Buckeye Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 7 hours ago, Chum said: Callings taught me a simple principle. It's this. While success by my predecessor are mine to live up to - I need to own their mistakes. The reasons are: 1) While we serve, other people experience our service. Those experiences shape their expectations. When a calling passes to me, so does all of that. 2) I have more power to fix what is mine. If my predecessor fell short (which we all do), I can quietly adopt their mistakes as my own. This give me more power to improve on them. I also found this principle isn't limited to callings. This house we're renting has had some difficult tenants. Dozens of patched holes bear testimony to just how difficult. One neighbor shared how the earlier violence brought a fair amount of misery to the surrounding homeowners. Now those homeowners have some apprehension about renters in general - which I find reasonable. I believe that allowing that history to extend onto myself helps me validate my neighbors' experiences - and that helps them trust me. On moving in, I met the neighbors and asked them to please let us know if we were ever being a challenge. This weekend, I leveraged some of our new trust by getting their permission to replace some of their dilapidated fencing (son gets repairable rejects for 10%). One neighbor was home and came out to help us and later hauled away scrap (nice!). With us being more approachable, I think neighbors feel like they have more control (which they do) and that reduces everyone's apprehension. Lastly, I want to note that establishing good relations with neighbors doesn't come naturally. Our last 3 homes had awful neighbors. The best of that terrible lot was on the HOA board and endlessly cited us (and others), often falsely. I get that it can be hard to trust. I take a similar approach. I disagree with those who say we should not try to remedy mistakes our predecessors made or even to apologize for them. If we truly love our predecessors we will join in their repentance by proxy where possible. Doing temple work is one way to bring salvation. For me - one who comes from confederate ancestors- another is working to remove the statues, flags, and other lingering symbols of my ancestors racism. I believe they have repented in the spirit world, but due to death cannot directly remove the stains of their sins that persist in this world. It falls to me and other descendants to help blot out those sins. Edited January 11, 2022 by Buckeye 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Never met an HOA I liked. I Won't touch a property that has an HOA, no matter how nice they seem. Me neither. Nor a time share. Edited January 11, 2022 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 18 hours ago, Chum said: Callings taught me a simple principle. It's this. While success by my predecessor are mine to live up to - I need to own their mistakes. The reasons are: 1) While we serve, other people experience our service. Those experiences shape their expectations. When a calling passes to me, so does all of that. 2) I have more power to fix what is mine. If my predecessor fell short (which we all do), I can quietly adopt their mistakes as my own. This give me more power to improve on them. I also found this principle isn't limited to callings. This house we're renting has had some difficult tenants. Dozens of patched holes bear testimony to just how difficult. One neighbor shared how the earlier violence brought a fair amount of misery to the surrounding homeowners. Now those homeowners have some apprehension about renters in general - which I find reasonable. I believe that allowing that history to extend onto myself helps me validate my neighbors' experiences - and that helps them trust me. On moving in, I met the neighbors and asked them to please let us know if we were ever being a challenge. This weekend, I leveraged some of our new trust by getting their permission to replace some of their dilapidated fencing (son gets repairable rejects for 10%). One neighbor was home and came out to help us and later hauled away scrap (nice!). With us being more approachable, I think neighbors feel like they have more control (which they do) and that reduces everyone's apprehension. Lastly, I want to note that establishing good relations with neighbors doesn't come naturally. Our last 3 homes had awful neighbors. The best of that terrible lot was on the HOA board and endlessly cited us (and others), often falsely. I get that it can be hard to trust. Nah. Can’t go along with this. Seems too much like institutional/collective blame or guilt by proxy, which is a concept I detest. Edited January 11, 2022 by Scott Lloyd
mfbukowski Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Nor a time share. Oh man- that is even worse!! 🥵 1
The Nehor Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Me neither. Nor a time share. There are situations where a time share arrangement for some things make sense and I have seen them work well but if you have to sell them like the current stereotypical approach you should run. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: There are situations where a time share arrangement for some things make sense and I have seen them work well … The notion of a contractual obligation to pre-pay your hotel bill for the rest of your life whether or not you stay in the hotel — and encumbering your heirs with the obligation when you die — makes no sense regardless of how it’s served up. Edited January 11, 2022 by Scott Lloyd
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Nah. Can’t go along with this. Seems too much like institutional/collective blame or guilt by proxy, which is a concept I detest. It is a difficult concept to grasp, I get it
Chum Posted January 11, 2022 Author Posted January 11, 2022 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Nah. Can’t go along with this. Seems too much like institutional/collective blame or guilt by proxy, which is a concept I detest. If it doesn't work for you, that's reason enough. It seems silly to rope other things into and dismiss it on those grounds.
Chum Posted January 11, 2022 Author Posted January 11, 2022 1 hour ago, Fether said: It is a difficult concept to grasp, I get it I suspect it can be better phrased. This is the first time I've tried to lay it out.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 2 hours ago, Fether said: It is a difficult concept to grasp, I get it I think I grasp it just fine. I just don’t agree with it. 2
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think I grasp it just fine. I just don’t agree with it. Based on your complaints, it seems pretty clear to me you don’t grasp it 1
bluebell Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I think I grasp it just fine. I just don’t agree with it. You don't agree that if you are called to a leadership position in the church for example, that you have a duty to repair any harm that was done by previous leaders? (Just wanting to make sure I understand your position).
Scott Lloyd Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, bluebell said: You don't agree that if you are called to a leadership position in the church for example, that you have a duty to repair any harm that was done by previous leaders? (Just wanting to make sure I understand your position). To repair an injury, possibly. To assume personal or institutional blame or culpability for it? No. It’s the same philosophy that precludes me from holding the Church institutionally responsible for the misdeeds of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Edited January 11, 2022 by Scott Lloyd
Fether Posted January 11, 2022 Posted January 11, 2022 16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: To repair an injury, possibly. To assume personal or institutional blame or culpability for it? No. It’s the same philosophy that precludes me from holding the Church institutionally responsible for the misdeeds of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Can you please point to where we suggest we “assume personal or institutional blame or culpability”?
Popular Post bluebell Posted January 11, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 11, 2022 22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: To repair an injury, possibly. To assume personal or institutional blame or culpability for it? No. It’s the same philosophy that precludes me from holding the Church institutionally responsible for the misdeeds of the perpetrators of the Mountain Meadows Massacre. Chum is saying that pragmatically, it doesn't matter who is to blame. What matters is who can fix it. If you can fix it then you have a responsibility to do so, even if you weren't the one who broke it. That is what he means by owning deeds we didn't do. 6
Chum Posted January 11, 2022 Author Posted January 11, 2022 (edited) 9 minutes ago, bluebell said: Chum is saying that pragmatically, it doesn't matter who is to blame. What matters is who can fix it. If you can fix it then you have a responsibility to do so, even if you weren't the one who broke it. That is what he means by owning deeds we didn't do. I like this synopsis. edit: I'd like to swap 'responsibility' for something else, but I don't know what. Responsibility feels kind of obligatory and I'm going for more of a Because We Can vibe. If someone could use some balm, that feels like a Gospel opportunity. It seems a waste to not seize it. Edited January 11, 2022 by Chum 2
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 23 hours ago, smac97 said: Okay. Okay. Okay. I guess I'm hung up on semantics. "Owning deeds we didn't do" and "need to own {a predecessor's} mistakes" does not seem to refer to blame or culpability, but rather just an attempt to fix something I did not break, but that nevertheless needs fixing. Is that about right? Thanks, -Smac We were just talking about real estate-- we know what "owning deeds" means in that context.... The ambiguity here is really bothersome. What culpability would one have for things you "owned"- whatever that means- your point is right on the money. The context just doesn't fit! Yet poetically we can accept it as coloquial speech, perhaps a little shy of being very clear, as you point out, yet presumably ok in today's culture. Oh and fyi just for you, I wanted to tell you that in our testimony meeting Sunday, someone spoke about getting "hit by a 2x4" to describe the strength of his spiritual experience. I just KNEW you would just Love that little coloquialism from the West Coast. At least the experience wasn't "gnarly, dude!" That will be next year! Edited January 12, 2022 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) 6 hours ago, Chum said: I like this synopsis. edit: I'd like to swap 'responsibility' for something else, but I don't know what. Responsibility feels kind of obligatory and I'm going for more of a Because We Can vibe. If someone could use some balm, that feels like a Gospel opportunity. It seems a waste to not seize it. Cool vibe, dude, I just hope that no one drops the balm. But I grok it like totally! But what if somebody is trippin'- that is their own problem- how much should you own what they did to themselves? Suppose a paramedic is driving along and a serious accident happens 1/4 of a mile ahead....that is the kind of thing you are talking about, right?? What is his moral obligation to stop and render "balm"? I am just such a groovy cat! Edited January 12, 2022 by mfbukowski
Chum Posted January 12, 2022 Author Posted January 12, 2022 3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Cool vibe, dude, I just hope that no one drops the balm. But I grok it like totally! Suppose a paramedic is driving along and a serious accident happens 1/4 of a mile ahead....that is the kind of thing you are talking about, right?? What is his moral obligation to stop and render "balm"? I'll leave obligations to the control junkies. Wisdom is my spirit guide. Not sure if wisdom is interested in the gig but whatever. 4
The Nehor Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 11 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: The notion of a contractual obligation to pre-pay your hotel bill for the rest of your life whether or not you stay in the hotel — and encumbering your heirs with the obligation when you die — makes no sense regardless of how it’s served up. Hence my proviso for “some things” which I don’t think includes a hotel room. My family has a time share in something we use for our vacation every year. We like it. We can get out of it. It won’t be inherited unless someone voluntarily takes it. I hate having to call it a “time share” though because people’s minds jump to the time share sales of condos or hotel rooms. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 1 minute ago, Chum said: I'll leave obligations to the control junkies. Wisdom is my spirit guide. Not sure if wisdom is interested in the gig but whatever. I kinda goofed on you, I didn't think you'd come back so fast, and I edited my post a bit there on you. Sorry! But yeah, I get what you're saying. You have to follow your heart, that's number 1, and take the consequences for better or worse. THAT is what life is about! 2
Ipod Touch Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Me neither. Nor a time share. This is like saying: "I hate overpriced pizza. And also, I'm against the clubbing of baby seals." Sure, both are bad. But one of these things is surely not like the other.
mfbukowski Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 41 minutes ago, Ipod Touch said: This is like saying: "I hate overpriced pizza. And also, I'm against the clubbing of baby seals." Sure, both are bad. But one of these things is surely not like the other. Oh my. Bite on this one and take the fall. The hook goes in but cannot be removed without major surgery. You surely shall not die, but be as the gods, but in this case, lose your agency, and be caught for the rest of your life--- not in the property, but chained to this thread discussing semantics forever. 😱 I will agree to disagree on this one. I like freedom. And orange houses if I want one.
smac97 Posted January 12, 2022 Posted January 12, 2022 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: The ambiguity here is really bothersome. What culpability would one have for things you "owned"- whatever that means- your point is right on the money. The context just doesn't fit! Yet poetically we can accept it as coloquial speech, perhaps a little shy of being very clear, as you point out, yet presumably ok in today's culture. If I became the bishop of my ward, and if I found out that the bishop had done something to alienate a member of the ward from the ward or the Church, I would feel responsible for doing whatever I could to heal the breach and achieve reconciliation or something close to it. I would not, however, feel morally or ethically or legally or in any other way culpable for the prior bishop's errors. That heads us toward collective guilt, and hence collective blame. We've seen how sideways things can go from there. Thanks, -Smac 3
Chum Posted January 12, 2022 Author Posted January 12, 2022 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: I would not, however, feel morally or ethically or legally or in any other way culpable for the prior bishop's errors. Well, okay I guess. Not sure why you want to introduce all these things into the thread. It's not a good container for it. 2
Recommended Posts