Page 5 of 16

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:07 am
by _grindael
sock puppet wrote:
grindael wrote:The first R rated movie I saw was when I was invited to see "48 Hours" by a girl at BYU. I told her I didn't go to R rated movies. She asked me why and I really didn't have a good answer except it wasn't recommended by Church Authorities. She laughed. I went. She was so damn cute. I guess the road to hell is paved with pretty faces.

Were others in the Provo theater laughing? The reason I ask, a roommate and I went to Peter Sellers' Being There. Not only were we the only two in a packed theatre laughing, but we were asked several times by those around us and even an usher to please be quiet. I couldn't contain myself when Shirley Maclaine got herself off with Chauncey the Gardner in the room not knowing what she was doing. I understand why the Provo audience may in their prudishness have been silent during that scene, but not the rest of the movie?


Sorry SP,

She laughed about my recalcitrance at R Movies because of GA counsel. I can't recall who laughed during the movie.

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:04 am
by _mentalgymnast
malkie wrote:
If you like, I'd be happy if we had the opportunity to get together for a little while - the boards are OK, but I think I'd like to meet some people in real life.

What did you teach?


I'll PM you.

Regards,
MG

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:18 am
by _canpakes
mentalgymnast wrote:
All we really need to know, or have faith in, is that we existed before birth, there is purpose to life, and that we live after we die.



Hey, MG -

There are numerous (if not most) other cultures and religious belief systems that have arrived at the same conclusion. So I must ask the following:

1. Why would you need to remain in the LDS Church if this set of beliefs/understandings is not unique to it?

2. Why does the LDS Church require all of the other unnecessary baggage and busy work if all that we need to know is what you are stating above?

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:30 am
by _mentalgymnast
sock puppet wrote:So am I to take from this that a teacher's perspective does not expect people to be taken at face value...


In some respects, yes. If I had taken my students at face value. Looks, background, mental characteristics, charisma, family circumstances, etc., I would have found myself limited in my perceptions. I found that students were to be valued for the sake of being human and having capabilities native to that being the case. Labels can cause pain.

sock puppet wrote:...for what they say, as Darth J has pointed out that the LDS seems to ignore and be dismissive of what LDS leaders tell them.


Because they are human. They make choices. They are not some kind of robotic carbon copy machine going about without thinking about what floats THEIR boat.

sock puppet wrote:I must confess, as a lawyer, I too find it strange that people should not be expected to mean what they say.


They may at the time. Or there is always the possibility that they are not fully disclosing everything. To fully expect that people WOULD be expected to either respond with full disclosure and/or mean what they say in past/present/future tense is a bit unreasonable. People change. Circumstances change. Knowledge changes. Etc.

sock puppet wrote:I guess it's my tunnel vision from being trained to think like a lawyer.


Maybe.

sock puppet wrote:Please do inform us of the broader, more enlightened perspectives from the field of education that frees one to do whatever...


Did I say that?

sock puppet wrote:...while giving lip service to following the injunctives from specific people, like LDS leaders and what they teach about R rated movies.


Mentors, leaders, and those in authority are hearkened to. Decisions are made by independent and rational beings. Free to choose. Free to exercise judgment. Just like students, not everyone learns in the same way. A class can have rules and expectations for behavior and even be coerced into following rules. But when all is said and done, students are going to make their own choices out of the classroom outside the jurisdiction of the teacher. And you know what? In most cases they're going to be just fine. Same thing with R rated movies. The teacher (leader) can make the class (church) rules and encourage obedient behavior, but at the end of the day the students (members) live outside of the classroom and are going to make their own decisions. And you know what? In most cases they're going to be just fine.

I just finished watching "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" trilogy and don't feel any worse for the wear. Great story.

Joseph Smith said that it is through the proving of contraries that truth is made manifest. I agree with that. But one person's "truth" may vary from another's. And I think God is totally cool with that. Look around in the world man. Isn't it obvious? :smile:

Regards,
MG

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 5:53 am
by _cafe crema
Bazooka wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:All we really need to know, or have faith in, is that we existed before birth, there is purpose to life, and that we live after we die.


Why do we need to know, or have faith in those things?

In what material ways is a Mormon better off for believing they have the answers to those questions, than an atheist or agnostic who isn't even asking those questions in the first place?

In what specific way (or ways) was the world improved by the lest session of General Conference?
How, specifically are the members of the Church blessed by having a divinely appointed living Prophet, over and above how Catholics are blessed by having a Pope?


I was hoping for an answer to these questions.

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 6:03 am
by _Amore
mentalgymnast wrote:.Joseph Smith said that it is through the proving of contraries that truth is made manifest. I agree with that. But one person's "truth" may vary from another's. And I think God is totally cool with that. Look around in the world man. Isn't it obvious? :smile: .

Interesting - never heard that.
I think there's truth in paradox and "opposition in all things."
Truth is in perspective - generally the more perspectives the more truthful.
And I believe this universe is conscious-based...I AM THAT I AM and that the essence of spirituality is empathy.

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 8:42 am
by _ludwigm
mentalgymnast wrote:
sock puppet wrote:...for what they say, as Darth J has pointed out that the LDS seems to ignore and be dismissive of what LDS leaders tell them.
Because they are human. They make choices. They are not some kind of robotic carbon copy machine going about without thinking about what floats THEIR boat.
...
Regards,
MG
Here, You are true.


Unfortunately, LDS leaders have a different worldview.
They have built a world for robots, zombies, carbon copies (one size fits all...).

They are saying:
- wear what we defined (no sleeveless things, no pants--- using instead long skirts, formless tops, --- garments for ballet dancers I think)
- watch/read what we said to watch/read (no X, no R, book index worse than the catholics used to use)
- think the way we said it (fill the list for yourself!)

My other thoughts are to the thread in general, not specific to You.

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 9:03 am
by _souldier
Tobin wrote:Anything is possible, though I'd like to see God take you out with an orbital strike.

F*** yeah! Sodom and Gomorrah status all for going to lunch with Tobin! Suck it apostates!

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:10 am
by _ludwigm
This X rated, R rated thing was weird for me from the this minute on I have learned it.

In Hungary, the movies were rated only by age.
The 14 and the 18 limits were always existed. From late 50's up to now.

The 14 is the year when one finishes the primary. (years from 6 to 14)
It is, unambiguously, a real boundary.
This time, the youngster - or the parents - can decide if he/she begin to work or want learn more.

The 18 is the year when one finishes the middle school. (years from 14 to 18) --- by the way you may call it high school, it doesn't make that better ---
From this time the youngster becomes - or can become - independent.
Gets the private ID card, drive license, other papers (sometimes at 16, the law is changing continuously).
He/she (stupid language with gender everywhere) can/may:
- marry
- leave the parents
- vote (I said VOTE)
- do what he/she (again) wants --- and doesn't make the parents accountable for the deeds

Sometimes there are limits for the age 6, 12, 13, 14. Today, I don't care, You know why.

No X, no R.

Years ago, in movies the ushers checked the ID. There were cheap movies (I know them all when I was 14..17) which didn't.
Additionally, a marriage certification has trumped the 18 limit. Ones who are matured enough to marry --- even by special license --- are matured enough to wach a +18 movie. At that time, the boundary was the same as here on this site; genitals, female nipples. I remember The Wages of Fear as one of +18 rated.

No X, no R. I repeat.

Should a Hungarian - or whatever nationality - LDS member check the opinion of XRCO?
The X-Rated Critics Organization (XRCO) is a group of writers and editors from the American adult entertainment industry
Should a Hungarian - or whatever nationality - LDS member check the opinion of MPAA?
The Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) film-rating system is used in the United States and its territories to rate a film's suitability for certain audiences


Have a prophet, seer and revelator - or anybody - the right to say TO AN ADULT OLDER THAN 18 what to watch and what to not?

Ok, it is an American church. All prophets (OK, the Uchtdorf guy made an exception, coming from a 40000 membership - 0.047% - country ***) are Americans.
Should the whole world use American measurements? Especially movie rating systems?
Should every member know the meaning of the P, PG, R, NC letters...

Or should every member know English and [Reformed] Egyptian?
The May 15, 1843 issue of the official Mormon periodical Times and Seasons contains an article, purportedly written by Joseph Smith, Jr., deriving the etymology of the name "Mormon" from English "more" + Egyptian mon, "good", and extolling the meaning as follows:
It has been stated that this word [Mormon] was derived from the Greek word mormo. This is not the case. There was no Greek or Latin upon the plates from which I, through the grace of God, translated the Book of Mormon. Let the language of that book speak for itself. On the 523d page, of the fourth edition, it reads: And now behold we have written this record according to our knowledge in the characters which are called among us the Reformed Egyptian ... none other people knoweth our language; therefore [God] hath prepared means for the interpretation thereof." ... [The] Bible in its widest sense, means good; for the Savior says according to the gospel of John, "I am the good shepherd;" and it will not be beyond the common use of terms, to say that good is among the most important in use, and though known by various names in different languages, still its meaning is the same, and is ever in opposition to bad. We say from the Saxon, good; the Dane, god; the Goth, goda; the German, gut; the Dutch, goed; the Latin, bonus; the Greek, kalos; the Hebrew, tob; and the Egyptian, mon. Hence, with the addition of more, or the contraction, mor, we have the word MOR-MON; which means, literally, more good.




-------------------------------
***
Something totally different...
In Mexico there are 1300000 members - 1.1%
In Brazil, there are 1200000 members - 0.6%
In Philippines, there are 700000 members - 0.7%
In Chile there are 600000 members - 3.3%
In Peru there are 500000 members - 1.7%
In UK, there are 190000 members - 0.3%

Then, where are theMexican, Brazilian, Philippine, Chilean, Peruvian, UK's prophets?
Bigger membership and bigger percent than Germany...
Or the Tongan one? (60000 members, 58% !!!)

Re: The Irrelevance of LDS Leaders, Part 2

Posted: Mon Jan 26, 2015 7:00 pm
by _mentalgymnast
canpakes wrote:
mentalgymnast wrote:
All we really need to know, or have faith in, is that we existed before birth, there is purpose to life, and that we live after we die.



Hey, MG -

There are numerous (if not most) other cultures and religious belief systems that have arrived at the same conclusion. So I must ask the following:

1. Why would you need to remain in the LDS Church if this set of beliefs/understandings is not unique to it?

2. Why does the LDS Church require all of the other unnecessary baggage and busy work if all that we need to know is what you are stating above?


Most of those folks that have lived on the planet will not be "Mormons" in the herafter. OTOH, many folks among the world's peoples have beliefs in regards to life before and life after death. The LDS version of the hereafter allows for almost all of the world's inhabitants to return to God's glory and an eternal place of happiness. So in answer to your question, no, a person wouldn't have to stay in or join the LDS Church to be either happy or have a place of happiness in the hereafter. If one desires to live with God the Father and participate/live in the Celestial Glory/City of God, so to speak, they would have to receive and be loyal/obedient to the covenants made within the Holy Temples. That, best as I can tell, is the doctrine of the church.

The basis of God belief, in my opinion, is that we look at life with purpose...eternal ramifications included. That is the foundation of receiving the glories of God's Celestial and Terrestrial kingdoms.

Regards,
MG