or anywhere else. I happen to enjoy his letters from the Liberty Jail and have posted about them on this forum. 

I agree with you that I do not grasp the significance of what you are celebrating . . . . . The First Vision. I never claimed to grasp it. That is why I ask so many questions.  Finally, you want me to show you where to read my "many presentations at LDS gatherings." That sounds sarcastic. Why would I share with you my work when you have distorted and mischaracterized virtually everything I have said the past few days because you are reading my posts through your own lens of 1. A certainty that you have heard it all before I even say anything and 2. A certainty that I am somehow anti-. . . . aren't all non-members of the church? After all you have heard it all. I am sure there is nothing that would interest you in anything I have had to say. After all; you have heard it all before.

However, I fear I would probably validate your skepticism if I didn't provide you anything or any names within the church who you could contact about my work, so if you truly want to read some of my things, or contact someone you trust about my work, message me and I will attach some files or names to you privately.  Is that fair? You clearly don't trust me; I have read your many posts with great interest, but I am beginning not to trust you after your mischaracterization and twisting of my words in my recent posts. I will leave it with you.   

I'm trying to follow you, but you are very difficult to follow when you wander all over the place from hymns and talks to Sunday School to sobs to ministering sisters and hugs and insensitive Mormons and speaking about LDS history at least 10 times a year. When you post something negative about our hymns and sacrament talks and Sunday school classes, why do you not expect someone to respond? Why does it upset you if someone does? When you express discomfort about singing a hymn about Joseph Smith and wonder about the appropriateness of him being the  subject of a talk in a Church of which you are not a member, just what are hoping to do? How does that engender trust? We must have a different understanding of discomfort and inappropriate. IMO, there is no reason for you to criticize what we do in our Church, just as I have no standing to criticize what you do in your church. Perhaps I should attend a local Mennonite or Anabaptist meeting this Sabbath and come back here and complain about how uncomfortable it made me feel. On the other hand, maybe that's none of my business. If you want to understand us better, which is what you say you are seeking here, perhaps you should spend some time thinking about the First Vision and its import to the Church and the whole world in these last days. Unless you understand that better,  you will never understand Latter-day Saints. Attend our church to grow spiritually, and that is a great thing. But then to come here and complain about it makes no sense at all. Yes, I would read anything you have said about us with interest, curiosity, and empathy. I certainly would not distort it or misrepresent it if it written more coherently than what I have seen here. I realize the limitations of internet discussions, but I am often perplexed by what you write and why you write it.

Quote

 I said nothing critical about Joseph Smith. I neither maligned him or complained. I simply shared my discomfort.

Quote

It is interesting you mention "Praise to the Man." I remember my uncomfortable reaction the first time I heard it sung in an LDS worship service. It was the first time (that I remember) ever singing a praise hymn in a church worship service to a man instead of to a member of the Godhead. Isn't that kind of hagiography of a human being what helps leads some non-LDS Christians to think that members of the LDS church "worship" Joseph Smith? Isn't that in the case of Hymn 27 in a worship hymnal in a worship service in a worship building kind of getting close to validating their claim? I must admit I am still shaking a bit from one of yesterday's two sacrament talks in our ward. The entire talk was about Joseph Smith. In my thinking, it walked a very fine line as appropriate in a worship service. Praising a man from a chapel podium during a worship hour just did not seem appropriate. Perhaps I would understand it better if I was a Catholic talking about Saint somebody. It almost sounded that way to me . . . she was extolling the saintliness of Joseph Smith. Do members of the church all agree on how Joseph Smith is to be beatified, especially in a formal worship service? I could certainly understand extolling the virtues of the founder of a faith in a Friday night fireside, but a Sunday morning formal Sacrament service?  Please, I am simply sharing my reaction to yesterday and to singing a praise hymn to a man in church - very much outside my comfort zone. I acknowledge that. 

Quote

 I didn't realize you had interacted with a 71 year old Mennonite/Baptist in the past who moved to a foreign country to live near LDS colonies, who attends the ward faithfully, who speaks about LDS history at least 10 times a year, 

Feel free to come here and post whatever questions or observations you have about our Church. If I respond with questions that offend you, please feel free to ignore me. I have no control over what you can or cannot do.

Edited March 13, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You want to play roulette with babies lives.  I don't.  Pretending is what you are doing, just like the Pres.  You have no sense of restraint and patience.  Just smug assumptions.

That is just not fair Robert!  Everything I have said is supported by every major health/medical organization in America, Europe, and across the globe.   I am not the source.  Quit making it about me!

Where is your source?  I asked you to show me one major health organization anywhere in the world that supports your view that the CDC and WHO are playing Russian roulette by saying babies are not at high risk - that saying so is premature.  Still waiting...  

 

 

 

 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think you are way overblowing what Pogi has said.   Maybe both of you should just drop it for now and Scott can do a countdown clock of  3 or 6 months? to revisit to see who is most accurate on the statistics.  Reporting posts seems to get threads locked down recently rather than just posters banned, so unless you want the thread locked, seems a good reason to step away since both are making personal comments.

You are right.  I won't respond anymore.  

[mfbukowski]

6 hours ago, Navidad said:

You're not following me. I can see and understand that. I don't think you have any interest in following me. You put words in my mouth (keyboard) that I never used. I never talked about being offended. I said I was uncomfortable. I tried to share our reality. It isn't yours, you don't understand it, you couldn't care less, so let's just let it be done. I spoke of no hymns that are disturbing and inappropriate. I said I was uncomfortable. I never talked about my extensive knowledge and experience. I shared my reality. It isn't yours, you don't believe it, so let's just let it be done. You characterized my  attendance at our ward as being out of curiosity to discover what disturbs me or to declare what I think is inappropriate. You have no idea what you are talking about. How many times have you read and ignored my posts that we have grown spiritually through our time in the ward? Has it ever dawned on you that one does not have to join the LDS church in order to grow spiritually from it? You said I criticized your feelings about Joseph Smith. That is simply untrue. I have never criticized anything about Joseph Smith on this forum or anywhere else. I happen to enjoy his letters from the Liberty Jail and have posted about them on this forum. 

I agree with you that I do not grasp the significance of what you are celebrating . . . . . The First Vision. I never claimed to grasp it. That is why I ask so many questions.  Finally, you want me to show you where to read my "many presentations at LDS gatherings." That sounds sarcastic. Why would I share with you my work when you have distorted and mischaracterized virtually everything I have said the past few days because you are reading my posts through your own lens of 1. A certainty that you have heard it all before I even say anything and 2. A certainty that I am somehow anti-. . . . aren't all non-members of the church? After all you have heard it all. I am sure there is nothing that would interest you in anything I have had to say. After all; you have heard it all before.

However, I fear I would probably validate your skepticism if I didn't provide you anything or any names within the church who you could contact about my work, so if you truly want to read some of my things, or contact someone you trust about my work, message me and I will attach some files or names to you privately.  Is that fair? You clearly don't trust me; I have read your many posts with great interest, but I am beginning not to trust you after your mischaracterization and twisting of my words in my recent posts. I will leave it with you.   

For what it is worth, I have had discussions away from this forum with Navidad, and know his actual name, and what he says about his accomplishments are true.

We disagree on many points,  but he is a well published historian and author 

Edited March 13, 2020 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

On 3/11/2020 at 4:10 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

I am glad that you have finally cited some actual sources, pogi, but I do not share your faith in totalitarian systems and their contempt for fact.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

For what it is worth, I have had discussions away from this forum with Navidad, and know his actual name, and what he says about his accomplishments are true.

We disagree on many points,  but he is a well published historian and author 

Thank you. I am not disputing that at all. I’m absolutely sure Navidad is a talented, warm, wonderful person, and an accomplished scholar, too. I would happily read his work. I just don’t understand the frequent complaints he posts here about a church of which he is not a member and the subsequent injured reactions when he is challenged on them. 

Edited March 13, 2020 by Bernard Gui

[Ahab]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank you. I am not disputing that at all. I’m absolutely sure Navidad is a talented, warm, wonderful person, and an accomplished scholar, too. I would happily read his work. I just don’t understand the frequent complaints he posts here about a church of which he is not a member and the subsequent injured reactions when he is challenged on them. 

Maybe you would understand if you had ever been a member of a Church where all you had to do was attend their services to be considered a member of that Church.  It was like that for me in a church called the "Church of Christ", and my level of activity didn't make any difference.with regard to whether or not I was a member of that church.  So imagine from his perspective, how he goes to one of our ward buildings, while he knows he is not "technically" a member of it but still that is the church he has chosen to attend with and worship as we/they do, singing hymns and saying prayers and taking the emblems of the sacrament just as he would in any  other church he attended, while "feeling" like a member, at least a little bit, and yet feeling ostracized because he is not accepted as a member of that church.  And when we tell him that he needs to be baptized to become a member of our church his response is that he has already been baptized and does not feel that he needs to be baptized again.  And when we try to explain our reasoning to him he simply does not accept it and does not agree with us.  And yet he still wants to attend our church buildings and feel like he is a member because for some reason he likes us and would rather not go to another church building, or maybe he doesn't have another local option.

Are you starting to understand now, maybe a little bit?  It doesn't make sense from our point of view, at least not totally, but it's what is going on, basically.  People generally complain about what they do not like, and I think what he doesn't like is not feeling like he is a part of us when he attends our Church services, so he complains about that and wants us to be the ones who make the changes he thinks are necessary so that he would feel more like one of us.