DiscussMormonism.com

I was wondering there for a while, Shades, if your humor was going to go unnoticed.

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2026 8:06 pm

Apparently the streaker managed to find the one dress code violation the church hasn't written a handbook paragraph/section for and thought he could get away with it without consequences. The Correlation Department will need to draft a new subsection titled ‘Unexpected Situations We Really Wish We Didn’t Have to Address.’

Regards,
MG

They already have had situations they didn't expect to address.....primarily the Mark Hofmann event, Ensign Peak, Wade Christofferson, Joseph Bishop, multiple first vision accounts, peep stones, polyandry, child brides, chastity interviews with children, lying apostles, Paul H Dunn, Mick Jagger, City Creek Mall, and how did the committee do here?

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 08, 2026 11:19 pm

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2026 8:06 pm

Apparently the streaker managed to find the one dress code violation the church hasn't written a handbook paragraph/section for and thought he could get away with it without consequences. The Correlation Department will need to draft a new subsection titled ‘Unexpected Situations We Really Wish We Didn’t Have to Address.’

Regards,
MG

They already have had situations they didn't expect to address.....primarily the Mark Hofmann event, Ensign Peak, Wade Christofferson, Joseph Bishop, multiple first vision accounts, peep stones, polyandry, child brides, chastity interviews with children, lying apostles, Paul H Dunn, Mick Jagger, City Creek Mall, and how did the committee do here?

Honestly, given the list you just rattled off, I’m amazed they haven’t installed a permanent “We Did Not See This Coming” hotline. One thing we might be able to agree on...by historical standards, a streaker is practically/more or less a day off and/or walk in the park. These other things you have mentioned in your personal 'concern list' have created a bit more of a stir over the years, granted.

What would life be without something to stir the pot?

Regards,
MG

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2026 12:27 am

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 08, 2026 11:19 pm

They already have had situations they didn't expect to address.....primarily the Mark Hofmann event, Ensign Peak, Wade Christofferson, Joseph Bishop, multiple first vision accounts, peep stones, polyandry, child brides, chastity interviews with children, lying apostles, Paul H Dunn, Mick Jagger, City Creek Mall, and how did the committee do here?

Honestly, given the list you just rattled off, I’m amazed they haven’t installed a permanent “We Did Not See This Coming” hotline. One thing we might be able to agree on...by historical standards, a streaker is practically/more or less a day off and/or walk in the park. These other things you have mentioned in your personal 'concern list' have created a bit more of a stir over the years, granted.

What would life be without something to stir the pot?

Regards,
MG

There is a difference between stirring the pot and noticing that the bumbling stumbling efforts of warped descendants of horrific men are reactive rather than proactive. But for whatever reason they find themselves sitting on filthy spoils of tainted Widow's mite. And the rooster strutting by many members is good carma for the masterfully placed plan by John Bennet to create the Plymouth Rock breed.

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2026 1:29 am

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2026 12:27 am

Honestly, given the list you just rattled off, I’m amazed they haven’t installed a permanent “We Did Not See This Coming” hotline. One thing we might be able to agree on...by historical standards, a streaker is practically/more or less a day off and/or walk in the park. These other things you have mentioned in your personal 'concern list' have created a bit more of a stir over the years, granted.

What would life be without something to stir the pot?

Regards,
MG

There is a difference between stirring the pot and noticing that the bumbling stumbling efforts of warped descendants of horrific men are reactive rather than proactive. But for whatever reason they find themselves sitting on filthy spoils of tainted Widow's mite. And the rooster strutting by many members is good carma for the masterfully placed plan by John Bennet to create the Plymouth Rock breed.

I won't argue that there are not inherited blind spots...some of that coming from leaders who, fairly or unfairly, have the weight of the past on their shoulders. They are essentially protecting the 'brand' even when it means whitewashing is seen as the only viable course. I don't, however, share your view that they are "warped descendants of horrific men". Flawed, yes. The legacy of early leadership and some of the decisions that were made still shapes the actions/path that the institution moves today.

Truthfully, I don't know that you and I are that far apart in recognizing/knowing the problems...we just end up framing them differently.

For example, with John C. Bennett it seems as though you are drawing a straight line from him to our day. The fact is, there has been a messy mix of history along the way. Bureaucracy and people trying to manage a church that has grown bit by bit into an international church. I would expect that there are going to be growing pains along the way as our history...and its imperfect people doing the best they could with what they had...meets humans doing the exact same thing in the twenty-first century.

Evolution takes its course. It's not a straight path. God can write straight using crooked lines in order to accomplish His purposes.

My opinion anyway.

Regards,
MG

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2026 1:46 am

Rivendale wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2026 1:29 am

There is a difference between stirring the pot and noticing that the bumbling stumbling efforts of warped descendants of horrific men are reactive rather than proactive. But for whatever reason they find themselves sitting on filthy spoils of tainted Widow's mite. And the rooster strutting by many members is good carma for the masterfully placed plan by John Bennet to create the Plymouth Rock breed.

I won't argue that there are not inherited blind spots...some of that coming from leaders who, fairly or unfairly, have the weight of the past on their shoulders. They are essentially protecting the 'brand' even when it means whitewashing is seen as the only viable course ...

Wow. Protecting the 'brand' by whitewashing? That's not the only viable course for people with honesty and integrity. Add in that we're talking about religious leaders and it becomes an even more ludicrous proposition. Mentalgymnastics aside, it's hard to see this as a realistic assessment.

canpakes wrote: ↑

Wed Apr 08, 2026 2:36 am

Dr. Shades wrote: ↑

Tue Apr 07, 2026 3:16 pm

Anyway, rumor has it he had just recently taken out his endowments.

Well, he should put them back; nobody wants to see that.

Marcus wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2026 3:51 am

MG 2.0 wrote: ↑

Thu Apr 09, 2026 1:46 am

I won't argue that there are not inherited blind spots...some of that coming from leaders who, fairly or unfairly, have the weight of the past on their shoulders. They are essentially protecting the 'brand' even when it means whitewashing is seen as the only viable course ...

Wow. Protecting the 'brand' by whitewashing? That's not the only viable course for people with honesty and integrity. Add in that we're talking about religious leaders and it becomes an even more ludicrous proposition. Mentalgymnastics aside, it's hard to see this as a realistic assessment.

No. But what a great insight into MG’s standards for acceptable behaviour.

huckleberry has mentioned "rigidity". I have noticed over time a rigidity on the part of some critics to think outside the box of their own making. By doing so they are unable to look at the world as it is and has been and how the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His church fit into a larger whole.

Their world new is compacted into a pigeon hole 'peep view' of reality. Unable to reason things out for themselves. Essentially adhering to the old canard, "All the thinking has been done."

In my opinion, that 'dams up'...damns up...their ability to see clearly and move towards greater light and knowledge.

But, as I've said many times, to each his or her own. I'm sure that many of the critics would say the same of those that adhere to and believe in the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Such is life.

The recent focus on "arm of the flesh" I have found representative of this modus operandi of those that have very restrictive perspectives and the inability and/or unwillingness to open their eyes to new horizons.

Living in the past. Locked into a fundamentalism that ends up taking them to a place of fatalism.

I think that is sad and unfortunate. But we each have our agency to choose the path we follow. It is God given.

Regards,
MG

Limited perspective? Peep hole? I would like anyone to show me an answer to any question about the nature of reality that has been answered by science, however inadequaty where religion has answered it more efficiently.

Their world new is compacted into a pigeon hole 'peep view' of reality. Unable to reason things out for themselves. Essentially adhering to the old canard, "All the thinking has been done."