DiscussMormonism.com

But Daniel asserts his friends think DCP is the nicest person they’ve ever met.

Dan would be the first to baptize Frenchy if the darn rules just allowed it. He loves everyone, he has a pure heart made of gold and this forum nitpicks him to try and make him look bad.

All Tangata tried to do was keep Dr. Peterson honest.

My mother died on 11 April 2005. I think it was on our first visit to the cemetery after my mother’s passing that my wife and I, driving up the rather steep hill toward my parents’ graves, noticed an elderly man who was toiling painfully up the road. We pulled over and asked him whether he could use a ride. Yes, he said, he could. He was walking to put flowers on the grave of his wife, whose loss, it soon became clear, he still felt with acute pain.

We invited him to ride with us and asked him to tell us where to turn. To our astonishment, his wife’s grave turned out to be about four or five feet from my parents’ burial place. It was separated from their graves by his own tombstone, with his name, “Frenchy M. Morrell,” and his birthdate inscribed on it but, obviously, no death date. We talked for a while, and he spoke movingly about how much he missed his wife, Wanda, who had died in 1985. He was horribly lonely, and he longed to be with her again.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson?s=Frenchy

Plenty of time to introduce the Plan of Happiness, plenty of time to ask about family. Frenchy was what missionaries and mission presidents would class as a golden opportunity. They would see it as God placing them in front of someone open to hearing about the Gospel. Peterson fumbled the ball, badly.

In the discussion on Frenchy's situation, a poster offered this:

The brethren ask us to vote is enough for me to believe that it is the right thing to do. Beyond that, families could not exist if every person took time to calculate if a particular action yielded more benefits than costs. No ward or stake could operate, no community organization, to national society could function under those conditions. Not counting can be the right thing to do.

So, no one person, entity, or group can possibly use cost benefit analysis as a tool? Instead, blind obedience is touted as the 'right thing to do.' Why? Because the person who tells them what to do told them so. What a way to abdicate responsibility for one's life.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 24, 2024 8:40 am

In the discussion on Frenchy's situation, a poster offered this:

The brethren ask us to vote is enough for me to believe that it is the right thing to do. Beyond that, families could not exist if every person took time to calculate if a particular action yielded more benefits than costs. No ward or stake could operate, no community organization, to national society could function under those conditions. Not counting can be the right thing to do.

So, no one person, entity, or group can possibly use cost benefit analysis as a tool? Instead, blind obedience is touted as the 'right thing to do.' Why? Because the person who tells them what to do told them so. What a way to abdicate responsibility for one's life.

I'll bet the Brethren don’t want the members to think about “counting!” Not with approaching a $trillion sat there doing nothing except gaining compound interest. You can bet Ensign Peak Associates operate with extreme cost/benefit analysis. Whoever wrote that quote is an example of why affinity fraud is so rife within Mormon communities. Whoever that poster is, they are foolish if they act in real life the way they have advocated to act in that post.

And Wards operate to budgets. They absolutely do cost/benefit analysis when deciding how to expend Church funds. If they didn’t, they’d be being negligent with Church funds and the auditor would hold them to account.

On the other hand, is that commenter actually chastising Peterson for not just acting? Telling him off for weighing up the church rules (which he didn’t do at the time but is trying to retrofit that reasoning to excuse his gospel inertia during the conversation with Frenchy) rather than just acting to ensure Frenchy’s eternal happiness?

Sometimes trying to support lds theology over all else really ties the arguments up in knots.

Here's a certain mopologist explaining the nature of relationships after death:

...here are some examples of Christian (and other) marriage vows that I’ve easily located online. They demonstrate that the default assumption among Christian denominations is that marital (and, therefore, family) relationships terminate at death, if not before. I have italicized phrases that make that assumption clear...

But, here is same mopologist disagreeing with himself about the nature of relationships after death:

...I’ve read hundreds upon hundreds of accounts of near-death experiences in which those who have entered into the next life have been met upon their arrival by previously deceased spouses and other family members. So I have absolutely no doubt that Frenchy was greeted by Wanda, and that they were reunited after their long separation. Which is wonderfully good news...

And the second quote is based on witnesses who have had NDEs! What's a witness-believer, not to mention an NDE enthusiast, to do?????

Marcus wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 24, 2024 3:57 pm

Sometimes trying to support lds theology over all else really ties the arguments up in knots.

Here's a certain mopologist explaining the nature of relationships after death:

...here are some examples of Christian (and other) marriage vows that I’ve easily located online. They demonstrate that the default assumption among Christian denominations is that marital (and, therefore, family) relationships terminate at death, if not before. I have italicized phrases that make that assumption clear...

But, here is same mopologist disagreeing with himself about the nature of relationships after death:

...I’ve read hundreds upon hundreds of accounts of near-death experiences in which those who have entered into the next life have been met upon their arrival by previously deceased spouses and other family members. So I have absolutely no doubt that Frenchy was greeted by Wanda, and that they were reunited after their long separation. Which is wonderfully good news...

And the second quote is based on witnesses who have had NDEs! What's a witness-believer, not to mention an NDE enthusiast, to do?????

An excellent catch.

His whole argument about the “termination” of relationships after death is warped, and citing the vows doesn’t really help his case. “Until death do us part” is referring to physical, mortal life. DCP’s interpretation, frankly, is bizarre. I doubt that most people who believe in an afterlife also think that their marriage will suddenly be “annulled” in the next life.

Doctor Scratch wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 24, 2024 11:30 pm

“Until death do us part” is referring to physical, mortal life.

This was removed from the LDS vows when it was decided that the wife could be bound to the husband's casket on the longship sailing down the fjord into the Great Salt Lake. Elders would then shoot flaming arrows setting the ship ablaze. This helped restore former traditions in all things.

I Have Questions wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 24, 2024 7:18 am

My mother died on 11 April 2005. I think it was on our first visit to the cemetery after my mother’s passing that my wife and I, driving up the rather steep hill toward my parents’ graves, noticed an elderly man who was toiling painfully up the road. We pulled over and asked him whether he could use a ride. Yes, he said, he could. He was walking to put flowers on the grave of his wife, whose loss, it soon became clear, he still felt with acute pain.

We invited him to ride with us and asked him to tell us where to turn. To our astonishment, his wife’s grave turned out to be about four or five feet from my parents’ burial place. It was separated from their graves by his own tombstone, with his name, “Frenchy M. Morrell,” and his birthdate inscribed on it but, obviously, no death date. We talked for a while, and he spoke movingly about how much he missed his wife, Wanda, who had died in 1985. He was horribly lonely, and he longed to be with her again.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson?s=Frenchy

Plenty of time to introduce the Plan of Happiness, plenty of time to ask about family. Frenchy was what missionaries and mission presidents would class as a golden opportunity. They would see it as God placing them in front of someone open to hearing about the Gospel. Peterson fumbled the ball, badly.

Frenchy shouldn't feel too bad, DCP has a long history of not doing missionary work: https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 4&t=155980

Even on his mission it appears DCP didn't do much, if any missionary work: https://www.discussmormonism.com/viewto ... 4&t=155938