104 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Monday, May 20, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
I think this may have been based on Chinese people’s remarks after the earthquake. On one of the news shows, I saw a Chinese woman wailing over the loss of her child- she said “I am too old to have children now, and I just lost the only child I had. Life is not worth living now…” |
China’s one child policy makes sense on the density of the population and were I to have influence there, I wouldn’t change that policy. It isn’t the Chinese that need to be bringing up more children into this world. They have done that fairly well, frankly. That all said, I’m in agreement with Dan Ellsworth that for many of these parents, the loss of their only child must be horrifying because for many of them, they don’t have anything else. That doesn’t mean that the pains parents of multiple children feel is in any way diminished when they lose one of their children. I know I love my daughter (and at this point she is our only child), but I would be mourning for a long time if I were to lose her. |
Perhaps the sentiment expressed in the articles is better understood if grief and hope are considered separately. Grief may be equally as deep and long for the loss of an only child as for the loss of one of multiple children (I can only guess). But one’s life need not be defined by grief alone. Hope also plays a role, and can be independent of grief. It seems to me that having surviving children would provide hope that would allow one to carry on in a way that having no surviving children would not. |
Devyn, you are right. Someone would mourn all their life for the loss of one child no matter how many other children they may have. For the Chinese, there are other issues at work. Look at it from a Chinese point of view. Ancestor worship is/was their religion. Culturally multiple children (especially boys) are necessary to please the ancestors. No boys, the family line does not continue. Consequently there are multiple angry ancestors to deal in the next life; not to mention the shame of it all in this life when in your old age you not have any one to care for you. Multiple children are a buffer for calamities such as an earthquake. I have a dear Chinese friend who’s parents happened to be visiting in Chengdu when the earthquakes hit. Her parents are OK, but have reported, that for many of these villages, the school building with all of the village’s school age children inside was the only building that was utterly destroyed. Such a a painful, sorrowful thing. Thread jack alert!!! For the children in the orphanage only a small minority will find adoptive families. I have been in one of those prisons for children and it was not a pretty sight. Last year at this time we visited the orphanage. The building from the street was attractive, but inside we found that the living conditions were dismal. The orphanage lacked heat, air-conditioning, seasonable clothes, enough food, toys, and attention. Forever seared into my mind will be the images of babies strapped into little brown chairs. Their diapers were open and the chairs had little potties built-in to catch their poop. Clouds of big flies crawled on their faces and flew around their heads, scabies covered their little faces, and their expressions were blank. The director was discussing with one of the nannies there about a baby that was dying and if they took the long drive into the hospital whether they would make it or not. Hordes of older feral children running around hitting one another for entertainment. I could blame the people who worked there day after day. There were not enough resources or staff for so many handicapped children. Yes thank the Lord my child is now safe, but so many others will not be so fortunate. Also consider the forgotten victims of this “policy”. The poor birth mothers who were forced to abort their children, abandon them, or allow them to be killed. Such a burden of sorrow to be carried with them their entire life. No, this is a bad policy. They have not done well at all. |
I have to agree with JA Benson. The China one child policy is one of the most shameful and sinful government policies in the world. Do not get me started on aborting female fetuses due to this policy because everybody in China wants a boy. Shame Shame |
“Zero population is the answer, my friends…” |
I’d like to think the Lord has a little more say in where Spirits go than Dan’s assessment of “China has done enough.” |
You’re talking about two different kinds of mourning. One is for the personality of the child you’ve known; the other is for the loss of all posterity and your stake in the future. Parents who can imagine the loss of the individual personality of a child know that each child is loved and mourned totally apart from the love of the next child. Mothers who grieve after a miscarriage, or women who mourn periodically because they can’t have children, may be in a better position to understand the grief caused by the loss of the only child under a one-child policy. |
A woman I’m very close to still hasn’t recovered 100% emotionally from a miscarriage she suffered, despite having other children. My mother still hasn’t recovered 100% emotionally — and never will, until she dies — from the loss of my brother. |
JA Benson, Okay, hold on a second. Upon more reflection (because I really haven’t given it that much of thought, especially the severe consequences, and only considered the overall size and demographics of the country of China), I actually don’t back that policy. Let the Chinese have as many children as they want. As to how they will all be fed, well, we’ll come to that problem when it comes. The Indians are beating them and in a smaller geographic area. So why not?I guess my initial support of the program was merely because I understood the reasoning behind it. |
Ardis very nicely put. Your eloquence is unsurpassed. Dan #10 I knew that you would come to your senses :) Sorry about the cussing and all… As to reducing the population, there are a lot of people over there. At times it seemed like wall-to-wall humanity. China does have a lot of land, but at this time only some of it is livable. I think that if the government and the population would deal with the gross environmental issues it would make their resources go further and thus there would be room for all. The Chinese people are wonderful and dear. I would that there were more of them. |
After reading the article in question I’ve come to the conclusion that it is just as shallow if not more so than the headlines it criticizes. It doesn’t analyze the situation in any way, simply dismisses the headlines as prejudiced and then engages in some astounding leaps of logic. I don’t think anybody is claiming that the death of a child be he/she and only child or one of several is easy to get over. But the policy that China has combined with certain aspects of its culture certainly combine to make this a newsworthy aspect of the story. JA Benson has mentioned some of the issues. There might be others as time passes. Imagine areas with a high density of childless older people. This will have an impact on society in those areas that has yet to be understood. To dismiss the uniqueness of this situation as a case of insensitivity to others that have lost children is simplistic and ignores very real issues. |
Dan and Dan E – Not sure I completely agree but it seems you have cleared that up. LL – Now I like your depiction of grief versus hope. That is something I can relate to and makes sense from the perspective you lay out. JABenson – I tend to agree with your threadjack but glad you resolved that – always helps to put in a “hell”. I agree that from the Chinese perspective there are other elements at play but to suggest their grief is different from anyone losing a child does not make sense. I like LL’s view of it. Ardis – I like your perspective – a different twist on LLs, but valid and something I can grasp. |
My husband has worked extensively researching family life in the Renaissance. He has countered assumptions about parents in the Renaissance barely grieving when they lost a child, since deaths were so common. He has scores of journal entries from the time where the writers beg God to heal their grief, and go into great detail about the unremitting weight of the loss. As for China–I think I’ve told this before somewhere. My parents lived there for five years. During one of their stays, a friend of theirs gave birth and was then sterilized. The baby died not long after birth–but the mother was not told of the death for four days. However, the “one child” law is not universal in China. There are penalties for additional children, as I understand it, but I don’t have enough background to comment beyond that. |
Queuno – It has been 25 years since my brother drowned and my mom is still not the same nor has she recovered from that. ARJ – I think that the loss of these people is certainly great and something I cannot comprehend, but to suggest that others don’t feel that way when they have more than one child is silly. I tend to think that the one child policy is much more troublesome when you have 150 men for every 100 women – now that is problematic and will cause some real social issues. India is in the same boat. |
I’ve often wished, as our own baby boomers get older, that we doled out their social security based on the number of children they had. |
Devyn – It is only in recent years that my mother has abandoned (we hope/we believe) her idea to relocate my brother’s remains to Utah when she moves there in her old age. It’s tough. |
Devyn, I agree that some of the headlines are insensitive. I’m not trying to downplay the grief of anyone who has lost a child. That said, to suggest that the situation in China isn’t atypical due to the one-child policy and doesn’t deserve to be examined as such is what is silly. The point is not to insult others who have experienced loss. Could the headlines have been more sensitive? Of course! Does that mean that there isn’t a story here worth telling? Clearly no. And, yes, I agree that there are other very trouble aspects of this policy which are really the results of sexism that the policy has made more apparent than they might otherwise be. |
ohhhh devyn, why did you have to post on this? my brain is swimming with ideas warning: thread jack alert because i’m way too lazy to do a post on this… but it goes something like this: china and it’s 1 child policy+idolization of male children+largest population in the world+ growing economy= one testosterone dominated society just itching to become the next superpower. and guess what? they can do it because there’s lots of young men to go out and die for the cause. oh deveyn, why did you have to post on this> |
JA Benson, No worries. I still have lots to learn about the world around me, and this particular policy and its effects just wasn’t something I looked at closely. |
Margaret – thanks for the comment – I did not know that about your husbands research – is there a link to his work? I would be interested in reading more. Queuno – My mother had my brother’s remains moved when my father died to be next to him. It opened up a lot of old wounds… ARJ – fair enough. The interesting thing to me is that parts of the US likely have as many children on average as Chinese do. In the NE, it seems that 2 kids is average and 3 is a big family. Any bigger than that and you are a freak. |
mfranti – ok one threadjack is ok. I tend to agree with your supposition. If you are the Chinese government and dealing with the differential in males vs females, you almost have to start a war to keep the young men busy. It will prove you are a super power and put the male/female ratio closer to even. Who else to have a war with but the US? possibly India? Who knows, you can certainly feel the balance of power shifting over the last few years. |
Devyn – Your point is well-taken about starting a war. And consider as well that realistically, they have an almost inexhaustible supply of infantry… |
Devyn, On that threadjack… China would never start a war with another superpower. Superpowers never fight each other. Never ever. Superpowers have to maintain their economies. To fight another superpower head to head means both economies (which are most likely tied closely together) will crumble, and, well, there goes your country. No, superpowers fight little powers. That’s how they make themselves feel all super and all. |
Of course – there is a large ocean between us. India is better for that type of war. You could invade – of course there are some daunting mountains for you to cross. |
They wouldn’t need to attack the US to cause major disruption. India, on the other hand… Most major tech companies would suddenly be impacted. |
If China were to “cull” their extra men, they would expend those efforts on Taiwan. They’ve got enough of American money and interests to hold us back from attacking them, and we’ll sacrifice Taiwan for our own self interest. |
Devyn S., The concern is that India also has a demographic imbalance making future war by or between those countries more likely. There is a professor at BYU who has published on the topic and appeared on NPR a while back to discuss the issue. Unfortunately I can’t remember her name. Bask to the topic at hand. A disaster in the NE US would not have the same sort of social impact and significance in this regard because small family size isn’t universal there and hasn’t been enforced by the government. |
Warmongering aside, it’s the anecdotes of mothers and fathers losing their only children that really get to me — and why I get annoyed with many in the younger generation in the US who believe that 1 child or 2 is optimal. Maybe we can’t support 7 or 8 children anymore. I’m not making any argument about obligations to have some certain number. I just think LDS members who have the resources should take advantage of the blessings of children. There’s very little we can buy ourselves that comes close. I have a friend with a vast house, and one child. He and his wife work so much to make their mortgage payments. They are generally unhappy. Were it me, I think I could survive on a house two-thirds the size and have more kids. |
then i must annoy the hell out of you. |
Devyn S. |
I have to say that I’m sorry I missed so much very silly war-mongering talk. I won’t argue it either. It’s silly. What a tragedy, indeed. First of all, let me echo JA Benson #4- the social hell that the one child policy has caused in China is enough to want to smack somebody. And now that these people have lost their only children because even more careless governance- it is beyond reason. The one child policy is atrocity. It has resulted in orphanages filled to the brim with little girls. And when they’re not adopted they end up how most orphans end up: dead, in prostitution, dead, etc. And that’s the kids who make it. Most are simply left in dumpsters or parks not to be found. We’re talking thousands. Women are kidnapped and raped so that people can get a boy. It is an unbelievably inhuman policy. The only thing positive to come of it is that amazing American families constantly open their homes to the girls through adoption. nd that doesn’t even come close to balancing the costs. And the pattern of China’s neglect of anyone not Urbanized is now entirely evident. Huge government project displace millions and destroy so much heritage and now improperly constructed schools in forgotten far reaches of the country are heavily responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent, helpless children- the only thing people have. As a parent of one child (soon to have a second), I can’t imagine the inconsolable sorrow these people face. My girl is barely turning 1 and it seems like there have been innumerable moments of joy sharing life with her. Pride, love, compassion, laughter. If she were my only child, I would feel more grief. If I have other children, I will find comfort from such isolated grief. That in no way diminishes the grief-it only increases the comfort. So I think the media is right, though they maybe don’t tell the whole story (to be expected). |
then i must annoy the hell out of you. But I still love you, in that gospel sense. (I have no quibble with those who can’t more than 1 or 2. Geez. Let’s not start that again. But the idea of “You know, we probably can’t afford that beach house if we have to pay for a third kid to go to college.” You know what I mean, without my having to stipulate every condition. This is M*, not a lawyer blog like T&S.) |
CNN and JA Benson are right. The one-child policy has made things worse. The Chinese response to the US media, chastising them, is pure self-serving political Bovine-Stuff. China’s one child policy is evil, has resulted in female infanticide, and has resulted in an excess of 20 million males of military age (ie, at least 20 million more men than women). Millions of those “excess males” will serve as canon fodder in upcoming wars. If you count those under 18, I don’t know how much higher the imbalance goes. Maybe there is a very small upside to this tragedy. When China opens up to the gospel, the demographics may result in more men joining the church in China, which might make up (at least to a small degree) for the fact that elsewhere more women join the church. Almost every other country has an excess of female LDS (ie, more LDS women than LDS men). Millions of LDS single women from all over the world may flock to BYU-Beijing for their MRS degree. But seriously, the military aspects of an excess of 20 million males of military age has been well discussed in online political circles. It is seriously frightening. It makes one wonder if the planners of the one-child policy had the military aspect in mind. |
It’s amazing to me (ExMo) how pervasive Black-White, Right-Wrong thinking is in LDS culture… I would never condone abortion…but in practical application, the LDS church (and most followers, IMHO) talk one thing, do another… |
Queuno wrote: (I have no quibble with those who can’t more than 1 or 2. Geez. Let’s not start that again. But the idea of “You know, we probably can’t afford that beach house if we have to pay for a third kid to go to college.†You know what I mean, without my having to stipulate every condition. This is M*, not a lawyer blog like T&S.) Ya, that’s what one of my brothers thought about us. Selfish. No children. Going to hell. Truth is, just because I didn’t tell him, and don’t tell you all the details of my private reproductive life, doesn’t mean I’m a selfish b*tch who wants a beach house instead of children. Or who deserves to languish in poverty in her old age because she didn’t have enough children to satisfy your idea of what’s right an proper. For compassion to be effective and genuine, sometimes you have to give up delusions of omnipotence. As for the subject of this post: I have one child. If she were to die, there would be no hope. So, ‘insensitive headlines’ or not, I understand completely what both the papers mean and the Chinese people suffer. Be glad and grateful and humble you would have more to love. I and they would/do not. |
sorry, that should be ‘delusions of omniscience’ and my coding sucks . . . . oh well . . . |
My parents lost their first baby the day he was born and my mother grieved all her life. She’d make a cake for his birthday every year, although she didn’t always tell us why. |
Dan – why waste time on Taiwan – that would be a quick war given the disparities in size? Go after a formidable foe like India. #28 ARJ – while the average family size might be larger in the NE, it is likely not much larger. I know so many people who are only children or their total extended family is something like 5 people. I think the consequences would be dire here as well. Queuno & Mfranti – while Queuno may be right that more LDS people could have more children, there are plenty of reasons why couples don’t but that is for another day. Thanks Margaret – I will check out your husbands blog |
Bookslinger – While the “one child policy” may be wrong or misguided, think about the perspective of the government. You are in charge of a huge sprawling population that is mostly dirt poor. The only way you see out of it is to limit growth of the population. If families are smaller, then both couples will work. It also frees people to get better educations and therefore, could lift the entire country. While I think the policy is wrong, I certainly can understand why they would have put it in place at one point. It does beg the question – how much of China’s success is due to the “one child policy”? Guy – and your point is? How does the Church talk one way and act another on abortion? I am pro-choice personally, but think the Church is fairly consistent on its stand. |
anon for this – thanks for your comment and perspective. I think too often we judge others (I am guilty) for their choices, when sometimes those choices are not often of their choosing… Katie – thanks – my experience as well. We used to have a cake and sing happy birthday to my brother for many years after his death… |
DeyvnS: the difference I refer to is not apparent regardng abortion (at least on the surface); it’s more of a general statement, given with slight historical background. If you want an extreme example, contact me at manderst@yahoo.com. |
Guy – thanks I will take you up on that. Do you feel the Church is inconsistent in its message on having children? I think that the message is have as many as you can. Birth control is ok too. That does not seem like an inconsistent message although I am sure that Bruce R is turning over in his grave over it. |
queuno! ” This is M*” Really???? |
Guy, you’re not making much sense. It’s one thing to assert faults in the church with supporting arguments, but you only leave such things to the imagination. My questions to you: 2)Focus on outward appearances? Perfection? What is your interpretation of doctrine leading to these conclusions? Again,I think you’ve confused a personal experience with Church dogma. There may be an abundance of judgmental people in the Church, but if you see that as a fatal flaw, you are guilty of requiring perfection- being judgmental yourself. The Christian thing to do is to look at yourself for reasons for your being offended. In my experience, that is the only thing that can help you get over feeling judged- you realize that it is only you that is doing the judging. Not only that, you may realize that you do not do enough to create the Church experience you desire. |
Remember: I (as a few others) sometimes speak in Generalities, sometimes in specifics; it’s often confusing, I admit. the Generality is that mormonism puts people between a rock and a hard place. Some GAs sound empathetic, some don’t, even seem to accentuate the angst with polemic statements. The application of the gospel Has changed, and is changing; how radical the change is depends on perspective. |
n: me: I think the (almost out of control) LDS focus on white shirts, earrings-tattoos, etc. leads them to this. the stuff I’m speaking doesn’t apply as much about abortion, at least on the surface; There are actually TWO LDS gospels, one superficial, the other is subterranean, known & understood quite differently by different people, witness GBH’s remarks on Larry King re Eternal Progression – anthropomorphic nature of God & man. need more? |
“Follow the (living) prophetâ€- That’s about as good advice as you can get. Cop-out? No. I think you would agree that if more people did so instead of following Bruce R., Brigham, or others, you would not have this bone to pick, which is legitimate. I would not say that following the living prophet is burying one’s head in the sand. I think if you were to refer to the words of the living prophet on any subject in the Church it could cause quite a ruckus and eliminate some of the whitewash you speak of. I agree with your comments about GAs. I think that is why having a living Prophet is so valuable. This relates entirely to the abortion issue. There aren’t many voices you need to pay attention to in the Church to get the position right. |
I just got a chuckle out of the fact that abbreviating ‘General Authorities’ in the plural gives you GAs. I hope that’s not evil speaking. |
What do u think of my ‘real life’ example? Of course ‘in the scientific sense’ anecdotes don’t ‘prove’ anything… but they can sure smack you upside the head…. Pls don’t ‘humor’ anyone that these things don’t happen/aren’t a Direct outcome of LDS (or other Highly Regimented social system) culture; these type things could be nipped in the bud from leaders….IF they chose to. Previously, members were counseled to Carefully Consider what leaders told them. Now, we’re supposed to march to the same drummer, lock-step. |
Fears that millions of surplus young men will enable China to war against its neighbors can be tempered by remembering that those young men are only sons. And if we want to know which countries China’s military might be turned against, remembering Japan’s targets would be useful. If I lived in Indonesia in a time of tightening oil supplies, I might worry. |
no, it’s more like light-mindedness. |
John Mansfield #51 The “only sons” point is very valid. I have heard this theory put forth and I agree with it. The Chinese have this society’s rights over individual right’s mentality that is very foreign to westerners. Now they have this nation of pampered (some would say spoiled) educated young men who are used to having their way. They are going to assert their rights as an individual. The Individual has rights could lead to democracy. Go Tianamen Square #2!! I don’t worry about the men of China becoming cannon fodder as I do a vast ambitious work force that could very easily over take our economy which is instead fueled by slacker American adults. Guy Noir #5 What is ridiculus about Books Slingers comment? Is the idea that LDS women world wide would not find LDS Chinese men appealing? Or is it the other way around? Cause I get it. The young adults of the church are meeting each other via the internet and are getting together. I have seen an Arizona RM man who met an Italian LDS woman. I have seen LDS Jewish-LDS man meeting a LDS Thai woman. I have heard of a few others. Taking into consideration that I am over the hill (about dating) and out of touch I thinking there must be more. Would I want either of my darling daughters marrying a righteous good LDS Chinese man you betcha! |
#52 The lesser of 2 evils? |
Guy, I say again, you misunderstand personal agency with Church policy. If the Church taught that we ought to berate people with tatoos, you would have a point. No such teaching exists. There is no reason for one member to openly berate and condemn another, except that they are individually out of line with Church teachings themselves. Good enough? “Culture” is a fluid concept. Experience dictates that other wards or other circumstances provide very different Church experiences within the same Church structure. Culture has more to do with the people that surround you and their own personalities than the Structure of the Church. BYU is a private University. Feel no obligation to judge the Church or the University by the other’s actions. The University is not the Church and the Church is not the University, despite what some think. Feel no obligation to judge, in general. |
‘in times past’ LDS leaders discouraged members from marrying cross-race (cross culture?)… I think that someone would marry across the country…even With the resources to maintain 2 households… smacks at family continuity, close family bonds, etc. |
Devyn,
Why, that is a most excellent question any superpower has to ask itself in terms of who they are fighting. Why does ANY superpower take on tiny threats? China will take on Taiwan because it can. The United States will take on Iraq because it can. China will not take on India, because the outcome is highly in doubt. The United States will not take on China because the outcome is highly in doubt. The United States never took on Russia because the outcome would have been awful for everyone involved. China would never have taken on Russia (and vice versa) because the outcome for both would have been in doubt. Our modernized weaponry makes war very very vicious, requiring vastly different strategies than in the past. Furthermore, our economies are far more complex these days than ever before, so any military action taken detrimentally affects the economy. That’s why, for the most part, most wars are fought on the small scale level, and will be for the foreseeable future. China has no need to fight India. They do better through economic ties. China does have a need to fight Taiwan. And I do expect that battle sometime soon. |
Like I said; living up to things LDS puts members in a lot of contradictions…. |
By the way, I have a way to solve the issue of extra men in the world. I give you, the gay bomb. :) |
#56, 58- Follow the living Prophet. I mean it. Your issues are personal and perceptual. Not generally correct and not readily descriptive of anyone else’s point of view. It would be better to say:
|
I’m not LDS, so I have a different view (now). |
queno, This is M* Say it again and I’ll ban you. Go ahead. I dare you. |
Devyn S., I’m surprised that you don’t seem to get the difference between a personal choice to have a small family and a government policy that has forced you to have a small family even if you would have had a large one given the choice. Oh well. |
Guy, Your way of living an LDS life was clearly about tunnel vision. It seems that though you have left the Church you still cling to your tunnel vision. I suppose you want evidence of this tunnel vision so I’ll offer it: you (still) can’t see that others don’t live with as limited of a view as you had when you were Mormon. Your inability to grasp that is made clear each time you participate here. |
ARJ – in my mind there is not a big difference from a government policy that fines you for having multiple kids and an environment where you are socially and financially penalized for having multiple kids. Not really that much different in my mind – of course, I have never lived in China so that is a large caveat. Dan – Taiwan would not be a big problem for China, but I think John M has it closer to the reality which is oil. The next big war is going to be fought over oil… |
mfranti and Dan – the GAs comment was funny. It reminds me of my son’s favorite book – “The Story of Farts”. It talks about the fact that everybody farts – he loves it. |
ARJ (and others): I’m inviting you to give reasons why what I (accurately) described in # 47 happened to my TBM DW. |
Guy – I think that what happened to your wife is not reflective of the Gospel, but reflective of the culture that sometimes persists in the Church. Remember the Church is made up of flawed individuals (all of us). Are there idiots in the Church? yes. Are there idiots outside the Church? yes. I still don’t see how this experience has any relevance to the Prophet? |
Devyn, in my mind there is not a big difference from a government policy that fines you for having multiple kids and an environment where you are socially and financially penalized for having multiple kids. Not really that much different in my mind – of course, I have never lived in China so that is a large caveat. You can’t be serious. |
Guy, Your harping on this one issue is an example of what I’m talking about. Somebody didn’t like your wife’s eye tats and now all Mormons are robots programmed to be judgmental. You’re proving my point. |
Guy, I second #70 and have stated the same and other similar arguments in comments #45, #55, #60. Your judgmental view taken from a one-on-one experience and unjustly applied to all the Church is childish and highly irrational. You are your own stumbling block. That situation sucks, but forgive and forget, man. |
My sister had her eyes done also. She got the idea from her Visiting Teacher. Apparently most of the women in her ward have had this procedure. She lives on the east bench in SL County. I think you encountered a jerk. Jerks are everywhere. LDS does not have a corner on jerks, even though it does seem like we have more than our fair share. I hope that you find peace. Blessings, |
ARJ – not too serious but I don’t think they are that different – there are financial disincentives to having kids. However, there are many other benefits. |
Devyn,
Taiwan would be a very big problem for the Chinese. Millions would die if the Chinese were to succeed in taking the island of Taiwan. Taiwan is quite heavily fortified. As a parallel, how big of a problem is Iraq for the United States? |
nasa (et al): So if I’m reading you correctly… |
#75 Guy Noir, no it is NOT okay for others to be judgmental. Just let it be their problem and not yours. Think water off a duck’s back. Be the duck. |
but isn’t decision making (ex: with whom to let your children associate, invite into your home, etc) the essence of growing, maturing? isn’t ‘being judgmental’ just another term for making everyday decisions, many of which involve others? |
Guy, You think of things in absolutes, as demonstrated by your ranting. Coming on this blog and presuming to tell us all what we think and painting with the excessively broad strokes you use makes me think that you need to find someone to talk to at $250 an hour to work through your issues. At the very least you could use proper punctuation and full sentences. Your behavior here comes off as exactly the sort of inarticulate, venom-spewing, mindless fool that you keep insisting that we are. Have you ever turned your righteous indignation on yourself? That would be a hoot. |
ARJ: |
“On the Other Hand…” To me life is a journey and I want to make the best of it. In the church I was not happy…In my mind I felt like I had to accept everything that came from the church and shun everything else…since then I have pulled a “Dwight-shun-unshun” maneuver and I find much more peace and satisfaction in the uniqueness of everyone’s individuality. What ultimately drove me away from the church was the absolute nature and therefore it was only natural for me to end up at NOM because why would I give up one absolute for another opposite absolute? I like it here and I like the ppl here. I love the diversity…there is more diversity here (as applied to Mormon backgrounds) than I’ve encountered while living in wards in LA, Idaho, Utah, Chicago, and NC. What if it is true? Well…if joy is one of the fruits of the spirit and men and women exist to have joy then to me it is irrelevant whether the church is true or not…Because I am true and I need to be true to myself. |
Guy, you can quote that all you want, but you’ve clearly given up what you perceived as one absolute for another. Again, you keep blaming everyone but yourself. We’ve had this discussion before in the context of lessons you never bothered to teach. Seriously, what do get out of coming here and making a fool of yourself? Isn’t there a DAMU site where you would get adulation for your tired repetitions? |
Guy, the LDS Church never taught me to think in absolutes. Sounds to me like it’s your problem, not the Church’s. |
I guess my point is that living in an absolutest environment makes it difficult to make value judgments. Doesnt the question of WHY occur to all … at least Most LDS? I know they did to me. You may (try to) insult me by saying I don’t have honest/legitimate questions/concerns….but that’s a judgment in itself, isn’t it? |
more: where are DOM’s words about birth control? what about the ‘counsel’ not to have playing cards in your home? have ANY of those been changed because of ‘Revelation’??? |
They never started because of revelation, Guy. |
nasamomdele: my point is that they were Presented as though they were (birth control ltr, I believe, was signed by the whole FP). |
oh yeah; I forgot: equivocation. If ya’ll are denying ‘mainstreaming’(and what it’s done to the gospel presentation), then you’re too far out of touch for anyone with reasonable perspective, I’m afraid. |
If writing here keeps you from harassing your “TBM DW” over her religion, then keep at it. |
SethR: what ISN’T absolute about ‘the only true living church upon the face of the whole earth’? I think that in the rush to promote the restoration, the Basics (what I call the Core Essentials) of Christian Living were out of focus for too long. whether or not they can be brought back remains to be seen. |
Meanwhile, Sadly…. the death toll in China (as of this morning, NPR) has risen to 60,000. How long will it be until some self-righteous _ _ _ says ‘it’s Gods punishment for (x). |
Yeah, I hate it when they do that–especially when it comes from a general level of leadership. Gordon B. Hinckley was really bad about that. You know how he’d always spew fire and brimstone-like condemnation on hurricane victims before sending out the big trucks. |
Guy, #86, 89- Follow the living prophet. Read their words- you’ll find a different story. And if you’ve been around on this blog, there have been a great many discussions on all the topics you’ve brought up and more. What stands out is that LDS ARE irked by many past mistakes of past leaders, even current leaders have spoken out on various things(see current GA commentary on priesthood ban). And not just that, but that the consensus is that the first and most important thing any LDS can do is have a testimony of Jesus Christ, His role, and His teachings. It’s talked about and written all over the place. Read something current- it IS a living Church. We still get things line upon line. There is not one person here who would say any LDS leader is or has been perfect, or any program of the Church, for that matter. It would be silly to suggest otherwise. You argue that LDS think the Church Leadership is always right- we argue that doctrine is right, Church Leadership is not always so- they are right when they are in line with doctrine. You argue that wacky things have been done in the past in the Church that should turn off all LDS to being LDS. We argue that YES, wacky things have been done- the focus on Jesus Christ, the atonement, and the power of God in covenant-making and priesthood has not changed. You argue about a focus on appearances and perfection. Appearances? This is left field. Perfection? You’re damn right. What else should religion do but try and make better people out of us all? The way we go about perfection is a personal journey in the LDS Church and is always accompanied by trips and falls. One of the great things about the restoration of the Church is that 1) there is an order set up- priesthood hierarchy descending from the Prophet and 2) the priesthood is governed strictly by principles of charity and Christ-like attribute. It is used only to serve, not consolidate power. Joseph Smith brought the priesthood- the power of God- and revealed that it was meant for everybody to benefit from through ordinances, revelation, etc. to become kings and priests. Your sentiments dwell on issues of authoritative power- well, we all have a better kind of power in the LDS church. |
“SethR: what ISN’T absolute about ‘the only true living church upon the face of the whole earth’?” Plenty. For instance, what does “true” mean? Again, just because you and a lot of other Mormons have a 13 year-old idea of what religion means, doesn’t mean the rest of us have to. |
13 years? are you suggesting that ‘that much’ of mormonism has changed??? What about people with a reliable memory? I thought the Basics wound NEVER change…. kinda/sorta like bill clinton: |
LDS are prophet-centered; Christ read from the prophets, preached the prophets, spoke through Prophets- know the patterns, Guy. |
Guy, |
An afterthought to the China question: here’s the government’s response. |
Thanks M – that is interesting to read about some of the exceptions to the policy. It sounds like the policy has so many exceptions, it is amazing it has worked so well. |
DS: (I’m afraid that) in the LDS culture/tradition, most discussion doesn’t lead much of anywhere until/unless a GA makes a (relevant) statement. |
Guy, I have found that the safest approach is to assume that I am still a child and still learning, in other words, SEEKING. I try my best to adhere to this notion, trying to learn from others who may have answers I haven’t considered. It is my responsibility to think and ponder on others’ words, and ultimately, to seek the Lord’s guidance. Often He won’t give as much guidance as we would like. At that point we can either declare what we do know as the absolute truth or we can seek from others in the Spirit of meekness. The latter is much safer. We again open the conduits of learning. Let us continue to seek, and seldom tell, and with Mary ponder those things in our hearts. |
Not always, but definitely sometimes. Besides, your statements are regularly so myopic- I paraphrase: LDS are too structured, dictated, etc., implying that they are not anything else. The real Christianity is this:…yada yada. Tell me, Guy, does such a thing make one a hypocrite? |
Guy – I think that Nasamomdele and M both did a nice job of addressing your question. My take is this – sure there are a lot of recommendations that come from the GAs that seem mundane. I think one of the key issues is we are told to pray about it to see if we gain a testimony of what they are asking us to do. I have NOT followed some of their counsel for various reasons at times and do not feel bad about it given the spiritual confirmation I have received. Personally, I see everything as shades of gray… |
not a paraphrase: this has led to a tendency of rank-and-file to lose the skills of determining Right/Wrong on their own; the mantra is “Follow the Prophet”, down to items including earrings-tattoos, white shirts, coca cola, etc. Others (pants on women, swimsuit styles) are socially enforced, which leads people to be focused on the outward appearances….All of these are judgmental instead of ‘live & let live’ which it is my opinion, apply on items below the status of the meat of Christ’s gospel: Love for God & neighbor (where we don’t find much about appearances: contrary are 1st Samuel 16:7, Matthew 23:23. Love for God & neighbor are enough for me to focus on, I (me, singular) lost track of them with all the attention-focus to details. is/are there ANY details of day-to-day life they WON’T specify, detail or mandate? apparently not. (wish I could find) Leaders used to tell members to have sex with garmies ON; now, they say (para) ‘put them back on right after’ sheesh! TOO MUCH INFORMATION! I have yet to read that Christ detailed any such specifics to His followers (but I could be wrong). Top it all off: Divorce is a GIANT hole in lds practice. |
Guy |
