I’m seeing more TBM’s complain about the church becoming too wordly. They complain that the church sends one message in general conference and does the opposite in practice. Some are wondering what the church is anymore with departments within it embracing attitudes and practices that goes against the past teachings of the church. They wonder does The Proclamation of the Family still mean anything. They wonder if the church is still Zion when it wants to be part of international secular organizations that stand for things the church in the past opposed.

Lot’s of confusion over what the church actually is.

My biggest question is WHY? The church leaders knew hiring Aaron Sherinian be divisive. They 100% knew. The man worked for big tobacco and backs the WEF for flip's sake. I wonder if Sherinian attended Davos this week?

It's the same question I asked when they did certain other things in the last few years. They knew it'd be divisive and controversial.

My answer: They are sending a message. This is who THEY are, and who they want US to be. Those of us with a problem can go pound sand.

It’s pretty evedent the church wants to be included with the world’s power brokers. This mainstreaming strategy was put into play by Gordon B Hinkley. It could also be possible someone has some dirt on the church leadership and is controlling the church from the outside.

Okay, I'll try again. You wrote:

> [Members] wonder if the church is still
> Zion when it wants to be part of international
> secular organizations that stand for things the
> church in the past opposed.

What "international secular organizations" does the church want to join? Unless you can spell out what you mean, you're offering nothing but ominous overtones and conspiracy theories.

Can you provide an example of an "international secular organization" to which you know the church has applied or intends to apply?

Well, maybe, like other billionaires, they want the power from their money to do whatever they want, buy anything they want, and bend laws for whatever they want.

That's the closest I can come to linking them to the International Bully Competition Association (wealth for me but not for thee).

My point is simply that conspiracies are like any other ambitious proposition: useless without evidence. And no one in this thread has provided an iota of it.

Does the fact that the First Presidency sat in the kiddie seats across the table from the Pope on his elevated throne mean Mormonism is now Catholic? Of course not. All it indicates is that the Big Three want to be seen as important.

Likewise, sending someone to Davos--if it were to happen--to join the thousands of people milling around in crowds and listening to panel discussions does not imply anything about LDS policy other than that, again, the Big Three want to be seen as important.

And seriously, hiring someone who is pro-LGTB does not make the church pro-LGTB. All it means is that the church wants to be seen as less bigoted than it is presently perceived; it wants to be seen as relevant.

Do our resident conspiracy-theorists think the church hasn't had such PR specialists on its payroll before? Are we to believe that Edelman Worldwide, the massive public relations firm that the church first retained 30 years ago, is NOT associated with the WEF or people who attend it? Has Edelman NOT worked for tobacco firms and other nefarious entities?

Nothing has changed. Sherinian's retention won't be controversial within the church. Nor will he have more substantive influence than all the other PR advisors whom the church has employed, and will continue to employ. The church makes these decisions for one simple purpose: to more effectively deceive others as to the underlying Mormon realities.

Ex-Mormons should know the importance of keeping one's eye on the ball, which is the substance of the matter and not the "spin." We shouldn't be so gullible.

The WEF is a fact not a theory, and it should not have the influence it does in the first place. The whole thing borders on corruption.

Nonsense. People have the right to get together whenever they want to discuss whatever they want.

That's true whether you're a tourist, a business person, a politician, or a general.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nonsense. People have the right to get together
> whenever they want to discuss whatever they want.
>
>
> That's true whether you're a tourist, a business
> person, a politician, or a general.

No they don't. Gangsters don't have the right to hold a conference to decide which areas they're going to carve up.

Many of them are people who pretend to represent their constituents but don't. It's secretive (but not as secretive as other groups) and sleazy.

You'll be happy to know that your rights are yours irrespective of what others think of you.

> Gangsters don't have the right
> to hold a conference . . .


I haven't given this lecture in ages! (This is a mini-version)

      RIGHTS, POWERS & PRIVILEGES

That all too common creature, The Noble American, is afire with the nobility contained in the American Constitution and its proclamation of Rights, Powers & Privileges.  I submit that the Constitution was written by and for people who wanted to reserve those Rights, Powers & Privileges to themselves and their approved heirs.  These people hated it when women and the 3/5's people were made their equals (supposedly) regarding Rights and Powers.

One of the keys to one 'getting along' in life is to recognize what Rights, Powers, & Privileges one possesses.  Only the very, very elite possess ALL of them.

An endless source of amusement is the inability of people to comprehend the difference between Rights and Powers.  One such example is the quote cited above.

Gangsters, by definition, are not about Rights, they are about Powers.  I'm sure we can give lip service to the notion that gangsters ought not to assemble to plot criminal mischief, but who would argue they lack the Power to do so?

When you're arguing with someone bigger, or more well-armed, which is the key to success in the moment, Rights or Powers?  When an armed robbery takes place, it is successful not because of Rights, but because of Powers.

Society may (definitely not will!) avenge you when an abuse of your Rights takes place.  But when's the last time (if ever) you heard of someone complaining that his or her Power was overcome by a Right?  (I pulled my gun, but he cited the Constitution!!)

Announcing your symposium on Powers being imaginary is doomed to never draw a crowd, but declaring that Rights are imaginary will always draw a crowd...of people with few Rights and little to no Power.

Your Right to be safe from gangsters with guns holding a conference is only as secure as your Power (or the State's Power) to wield more or bigger guns.

The words, "I have Rights!!" have been the last words of many a Powerless victim.

I always have trouble deciphering your satire, Jesus, so please forgive what may seem a naive question.

Are you suggesting that my calling other people "gangsters" is insufficient reason to deny them their constitutional rights?

Because that sounds a little extreme to me.

> Is my calling other people
> "gangsters" insufficient
> reason to deny them their
> Constitutional Rights?

It is only an insufficient reason if you are ineffective in denying their inherent Powers.



Have you changed accountants, or should I send my billing as usual?

Nope.

I'm still using the Nigerian accountant, so please send the invoice to the usual Lagos address. And make sure to confirm your bank's SWIFT code and routing number in order to avoid any unnecessary delays.

--Gladys

Another Aaron

Aaron Eckhart in "Thank You for Smoking"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxRCTUt6OY

I can see why the church would want that guy.

bradley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another Aaron
>
> Aaron Eckhart in "Thank You for Smoking"
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yrxRCTUt6OY
>
> I can see why the church would want that guy.

Great movie, I went to see it at the cinema twice. Very underrated. Incidentally, Aaron Eckhart served a mission for the church in real life.

If the membership feels that way, they need to vote with their tithing money (or lack thereof.) As far as the church is concerned, money talks.

The Bible says man cannot server two masters. Well, the LDS Mormons are giving it a damn good shot. Definitely leaning toward serving mammon, though.

> They wonder if the church is still
> Zion when it wants to be part of international
> secular organizations that stand for things the
> church in the past opposed.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. What "international secular organizations" does the church want to join?

Do you mean changing values under the rubric of mainstreaming? That would be different than trying to join international organizations, surely.

"international secular organizations"

I think that means the "cool kids". The "peculiar people" thing didn't work out so well and now they want to be part of the "in crowd". Another story as old as time.

---



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2024 11:17AM by messygoop.

If you think about it "global" and "worldly" are quite close in meaning.