I often feel like I'm out of touch with the church. Prop 8, ALL worthy members holding the priesthood, and either husband or wife at home full-time, if possible, makes sense to me (I just don't understand the emphasis on assigned gender specific roles). Perhaps in another generation these teachings will go the way of polygamy and race based priesthood. That's my hope anyway.
“Children and dogs are as necessary to the welfare of the country as Wall Street and the railroads.” -- Harry S. Truman
"You never soar so high as when you stoop down to help a child or an animal." -- Jewish Proverb
"Three-time Pro Bowler Eric Weddle the most versatile, and maybe most intelligent, safety in the game." -- SI, 9/7/15, p. 107.
A question for all of you from the outside regarding pay
What are your thoughts on the LDS Churches paid security division?
How much do mission presidents earn ? I had no idea they were paid.
It depends, as I understand the policy. The costs of running the mission home (rent, utilities, etc.) are covered by the church. As far as living allowances go, some of the MPs take no living allowance, if they are in a position to forego that. Others do get a living allowance.Originally Posted by OceanBlue
It's relevant to all this that the church does not call anyone as an MP these days whose career or livelihood would be harmed by walking away from it for three years. (That's one reason why church employees are so often called as MPs -- they have no trouble taking a leave of absence from their jobs.)
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I have a cousin who was a body guard to ezra taft Benson. He always had good stories. My favorite is where ETB Told him he didn't like his tie.
Imho I would never work for the lds church. They are way too cheap.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2
"Be a philosopher. A man can compromise to gain a point. It has become apparent that a man can, within limits, follow his inclinations within the arms of the Church if he does so discreetly." - The Walking Drum
"And here’s what life comes down to—not how many years you live, but how many of those years are filled with bullshit that doesn’t amount to anything to satisfy the requirements of some dickhead you’ll never get the pleasure of punching in the face." – Adam Carolla
I think you'd be surprised what they're paying some of the upper end guys. They're almost all retired cops, and from what I've heard, they're paid well.
Really. I guess I'm a "what have you done for me lately" kind of guy. The historical issues don't affect my day to day life, worship, etc.. They may be bothersome but I'm much more interested in the Church today than 20, 30, 50, 150 years ago. I recognize that I may be an oddball (in this and many other respects).
My point is that the reason the Church has treated thorny historical issues this way is because they are worried that people will lose their testimonies over them. If their imperfections were part of the story all along this would not be an issue.
Appreciating these folks for their contributions (which are huge) is one thing. Treating them like demigods is another thing entirely. Which was really the point of my original post.
So if you start telling everyone that the Church should not be involved in scouting, you're across the line. Hoping that it will be that way some day is another thing entirely. That's all I'm saying. And the same logic can apply to any number of things.
I think we mostly agree on this.
Sancho, you seem like a good guy, but I think you're talking out of your ass on this one.
Your outright dismissal of the role of history in teaching, understanding, and even testifying of doctrine is puzzling. If you find it all boring, you might not be asking the right questions, or might not be open to learning new things.
There is value in keeping, reading, and interpreting records of the past.
After all, Mormon was a historian.
Besides, LDS scripture supports this idea. D&C 47.3 and 69.3 suggest the importance of compiling a historical record (for future historians), and 95.53 is much more explicit in its admonition to study history and cultures for the salvation of Zion.
http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-tes...53?lang=eng#53
On the other hand, the LDS church has big problems with real historians (what I think you refer to as "honest Mormon historians" above).
Whether it's the way LDS leaders have treated Quinn or the discontinuation of graduate programs at the byu, historians have been treated as threats to the LDS order in recent years. Maybe this is ebbing right now (I certainly had the impression that President Hinckley was a pretty accommodating guy), but over the past 30 or so years, historians have been seen as a threat to faith. This is because historians do not recognize ecclesiastical authority for explaining Big Questions. Instead, they rely on documents, reason, and logic to explain and to make meaning of the world. Historians are humanists (except at the byu where they are lumped in with the social scientists). Professionally, they are less interested in God than in what humans do under the influence of God.
Guys like Bushman are fine, but they're more important for their contributions in mainstreaming the work of the earlier pioneers (Brooks, Brodie, Morgan, even Arrington). IMO, Bushman's great achievement (besides his work the restoration of the Melchizidek priesthood issue) is making palatable dicey or previously scandalous topics. He offers very little new, but he synthesizes the material very well and in a way especially geared towards the believers (not a bad thing).
However, Quinn's talk "On Being a Mormon Historian" is still far too applicable. Even if things have improved in the past 30 years at the administrative level, there is still a lot of resistance at the local level (as evidenced by the quoted brusque dismissal of history as boring and out-of-place in Sunday School).
Relatively speaking, I think that there are few active, believing LDS historians who write responsibly (that is, unapologetically) on touchy LDS issues. Part of this is due to the "boutique" nature of being a Mormon historian. However, another part is this perceived antithetical relationship between history & faith.
Some have cited the JS papers project as evidence of a changing tide, and I'll be interested to see how that all shakes out, but even then the papers aren't history. They're sources for historians.
In the end, historians often tell us more about the culture they were living & writing in than the cultures treated in their books. I see merit in applying this idea to the state of Mormon studies today.
PS - the NT has no original Syriac. Its original language was Greek, although some of the Syriac texts today are our oldest surviving copies.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
Solon, I think what is worth celebrating is a new openness. I think a purely non-apologetic, uncorrelated approach to church history has an important place (although it's not what floats my boat) but not in Sunday School. That's all I'm saying. With the source materials becoming more openly available don't you think Claremont's Mormon Studies program and similar programs at USU and the U. are better places for such non-apologetic historians to work?
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I find the discussion about the history interesting. It is absolutely ingrained into LDS teaching and theology/doctrine. Without it, the LDS church is just another Christian religion.
Dammit, there you go being a good guy again.
I suspect we agree on this more than we disagree, friend.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
This is a very boring exchange. Can't you guys at least call each other names, or maybe question one another's intelligence?
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote