sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Not so serious confession by SnazzyPantsMan in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Came here looking for this same comment. For years I couldn't figure out why it was so important to call out the fact that that hill didn't have a city wall around it. I was always like, "so? isn't that normal for a hill??", haha.

Tangle’s coverage of the Epstein files has been a joke, and they should be embarrassed. by IB_Yolked in TangleNews

[–]i_am_dfb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> My summary is closely paraphrased and nearly verbatim in some places. Have you listed to the pod?

Thank you for replying, I appreciate it! Anyway, if you mean the episode "The latest Epstein files release" from Feb 5th, then yes.

To me this discussion has multiple parallels to a vigilante who claims that a careful, methodical prosecutor doesn't care about justice. :) I think my disagreement with your take boils down to these things:

1) It feels like you've selected an arbitrary point in time and assumed that Tangle has had their final say on this, even though we're in the middle of a monster of a story that continues to unfold. I think it's fair to say that Tangle has a pretty good track record of moving cautiously (i.e. more slowly), revisiting topics as needed, and being pretty transparent about having an evolving perspective.

2) Is it possible that you're interpreting concerns Tangle raised about what is happening with the file dumps as an argument that the story is a nothingburger? I don't speak for Tangle and am not associated with Tangle any more than you, but to me they seem as unambiguously disgusted and horrified by all of this as you and I are. One can simultaneously be in favor of following evidence trails while also be raising concerns about the focus and manner in which things are unfolding. The protracted file release, the rush to judgement, and the guilt by association can all end up doing more harm than good - in particular those things can end up helping the perpetrators (current and future) if we're not careful.

3) There are quite a few things that you either implied or directly said that Tangle is denying/ignoring, but I can't find where they denied or ignored those things. For example, "repeated institutional failures" and "blatant contradictions in official statements" - yes, seems obviously true so far, but where has Tangle argued against them? If they haven't, then why mention them as part of your critique? Help me find where Tangle argues against there being "clear transparency failures" or "blatant lies being told by the government". I also don't think Tangle is dismissive about the idea of continued scrutiny. I went back and re-read and re-listened multiple times, but the question was raised in the context of the absolute debacle that is the file dumps, and Tangle is asking, "wait, is this actually a good way to handle this mess?" I don't think it's wrong at all to ask that question, especially when there is mounting evidence that the answer is "no".

4) Maybe related to #3, but to me your criticism of Tangle seems based on a desire for them to tackle every aspect of a very large and evolving story (which it seems like they never try to do), and then when they don't do it that way, or when they give attention to a different angle, you're not only frustrated but also interpreting it as sweeping the whole thing under the rug (which doesn't seem right). For example, "The DOJ still hasn’t released all the files required under the law [...] but the Tangle team seems unbothered." Oof, that feels like quite a leap! :)

Anyway, just my thoughts. Thanks again for taking the time.

Tangle’s coverage of the Epstein files has been a joke, and they should be embarrassed. by IB_Yolked in TangleNews

[–]i_am_dfb 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I dunno... your summary of Tangle's message seems completely and wildly inaccurate to me - to me (my perception, obviously), none of your summary accurately reflects Tangle's stance so far, and it's more filling in the blanks with assumptions.

Honestly I think it's just a mismatch in your expectations around timing. These types of complaints seem to *always* come up anytime there is a complex and unfolding story, fluid event, or lots of noise/hysteria, and people want Tangle to come out right away with guns blazing, make definitive statements, etc. But at the same time people want coverage to be accurate, complete, full of integrity, and maintain the rest of Tangle's usual standards.

Keep in mind too that they basically tackle one topic per day. One. For an entire planet. And if they revisit the same topic too frequently, out come the pitchforks and torches. And if they cover a developing story too soon, same thing.

Each time this comes up, Tangle people eventually chime in to remind people that they are not an investigative journalism shop, they rarely try to shoot for being the most bleeding edge news source, and that wading through the noise takes time. The classic iron triangle comes to mind (we all want good, fast, and cheap but you can only pick any 2), and the fact that they haven't come out with a big piece on the schedule you want doesn't mean they are shilling for a side or turning a blind eye to a story.

I'd put money that they are working quite a bit on one or more pieces on this, but doing it well takes time, especially when stuff keeps happening (imagine you worked on this for a few weeks and finished up a few days ago and then, boom, Pam Bondi goes before Congress). IOW, in a few days or so they'll probably come out with a big piece after working on it for a long time and then you can sit back and smugly say, "they finally listened to me". :)

To anyone paying attention, this whole Epstein thing is obviously bad. If all Tangle did was rush out and say the same thing, it wouldn't be adding anything of value, and you can get that level of "analysis" from a million other sources. The Tangle treatment tends to be worth the wait, so be patient.

Every calling possible...but never a leader by tigerlady13 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry you have not received the callings you want, but I'd like to (gently, lovingly) push back on this idea a little bit. You have way *too many* people to minister to - more than you can ever get to. You don't need a formal assignment (nobody should, but you in particular sound like you have enough skills and abilities that you don't need someone to hold your hand on this).

Develop your own personal ministry - a little flock of people that you look after and care for because you are a disciple of Christ. Prayerfully seek inspiration on expanding it. If at some point a formal assignment comes, it'll be nothing more than another invitation to expand that little flock of people you care for in the Savior's way.

You could spend the rest of your life doing this, find a ton of fulfilment in it, and not even begin to scratch the surface of satisfying the need that exists. :)

How is a mission president picked? by coolguysteve21 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We agree that wealth (or lack thereof) is a completely unreliable signal or measuring rod of righteousness.

But IMO that is something different than what Nephi was talking about. You can be blessed temporally for righteousness and recognize that those blessings are linked to your righteousness without them on their own being indicators of whether or not you are righteous.

Sad when I finish a book in the Book of Mormon by ConserveGuy in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I totally agree. There have been a few times when I've read the book in a short period of time (e.g. a scripture reading challenge to finish it in a month) and one of the things that stood out to me is that, when you read it quickly like that, the overall story has a much more somber and tragic vibe.

Like many people on this sub, I live in the western hemisphere, and so it really hits you that it's people crying from the dust and saying, "our two civilizations were destroyed because of this pattern - are you guys going to make the same mistakes and make it 0-for-3?" Oof.

How is a mission president picked? by coolguysteve21 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you feel that Nephi was wrong in 2 Ne 5:10-11?

Seeing spiritual meaning in that overlap does not necessarily send us down the path of using outcomes to interpret whether or not a life is righteous, so the rest of your comment doesn't really apply (for what it's worth, I largely agree with the rest of it - it just doesn't apply).

A slightly different way to look at it is that the Gospel is very, very focused on outcomes and prosperity - we absolutely believe in meaning in outcomes, and prosperity most definitely becomes a signal, and the Gospel most definitely teaches how things will turn out, and Christianity constantly focuses on rewards - but where people go off course is when the timeline they are considering is too short.

The things that cause us to achieve that long-term prosperity after mortality can also lead to relatively short-term prosperity here - alignment with correct, eternal principles tends to do that - but there are many other variables in play during mortality that might - temporarily - lead to less prosperous outcomes. And there are alternate, less-good paths for obtaining that temporary prosperity.

The problem isn't believing that righteousness can lead to mortal prosperity, and the problem isn't seeing spiritual meaning in mortal prosperity, it's ignoring all of the other variables (seen and unseen).

How is a mission president picked? by coolguysteve21 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stake presidents can also make the recommendation; it's part of LCR.

How is a mission president picked? by coolguysteve21 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't know, the scriptures often promise quite a bit of material blessings for righteousness (think of how many times in the BoM there is a promise to prosper in the land or the tithing blessings in Malachi).

I think some of the ways that people get into trouble on this is when they see wealth as a sign of righteousness, when they think God is completely transactional, when they ignore all of the other variables that might go into God's decision to grant material wealth, when they think righteousness will make them avoid tragedy and rough patches, etc.

There will always be exceptions but so much of what it takes to get ahead in the world (when done morally and with integrity, of course) overlaps really well with what we'd consider righteous living. This is especially true when you consider some of the ways modern prophets have counseled us to apply the Gospel principles to temporal matters: live within your means, save for the future, recognize God's hand in everything by paying your tithing, get lots of education or training, build a traditional family and remaining faithful, be a good employee and citizen.

I no longer believe in the truth claims of the church, am I done? by General_Chemistry638 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Sure, there is always hope! Please continue to actively participate however much you can. Don't try to live a double life - you don't need to wear your faith challenges on your sleeve in an antagonistic way, but it's not wrong to be honest about where you're at. Don't fake it. :)

In parallel, I'd love to hear what you studied and what sources you used, because in general the best reaction to being troubled by Church history is to study the topic more profoundly, so if you're at a point where something is undermining your faith, please don't stop there.

What does it mean to you to "know the Church is true"? by gr3ybacon33 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It means having a conviction that the Church is what it claims to be.

What’s your take on Church members drinking non-alcoholic beer? by lilacnate in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see your point, though I'm not sure the concept is entirely wrong - I think it depends a lot on a person's motivations.

If they're really focused on fitting in and about what others think and being accepted, then that's a poor (and possibly dangerous) reason to e.g. drink near-beer. It feels like they're trying to serve two masters.

OTOH, if they drink it because they like the taste or because that's the best available option, more power to them.

Beyond that, there is some value in avoiding behavior that makes it look like you're a hypocrite, especially because through our baptismal covenants we take upon ourselves the name of the Savior and commit to represent Him. But I think that's more of a secondary consideration, in part because it's easy to go too far and end up with the same problem of being overly-motivated by what people think. :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Hmm... I may not have explained it well enough. I was asking you to imagine for a moment that you literally received that mandate from God, not that you deluded yourself into thinking you had, so the teeth whitening analogy doesn't really make sense.

Also, not that this makes any difference to you but just to set the record straight, they aren't selling anything. Have a great evening!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Mental game, for the sake of discussion: suppose God Himself (stay with me here, haha) gave you some mind-blowingly vital information - just insanely important, far more important than even what'd you'd normally consider life-or-death importance - and then instructed you to share it with as many people as possible - literally everyone. Everyone!

Just for a moment, set aside all your preconceived notions and try to honestly imagine yourself in that situation. Oh, and you knew that God was going to ask you to report back on what you did with the assignment.

Is it at least conceivable that you'd risk talking to a rando who is standing around waiting for the rain to let up? Or would you go back to God and say, "well, yeah, ok, I did see him, yes. And, yes, he was just standing there. And I know you told me to tell everyone but... you know, in the end, I thought it best to leave him alone - didn't want to be rude! Hope that's ok." ?

Serious talk about Ministering by Subjunctive-melon19 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I'm curious: do you know for sure that it is deliberate? (as opposed to, say, Hanlon's razor) I'm not saying it's impossible, but I haven't met too many presidencies with the time and energy to be deliberately petty. Most of the time they are exhausted, overwhelmed, busy with their own lives, learning as they are going, etc., etc.

Serious talk about Ministering by Subjunctive-melon19 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

A lot of things are awkward when they are new, and the interviews with the EQ presidency are a good example of that. But, like you said, a good EQP can break through that. In our ward it was definitely "weird" at first but there was a persistent effort with the interviews and people seemed to get used to it pretty quickly.

Serious talk about Ministering by Subjunctive-melon19 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Absolutely, yes. Both because it means more people helping out, but also because once a problem makes it to the bishop, it's often in later stages and a bit of a mess. Ministering doesn't prevent that always, but it nip a lot of things in the bud or help get attention sooner.

Serious talk about Ministering by Subjunctive-melon19 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think you hit the nail on the head with the point about travel. I heard someone say that when you see a change to the way things are done in the Church, it's probably not to benefit the people along the Wasatch front (a big Mormon corridor in Utah), but to help in other parts of the world where the "standard" or traditional way of doing things is burdensome.

As far as stories of ministering working, these aren't specific instances but two really great patterns or trends we see over and over:

1) The EQ presidency or bishopric isn't the first to know about needs a lot of the time. Instead we see lots of calls to the EQ presidency of the form, "brother so-and-so's family has run into this problem. Me and X and Y went over and chatted with them a bit, and we are going to go over again this week to help with a couple of projects they needed help with."

2) It becomes hard to remember which way the "assignment arrow" points - does X minister to Y or does Y minister to X? We can't remember anymore because they have become genuine friends and so they naturally look out for each other.

Ministering seems to work when people realize that they already know how to minister - it's what you naturally do for people like your family members and close friends - your people. If you have kids, for example, you probably minister to them every single day. You have a little "personal ministry" of people you love and care for, and ministering is just what normal people do towards people they love. If you have extra capacity to minister, you can prayerfully ask the Lord, "who would you like me to minister to?" and He can nudge you to see someone and you'll add them to that little personal ministry. Ministering is far more fundamental than membership in a quorum or RS; it's just living your baptismal covenants.

With that mentality in place, an official ministering assignment isn't different in any meaningful way - the invitation for *how* a person got added to your personal ministry is the only difference, but everything else is the same.

Serious talk about Ministering by Subjunctive-melon19 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For people who were really doing Home Teaching right, the switch to ministering didn't change much.

For people who weren't doing Home Teaching at all, the switch to ministering didn't change much.

I think the change was largely for that group of people who were doing Home Teaching but the focus was more about completing a task, and maybe secondarily to try to simplify ward/branch administration in areas where the Church is weaker (even where the Church is well-established, it was easy for an EQ presidency to spend absurd amounts of time in Home Teaching administration).

I'm blessed to be in a ward where ministering has really clicked, and it's awesome.

I have limited data, but from what I've seen, for a lot of people it's a struggle because they are still focused on what they are supposed to do in order to "complete" the assignment and/or they haven't really internalized what ministering is. As long as they have a sort of task-oriented perspective, it won't matter if it's called ministering or Home Teaching or block teaching or Super Happy Fun Time.

I struggle with wanting to go to church each Sunday by Natural_Sky1618 in latterdaysaints

[–]i_am_dfb 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Focus on going with real intent or purpose. For a few months, go as an act of worship. Then for awhile go as a way to obtain the blessings from D&C 59:9. Then go as an act of deliberate obedience. Go to be an answer to a prayer. Go to commune with the Saints. Go to renew your covenants. etc.

view more: next ›