LDS culture problem


Sweety D
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Sweety D said:

 I only mentioned this because someone said I was wrong about so many people being offended and being judged.

What was said was that you are wrong in calling it unrighteous judgment based alone upon the fact that people are offended by it. No one doubts that you have had people tell you they were offended by others judging them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

Wasn't at all clear, at least not to me. When you identify yourself as a bishop, as if that fact lends weight to your opinions, then proceed to "assure" us that Actions X and Y cannot possibly put us at risk of our exaltation...well, I think you should be able to see how that's problematic.

No I don't see that. I think most others understood. I admit some level of reasonable understanding was expected. 

Just now, Vort said:

I am not looking for an argument. I am looking for reasoned discussion. Declaring "truth" by fiat and implying that one's leadership calling makes him somehow fit to make such claims doesn't qualify as reasoned discussion. 

I said quite the opposite. I said "One's position in the church does not change the validity, other than Prophet Seer and Revelator." - "validity" was in reference to the discussion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Sweety D said:

I thought it was clear that this was a tongue n' cheek comment....

....

....Though, I do think it's true "that no one will be left out of the Celestial Kingdom because they had a chocolate bar (caffeine), or drank Coke." .. you are correct, I cannot assure you of this. 

Wait...which is it?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sweety D said:

No I don't see that.

Then we are at an impasse, where you are either unwilling or unable to understand how your actions were wrong.

2 minutes ago, Sweety D said:

I admit some level of reasonable understanding was expected.

I think what you really mean was that you expected that no one would point out the inherent conflict in what you wrote.

  • There is nothing wrong with a Latter-day Saint making the judgment that drinking caffeinated soda pop is wrong.
  • There is nothing wrong with a Latter-day Saint making the judgment that watching an R-rated movie is wrong.
  • There is nothing wrong with a Latter-day Saint expressing the above opinions.
  • There is nothing wrong with a Latter-day Saint mentioning guidance from prophets, apostles, and other leaders to substantiate those opinions.
  • There is indeed something very, very wrong with a man taking issue with any of the above, and then proclaiming his calling as a bishop in order to substantiate his opinions.

If you disagree with any of the bulleted points above, I invite you to explain clearly and in detail why you think it is/they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

Then we are at an impasse, where you are either unwilling or unable to understand how your actions were wrong.

I think what you really mean was that you expected that no one would point out the inherent conflict in what you wrote.

  • There is nothing wrong with a Latter-day Saint making the judgment that drinking caffeinated soda pop is wrong.
  • There is nothing wrong with a Latter-day Saint making the judgment that watching an R-rated movie is wrong.
  • There is nothing wrong with a Latter-day Saint expressing the above opinions.
  • There is nothing wrong with a Latter-day Saint mentioning guidance from prophets, apostles, and other leaders to substantiate those opinions.
  • There is indeed something very, very wrong with a man taking issue with any of the above, and then proclaiming his calling as a bishop in order to substantiate his opinions.

If you disagree with any of the bulleted points above, I invite you to explain clearly and in detail why you think it is/they are wrong.

SMH.

You can say I lost your little debate. Good job you win. To me, it's obvious you want to fight. I think you understand what I have said, you just disagree, which is fine. Not going to argue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, omegaseamaster75 said:

Unreal guys......does anyone really think that God would withhold his eternal blessing for such a small and petty thing such as drinking a coke or eating a piece of chocolate? A reasonable person can deduce that no he will not. 

If God says to you, "Omega, do not say the word 'cheese'," and you respond, "Oh, come on, God, there's nothing wrong with me saying 'cheese'. See? Cheese cheese cheese" -- then guess what? You have disobeyed God and have proven yourself an unfaithful servant.

So, yes, if God tells you, "Don't drink caffeinated soda pop," and you do so anyway, then he will indeed "withhold his eternal blessing for such a small and petty thing."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sweety D said:

How is this confusing? I have my opinion on something. I stated it as opinion, and made a joke about it at the same time. So to answer your question. Both. 

You're adamant with sincerity and also expressing flippant irony.

No...not confusing...at.....all..... <_< (By which I mean, just to be clear, yes, I am confused. Are you sincere or not? Clearly you are. But you're claiming tongue-in-cheek...which rings incredibly false against all the strident sincerity).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Unreal guys......does anyone really think that God would withhold his eternal blessing for such a small and petty thing such as drinking a coke or eating a piece of chocolate? A reasonable person can deduce that no he will not. 

I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Unreal guys......does anyone really think that God would withhold his eternal blessing for such a small and petty thing such as drinking a coke or eating a piece of chocolate? A reasonable person can deduce that no he will not. 

Some people just want to argue for the sake of being right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But back to the topic :)

I never experienced the "Church Culture" everyone complains about. In fact I have encountered far more complaints about culture than the actual culture.

My first day in my mission I went out to eat with a convert family of 10+ years. As soon as the father found out I was from Utah, he started railing in Utah Mormons and was talking about how self righteous they all are and how they are all hypocrites.

In this Ward, almost all of the leadership were members from Utah and were all very good people with some of the happiest families I had met. The ones that complained about them and the "Utah Mormon Culture" problem were all semi-active, spent Sunday school gossiping about people who were self righteous, rarely went to help the missionaries, and didn't do their home teaching.

This pattern continued in all my areas with varying degrees. All those that complained seemed to try and raise their social/religious standard by dragging others down rather than raising themselves to higher standards. When one would do something righteous, the "non-Utah Mormons" would find some way to deface it and make it look prideful.

The most righteous, happy, and impactful people in my life were those that showed unconditional love to all and never worried about culture or how someone lived or didn't live the gospel. These were also the people that took correction and chastisement without retaliation. 

The "Saints" that consistently complain about other saints are some of the most distasteful I have ever known.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Unreal guys......does anyone really think that God would withhold his eternal blessing for such a small and petty thing such as drinking a coke or eating a piece of chocolate? A reasonable person can deduce that no he will not. 

I don't think this is what @Vort is saying (especially after using chocolate as an example).  I think Vort is saying, if the Lord made no caffeine an actual commandment, we would need to fall in line or risk losing eternal salvation.

Remember, back in the 1800s tobacco and booze was seen as caffeine is today!  Some general authorities, even, did not fully abstain in the 19th century from these things.  In the early 20th century, the Lord said, "no more!" and made it a commandment to abstain.  Starting from this point, you could risk your eternal salvation by drinking booze or whatever.  If it happened to tobacco, it could happen to caffeine at some point!

So, even though I am a proud coke-drinking Mormon, if the Lord ever changes things up so that caffeine can keep you out of the temple and abstaining from the same is a commandment, I will semi-gladly toss my diet cokes out.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sweety D said:

Some people just want to argue for the sake of being right. 

I can't help but notice that people who say things like this are always on the other side of the argument believing just as adamantly that they are right. But, of course, they aren't just arguing to be right...because...you know....reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Unreal guys......does anyone really think that God would withhold his eternal blessing for such a small and petty thing such as drinking a coke or eating a piece of chocolate? A reasonable person can deduce that no he will not. 

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

If God says to you, "Omega, do not say the word 'cheese'," and you respond, "Oh, come on, God, there's nothing wrong with me saying 'cheese'. See? Cheese cheese cheese" -- then guess what? You have disobeyed God and have proven yourself an unfaithful servant.

So, yes, if God tells you, "Don't drink caffeinated soda pop," and you do so anyway, then he will indeed "withhold his eternal blessing for such a small and petty thing."

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure if you are intentionally missing the point or not.

 

I'm pretty sure that God once said something to the effect of 'Don't eat that'. Then when the people ate it He said something like, 'Well, now you're going to die, and by the way you can't be in my presence anymore'.  I suppose I could be getting my history wrong though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said:

I don't think this is what @Vort is saying (especially after using chocolate as an example).  I think Vort is saying, if the Lord made no caffeine an actual commandment, we would need to fall in line or risk losing eternal salvation.

Remember, back in the 1800s tobacco and booze was seen as caffeine is today!  Some general authorities, even, did not fully abstain in the 19th century from these things.  In the early 20th century, the Lord said, "no more!" and made it a commandment to abstain.  Starting from this point, you could risk your eternal salvation by drinking booze or whatever.

So, even though I am a proud coke-drinking Mormon, if the Lord ever changes things up so that caffeine can keep you out of the temple and abstaining from the same is a commandment, I will semi-gladly toss my diet cokes out.

Agree 100%. But the Lord did not say caffeine will keep you out of the Temple. When that day comes, I'll join you in tossing out the Coke (though I don't drink any soda). Nor did He say toss the cheese as someone else said. When he does, I'll toss out my cheese. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

If God says to you, "Omega, do not say the word 'cheese'," and you respond, "Oh, come on, God, there's nothing wrong with me saying 'cheese'. See? Cheese cheese cheese" -- then guess what? You have disobeyed God and have proven yourself an unfaithful servant.

So, yes, if God tells you, "Don't drink caffeinated soda pop," and you do so anyway, then he will indeed "withhold his eternal blessing for such a small and petty thing."

That reminds me of a story I'm sure most of us have heard.

When Joseph Smith finally got his hands for the first time on the gold plates at the depository, he set them down next to him so he could look inside to see if there was anything else. 

He looked over and was startled to find the plates gone. He looks back in the depository and sees the plates. He didn't get the plates that time and had to wait another year before attempting again, you know why? "We commanded you not to let go of the plates."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I can't help but notice that people who say things like this are always on the other side of the argument believing just as adamantly that they are right. But, of course, they aren't just arguing to be right...because...you know....reasons.

I just think we have turned this into "who can debate the best" not, a productive Gospel discussion. Disagreements are fine but let's be reasonable. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sweety D said:

You can say I lost your little debate.

Okay. You lost my little debate.

But more importantly, you condemned people for daring to hold and express opinions you didn't like. You then refused to retract your unjustified condemnation when their fault was clearly pointed out to you by many people. Instead, you invoked your calling as a source of personal experience to substantiate your condemnation.

All of which is darn ironic, considering you were griping about how judgmental the Saints were.

Godspeed, Bishop. Best of luck effectively preaching humility, repentance, and acceptance of personal responsibility for one's words and actions to those over whom you have stewardship. May you find those things in yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Okay. You lost my little debate.

But more importantly, you condemned people for daring to hold and express opinions you didn't like. You then refused to retract your unjustified condemnation when their fault was clearly pointed out to you by many people. Instead, you invoked your calling as a source of personal experience to substantiate your condemnation.

All of which is darn ironic, considering you were griping about how judgmental the Saints were.

Godspeed, Bishop. Best of luck effectively preaching humility, repentance, and acceptance of personal responsibility for one's words and actions to those over whom you have stewardship. May you find those things in yourself.

Thank you. Keep on keeping on. Congratulations on the win.

Edited by Sweety D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if anyone has added this wonderful quote to the discussion since i haven't read the entire thread, but i wanted to make sure it was included.

"The Lord loves you; that is why He has given you commandments and the words of prophets to guide you on your journey through life. Some of the most important guidelines for your life are found in the pamphlet For the Strength of Youth. The physical appearance of this little paper booklet would qualify it for the scriptural description “Out of small things proceedeth that which is great” (D&C 64:33). The pamphlet itself has little material value, perhaps just a few cents. But the doctrine and principles it presents are an invaluable treasure. You young men who are already 18 or older, if you don’t have this booklet anymore, make sure to get one, keep it, and use it. This little booklet is a gem for any age group. It contains standards which are sacred symbols representing our membership in the Church." --Dieter F. Uchtdorf, April 2006 General Conference (bold added by me)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sweety D said:

Thank you. Keep on keeping on. Congratulations on the win.

Thanks. Condolences on your inability (or, more likely, unwillingness) to see the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These remarks by Joseph Fielding Smith probably have no bearing on people leaving because other people teach not to view R-rated movies, but here it is:

Quote

“I attended a stake conference a number of years ago and spoke on the Word of Wisdom. … When I went to the rear of the building [at the close of the conference,] nearly everybody had left, but a man held out his hand and said:

“‘Brother Smith, that is the first discourse on the Word of Wisdom that I ever liked.’

“I said: ‘Haven’t you heard other discourses on the Word of Wisdom?’

“He said: ‘Yes, but this is the first one that I ever enjoyed.’

“I said: ‘How is that?’

“He said: ‘Well, you see, I am keeping the Word of Wisdom now.’”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Sweety D said:

Some people just want to argue for the sake of being right. 

To Vort's point, there have been points in church history where God has told a single man to do a certain thing that he has not asked others.

ie

1) Brigham Young asked Epraim to shave when no one else was.

" At a dance in Salt Lake City, Brother Brigham saw Ephraim and told him to go home and shave his face. Ephraim, like most of the men of his day, had worn a beard virtually his entire adult life. His beard extended almost down to his waist. Somewhat puzzled by this strange request, he left the social and rode home, where he shaved off his beard" (https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/brent-l-top_still-takes-faith/)

 

2) Samson wasn't to shave at all! The institute manual says this about Samson's super human strength:

"Samson’s superhuman strength did not reside in his hair but in his confidence in God and in the Nazarite oath, of which the hair was the outward symbol. Delilah’s treachery and the shaving of Samson’s hair signified the final betrayal of his vows. Thus, he became a miserable, broken man with no power left."

 

the point is not current law and the natural blessings of such, but the key to understand what Vort is saying is that faith and obedience is what determines our stance with God. Those that won't show faith or obedience will not enter the celestial kingdom.

Another thing to keep in mind is that eating chocolate and drinking caffeine may not in a general sense keep us from the Celestial Kingdom, but refusing to put it aside for God will. It's the disobedience that is the problem.

I get concerned when people say things like "If God outlawed *insert activity or substance*, I and many others would leave." In-so stating, they effectually leaving God already, placing whatever it is they love before God and essentially making that thing their god.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic
  • pam locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share