Have they EVER done good for the members of ChurchCo?
other than enforcing the rules of the Corp??

are they ONLY 'attention whores'?


seriously!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/22/2019 02:36PM by GNPE.

Seriously?

Well, I'd like to suppose that Monson banged a few widows, thus hopefully brightening their day.

But I have no proof, unless you count that poop-eating grin on his face when he'd talk about his widows...

I think this question is as loaded as Russell’s diaper.

Which raises the question...

Do GAs wear the diaper under the garment or over the garment?

Wouldn't it be amusing to have a schism in the church hierarchy on this issue?

Leaving Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Which raises the question...
>
> Do GAs wear the diaper under the garment or over
> the garment?

I would like to think that they wear the diapers over their nastily stained garments. Just to be fair and merciless. Why?

Because they used to tell sisters to wear their brassieres and pantyhose over[outside] of their garments. Anybody can tell that those two undergarments are meant to be worn close to the skin. Some biddy told my wife at one of the Texas temples that she was wearing her bra incorrectly; that it needed to go over the garment. My wife properly told her to mind her own business.

Granted, IF they were to help individuals / individual situations - circumstances, it would have to be on the down-low so as not to raise expectations of so many who've been ground in the gears of ChurchCo.

was able to realize the leaders didn't deserve the respect that I had been told all my life that they deserved. Really, what good have they done for the little guy? For any member of the church?

Just my thoughts. I think a major factor that has made the top church leaders so despicable is that they have never had to prove themselves and work in the real world. Most if not all of them have risen to the top from the same sewer pipe. That is that very few of them have worked outside of the church/mormon bubble.

Years ago, some of the leaders had served at corporate level in the private sector. Do you realize that a smart mormon will be nicer and more helpful when he's the only mormon holding down a key position. He just might try harder to impress and be nice to others. So I think some ancient ones (post WW 2) may have tried to help others and members.

The "Brethren" view serving the institution (the church) and obeying their higher-ups in the institutional hierarchy as being their primary duty and obligation. The members have the obligation to serve the institution as directed and commanded by their superiors (the general authorities). In the eyes of the GAs, serving the members is nothing more or less than serving the needs of the church and the authority structure.



Here is what Boyd K. Packer had to say about it:

---> "Elder Lee had agreed to give me counsel and some direction. He didn't say much, nothing really in detail, but what he told me has saved me time and time again. 'You must decide now which way you face,' he said. 'Either you represent the teachers and students and champion their causes or YOU REPRESENT THE BRETHREN WHO APPOINTED YOU. You need to decide now which way you face.' Then he added, 'Some of your predecessors faced the wrong way.' It took some hard and painful lessons before I understood his counsel. In time, I did understand, and my resolve to face the right way became irreversible."

---> "When members are hurting, it is so easy to convince ourselves that we are justified, even duty bound, to use the influence of our appointment or our calling to somehow represent them. We then become their advocates -- sympathize with their complaints against the Church, and perhaps even soften the commandments to comfort them. Unwittingly we may turn about and face the wrong way. Then the channels of revelation are reversed. Let me say that again. Then the channels of revelation are reversed. In our efforts to comfort them, we lose our bearings and leave that segment of the line to which we are assigned unprotected. The question is not whether they need help and comfort. That goes without saying. The question is 'How?' The Prophet Joseph Smith, when he organized the Relief Society said, 'There is the need for decisions of character aside from sympathy'."

https://www.zionsbest.com/face.html

Of course, it's difficult to define a phrase such as "doing good for the members".

To the Brethren, getting the members to pay tithing, go to the temple and obey the Brethren is not only "good for the members", it's the best thing they can do for the members.

> Of course, it's difficult
> to define a phrase such as
> "doing good for the members".


I think one thing is certain, any 'good' done to a member would only be done because the benefit to the church was greater.

This is a good point. When have we ever seen them do anything good, such as feeding the poor, funding a clean water supply to developing countries...? Sure, there are church funded projects to help people after natural disasters, but given how rich this corporation is, they could do a LOT more. And you never see GAs get their hands dirty.

Of course everything they SAY is unhelpful and damaging, and when it appears otherwise it is only about manipulation, and/or virtue signalling. Note how service projects in the mormon church always seem to be well advertised? That has always made me nauseated: imagine being on the receiving end of assistance and how humiliating that is?

Most helpful and illuminating thing Monson ever said was: “Let’s go shopping!”
This says it all.

So many of us base our opinions on the church leaders through their highly polished GC talks. You know the ones that have a chuckle at the beginning before they start addressing a serious topic. And then you read or watch one of those (leadership only trainings) with a limited audience and "Whoa" the beast comes out of the cave. That's what I felt as I read the BKP speech that was linked. These guys don't mince words and they don't play nice at all.

they seem to have gotten where they are because they are successful which is the sign that god loves you. I look at Nelson and see a man who has a lot of good things going for him, has an enormous family, all kinds of money. Who has lived a life always on top. He's like Mr. Dryesdale, a millionaire who owns the bank! There is no feasible way this sort of fellow could understand or would want to understand poverty, disappointment, unemployment, being undocumented, single hood, bareness, sexual identity questions, mental disabilities, discrimination, etc.

So can they do anything good for marginalized people in the Church? I don't think so, because they can't understand people and what it's like to be poor for a long long time.

swearing-

I've misplaced my missionary journals, but I know that I wrote about some spiritual giant (today I would uses a lot of cuss words) that came to my mission area for a regional conference. The members were told not to bring cameras, tape recorders or any video cameras. They were also told not to ask for any blessings or special prayers. They most certainly told not to write any letters requesting favors because these men were so hard workers for the building up the kingdom on earth.

We were told the same things about cameras, recording devices and requesting an "autograph". The mission president took it one step further and told to us to NOT invite investigators to this conference. Most of us weren't even allowed inside because the venue (gym at a high school) was maxed out to capacity. I couldn't anything see from the outside doors. I was on the mission president's shit list and was assigned parking lot duties with other missionary screw ups. There was no shade on a warm February day in Texas (and we were forbidden from wearing any hats) so we walked toward a covered walkway and we were admonished to return to our posts. We weren't worthy enough to be treated with dignity and respect.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2019 11:39AM by messygoop.