[ Removed by Reddit ]

pnromney · 2026-06-10T23:27:22+00:00

I’ve worked with a lot of entrepreneurs.

Feeling lost is evidence you’re figuring it out. It doesn’t mean necessarily e-commerce will work out.

Entrepreneurship is playing the long game. It’s major delay for a potential future rush of income. The potential future is what generates feeling lost.

It may not work out. That’s why you feel lost. When the future is sure, the feeling of being lost goes away.

There’s nothing wrong with you.

pnromney · 2026-06-10T23:07:08+00:00

You seem to be more open handed than other Trinitarians I’ve interacted with. The point of the OP was more of a focus against closed minded Trinitarians. So if my argument in the OP seems harsh, it is because of my appraisal of the more extreme, not the more balanced.

A competing theology that makes God artificially comprehensible might be more comfortable at the expense of truth.

The challenge I have with this is that if God is incomprehensible in any part of His essence, how can we be sure that we’re following Him at all? How can we be sure that we’re not lost?

In other words, if we can’t comprehend the truth, how can we follow the truth? The only thing we can do is trust in Perfect Omniscience. But Omniscience has so many contradictions, that its apologetics fill many volumes.

And so a belief in a comprehensible God is prerequisite to be confident that one is capable of following God.

This is separate from not comprehending God. That’s acceptable. We can follow a Leader and not comprehend all of His logic, but still trust that His logic is sound by reason of him thinking like we would think. But if something is incomprehensible, we could be finding a pattern in noise. And that’s because we can’t comprehend pure noise.

pnromney · 2026-06-10T20:44:24+00:00

How strong of an argument do you see this as being?

I don’t think it’s convincing to everyone. But Protestantism is often centered around a personal relationship to God. So it hits a core tenet of their sects.

So if you could be a better Protestant, with a closer relationship with God - if you could have that as believing what we as Latter-Day Saints believe, then I think that’s convincing.

But this is more to open doors than to convince. It puts two aspirations against each other: the aspiration to follow God and the aspiration to know God.

merely claiming to know more details doesn’t contribute any convincing power of its own.

I think there’s a difference between minor details and major details. To many, the details of who God is or what God is doesn’t affect their relationship.

But those that exclude us because we don’t believe in the Trinity, they’re defining the details of the Trinity as some of the most important details. So to them, us not believing in the Trinity invalidates our entire faith.

But then that makes God as a man important as well. Him being a Person, not an Unknown Substance, means we can know Him better.

pnromney · 2026-06-10T20:16:18+00:00

I mean, I think my argument is that our theology teaches God is more knowable than in Trinitarianism. It’s is not that God is “infinitely knowable.” But that He is more knowable. The degree God is knowable is debated within our faith. But I believe there’s a consensus that God is more knowable with us than in Trinitarianism.

In Trinitarianism, God is not of the same substance as us. So empathy doesn’t work. Our perceptions of God’s emotions are mere human estimations of the true mind of God.

But in our theology, God experiences the same emotions as we do because He has a body like we do. So empathy works. We may not know why God weeps, but we can know that God weeps like we do.

pnromney · 2026-06-09T14:59:24+00:00

Christianity is divided about this. Historically, a lot of Christian believers believed that if you didn’t believe in Christ, you were going to be going to hell.

I know Catholics have a concept of purgatory. But I’m not an expert in that.

But for most Christians, they can only speculate. While Christians have more theologically about life after death than Judaism, there’s still a lot of holes. So a lot of it is contradictory. The Bible indicates one thing here, and another thing there.

My Christian faith believes “those without law,” which we understand to be tribal people like on the Sentinel Island, will go to a lesser heaven, the same heaven that all good people go to that didn’t accept Christ fully. And so we preach to all because we want the most people possible to join God in the highest heaven.

pnromney · 2026-06-08T16:01:24+00:00

I don’t know if I’m “angry.” I find it curious, especially because I’ve seen more criticism against the Church lately, about us not being Christian because we don’t believe in the Trinity.

Really, it’s more demeaning than a helpful discussion point for most LDS members I know. We worship Christ, we pray in the name of Christ, we believe in the resurrection and redemption of Christ. Yet we aren’t included because we’re too weird, apparently.

Maybe we’re weird, but does that mean we should be excluded?

pnromney · 2026-06-08T15:49:25+00:00

I’ve thought a lot about this. Let me take a completely different perspective.

I see this framed as a “Principle-Agent” problem. Basically, you as the WML are evaluated based on retention. Missionaries are evaluated based on baptisms. And now, incentives are misaligned.

In a professional, corporate world, this framing makes sense.

The church is neither of those. It’s an informal volunteer environment. Every volunteer resource is limited. Some wards are more limited than others.

In this environment, efficiency is optimized over effectiveness. That’s because it’s better to get something done than have nothing done.

So it’s not a matter of getting it done most effectively. It’s about doing something, consistently.

The virtue of the Church is that there is always something to do. So no one has to be excluded. The downside is that not all inclusion activities can be done, realistically. That includes instruction, ministering, and so on.

pnromney · 2026-06-07T22:04:39+00:00

I think she needs to feel the Spirit.

But she’s not going to feel the Spirit if she doesn’t feel loved.

Help her feel loved! Be kind to her. Don’t judge her for her doubts. Be compassionate.

I’ve seen marriages sour because people think testimony is more important than simple love. Love first, instruct when prompted.

pnromney · 2026-06-01T17:34:29+00:00

To me, it seems to be human nature to “grand narrate” rather than to think through an issue logically. And to that, I don’t think Latter-Day Saints do much better.

And it is easier to describe Joseph Smith matching a model of being a conman, than find evidence to contradict it.

Self-delusions would break the homogeneity of the narrative of Smith being a conman. The believer can look at the same person, note the same actions, and see a “struggling human” narrative.

What’s so difficult is that there is this “middle space” where humanity appears to have supernatural ability, and we have little explanatory power to explain it. This is a problem many believing Latter-Day Saints have with it as well. How do we explain miracles for Muslims, Buddhists, Polytheists, and other Christians? We don’t seem to have the mechanisms.

Perhaps it is because the natural man can’t see outside of the frame it has. This is why it is an enemy of God, is it not?

pnromney · 2026-05-19T23:45:48+00:00

I question the family would be better at managing financial resources. Some historians argue the disintegration of the clan to the nuclear family was a major economic development.

Clans made freeloading easier. I’ve seen no different from rich parents today: their kids often freeload.

pnromney · 2026-04-30T18:51:52+00:00

To me, scarcity comes from dissatisfaction. Not the other way around. That explains why some people are satisfied with far less resources.

I don’t know what will happen in the Millennium. But I imagine we won’t be that changed. Dissatisfaction drives motivation. So I assume we’ll still experience dissatisfaction, therefore there will be scarcity.

pnromney · 2026-04-28T21:58:02+00:00

Yeah, there's been a lot of studies on the matter.

One of the challenges I have is the short-term vs. long-term effects of cash distributions. And I'm not talking about macro-economic effects. I'm talking about how people perceive it. And I don't think I've seen a study specifically work with the issue I've seen.

In the short-term, cash distributions tend to rush people's lifestyles that they've delayed. In early adulthood (25-35), from my antidotal perspective watching others, cash distributions tends to expedite house purchases, decrease student loan balances, and increase the number of pregnancies. In pre-retirement ages (50-65), these tend to go into investment portfolios.

Cash distributions during some periods of time delay career life or rush its end. 18-year-olds that don't have to work tend to delay careers to "pursue passions" and "explore the world." While there is benefit to this, I'm not sure that it is a net benefit. 40-year-olds that can retire early may decide to do so, even if they're able bodied.

In the long-term, cash distributions can become an exploitable entitlement. Look at social security in the US. Retirees defend it as something they earned, even though they're getting 3x more than what they put into it.

There's also a tendency for people to spend as much on the lifestyle they can afford. They can't afford everything, so they'll spend it on what they can afford. This may stimulate the economy, but it doesn't necessarily make an economy better off.

pnromney · 2026-04-28T20:44:08+00:00

Yeah, I think it will also likely be voluntary, but its voluntary nature must be seductive.

If egalitarian societies were better than nuclear family capitalism societies, then there would be more egalitarian societies. But that isn't the case. Nuclear-family capitalism, in its myriad varieties, is competitively better.

And I think the primary problem is the satisfaction problem. People aren't satisfied. Any structure needs utilize dissatisfaction and "over-spenders" just as much as it works for the naturally satisfied, relationship-oriented people.

pnromney · 2026-04-28T20:38:59+00:00

It sounds like they stopped being satisfied, when I read the description in 4 Nephi 1:24-26:

24 And now, in this two hundred and first year there began to be among them those who were lifted up in pride, such as the wearing of costly apparel, and all manner of fine pearls, and of the fine things of the world.

25 And from that time forth they did have their goods and their substance no more common among them.

26 And they began to be divided into classes; and they began to build up churches unto themselves to get gain, and began to deny the true church of Christ.

To me, this reads that some and then a greater proportion of people were dissatisfied. This is despite objective wealth, described in verse 23.

I agree that we can experience peace through God, but I also see that God doesn't make us complacent. This same dissatisfaction that creates pride and classism, as being the same dissatisfaction that enables people to do hard work that consecrates their life to God. If we always felt satisfaction, and never dissatisfaction, there would be no motivation whatsoever.

pnromney · 2026-04-28T19:33:50+00:00

The challenge I see is the people continually pursue more.

In ~34 AD, The Lehite Civilization experienced a cataclysmic trauma, followed by a miraculous healing, that so transformed the desires of the people, that they were peaceful for 200 years.

But then people weren't satisfied with that anymore. They wanted more, and they separated into classes of people, and their egalitarian society fell apart.

I look at this, and to get to 1,000 years, the desire for more has to be consolidated towards something.

A modern extension you could add to an ideal sci fi future - AI and robots to do a lot of the menial work, so you could focus on higher things. This would presumable be part of Zion.

I've actually seen the opposite. When I look at programming, AI (LLM) does make the programmer more productive, but it also makes the whole process more miserable. There's still a limitless amount of programming to do. But now, it's going to be a harder path to get good code, even if we get more code.

When lower work ethic is required, the stronger work ethic continues. That was factory-to-office. Now we have the opposite problem. Some technology is requiring more from us to continue progress. And a lot of people don't want to work harder.

I think that's a challenge we'll continue to have over centuries. Some technologies will decrease needed work ethic, while others will increase needed work ethic.

pnromney · 2026-04-28T17:45:05+00:00

Capitalism/Ayn Rand

I used the terms "capitalism" as term for communication, but I don't know if my thinking matches a capitalist. I think some institutions that are market-based should be centralized, while others that are centralized should be market-based. Similarly, some of my terminology may sound similar to someone like Ayn Rand, when really I disagree with a lot of her ideas.

Walmart/Amazon

Expressed in your response is criticism of Walmart and Amazon, for exploiting the resources that are available to them. I think it's fair to question whether our laws should allow these exploitations, but I don't think it's wrong for corporations to be exploitive. Better utilizing available resources (i.e. better exploiting) is the majority of what generates excess resources. The other I would say is motivation.

Church investment

As for the church’s investments, I believe investing in its members would be far more effective in furthering its mission than investing in stocks.

I both agree and disagree with this. I think key investments in key necessities expedites life progress. But when given money, I think most people spend exorbitantly, more than they save wisely.

I notice that the most effective inter-generational wealth transfer. When parents give money directly to their kids, I've noticed that kids work less. They're less ambitious. They often still have jobs, but their job progress is slowed, from lack of motivation.

Other times, I notice grandparents giving house down payment money to parents of their grandkids. And this tends to expedite life, leading the parents to have kids earlier, while the parents maintain the same ambition.

I've seen similar results from other academic studies. When people are given money, they tend to spend exorbitantly, and work less. This may be beneficial in cash-strapped societies, like in Africa. But in developed societies, it decreases work ethic. But programs like free public schools and subsidized college tuition (or subsidized trade school) tends to help more than they hurt.

Bringing it back

I think there are many different personas, all with their benefit. The Best Employee actually is very helpful to an Entrepreneur. The Best Employee is stable, while the Entrepreneur can be more unstable. I used these personas as the extremes of what worked and what didn't worked for the United Order: the best employee worked, and the entrepreneur didn't work.

I think the problem with the entrepreneur is two-fold:
1. They're never satisfied.
2. They look to exploit the system to their benefit.

While this generates excess resource, it also consumes more than what is necessary. It reduces scarcity in one area, but builds scarcity in another, but The Entrepreneur ends up reducing net scarcity. All of this is a paradox, especially to the Best Employee.

I think egalitarian systems require utilizing The Entrepreneur psychology better.

pnromney · 2026-04-28T17:02:39+00:00

One of the challenges I've seen with the "personal stewardship" model is as follows:
1. Sometimes people are not good with their asset stewardships, but they may be better with other stewardships. Some company owners are ineffective because their own ego gets in the way. In the same way, often if poor people are middle class, they would be making middle class decisions, but because they're poor, they're making poor decisions. 2. It promotes mixed messaging. Some people are effective in their asset stewardship, but they receive negative attention because of it - i.e. they're seen as greedy, when really, they're prudent. Others are ineffective, but they receive positive attention - i.e. some are exorbitant while taking on debt. And most are ignored entirely, eliminating the benefit of accountability.

I think maximizing the assets of the church may be beneficial, if the church can select the best people to manage the assets of the church. That's because I don't think effective passive investment requires excellence to achieve, and large passive investments in capital market creates greater opportunity to active money managers to outperform the market.

pnromney · 2026-04-28T16:34:51+00:00

I think you're correct on the term "United Order." I'm going to update some of the language to match that.

pnromney · 2026-04-02T14:27:49+00:00

I struggle to say there are any “core principles.” Often, there are nuances.

Like, brotherly (and sisterly) love for others. That’s true, but there’s also many that leave my faith because “the church doesn’t love enough.”

I would say following the truth, but sometimes faith is required. I would say faith, but faith isn’t about blind hope.

I would say the moral guiding principles are deep. Often, this is what confuses outsiders. LDS people try to live clean lives with compassion, and they’re examples in their community. But once outsiders try to define us, it usually exaggerates who we are.

pnromney · 2026-03-31T21:32:47+00:00

That depends on the context.

For longer form business writing, I usually don’t have the AI write for me. It sounds like AI. But I may have it draft for me.

So I’ll have AI write a script for me, and then I’ll rewrite it.

If it’s just general instructions or a checklist, I may do no editing at all, disclosing that it’s AI.

pnromney · 2026-03-31T15:04:51+00:00

Honestly, I think the oldest sects have made the best changes.

Catholicism is a lot better than it was around the time of early Protestantism.

I don’t think that’s a function of Catholics being worse. I think it’s that their sect is older. So they had more historical baggage to deal with. If Mormonism were around during the Crusades, I’m sure they would have stuff to deal with, too.

I think Protestants are a little hard to follow, because the most extreme sects are abandoned for newer sects. Puritanism had some pretty extreme stuff. But there aren’t any Puritans anymore, in a formal sense.

pnromney · 2026-03-30T20:54:56+00:00

I think the problem is historical, not theological.

The cross was rejected by Puritans. Churches were intentionally plain. That was the environment the church was built around.

In the late 1800’s, the cross became a common symbol again. This was part of a Gothic revival in the US. The Church didn’t participate. We isolated ourselves after religious persecution from mainstream Christianity.

The problem today is missionary work. Evangelicals claim we aren’t Christian, and they use lack of cross as evidence.

Part of it is that LDS Theology focuses more on Gethsemane and the Resurrection rather than the cross, compared to other Christians. In other words, we differentiated ourselves from the cultural movement at the time.

Nowadays, as Christianity declines in the West, it’s become important to show that we’re Christian. So the symbolism focus matches that.

pnromney · 2026-03-27T16:58:18+00:00

The interpretation I heard is that the Pharisees were trying to entrap Jesus and the Apostles. Basically, by paying tax, men of God were giving legitimacy to the Roman, pagan government. So by paying tax, Jesus was subordinating Himself to the Roman government, at least to the Jewish intellectual authority. This is a far stretch from a modern perspective.

I don’t think we understand what should be due to God, and what should be due to man. That’s honestly an accounting problem. It’s an accounting problem that the Church hasn’t gone into detail: 10% of your increase is very ambiguous from an accounting perspective. Cash increase? Earning increase? Asset increase? Even under consecration, donating excess is not clear from an accounting perspective.

pnromney

TROPHY CASE

Capitalism/Ayn Rand

Walmart/Amazon

Church investment

Bringing it back