Jump to content

Nofear

Members
  • Content Count

    1,570
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

975 Excellent

3 Followers

About Nofear

  • Rank
    Separates Water & Dry Land

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This is not a bad resource: At the Pulpit: 185 Years of Discourses by Latter-day Saint Women (https://www.churchhistorianspress.org/at-the-pulpit?lang=eng) It's in the Gospel Library app too (history section).
  2. I sometimes have it as a thought experiment that if one were to compile a small selection of general conference talks and similar for a book of scripture for future saints, and all else would be lost, which items would make the cut?
  3. I watch the Exponent II blog and discussion group. While there is an occasional good article, it is pretty much "endless scab picking". I think the Relief Society sisters who operated the original Exponent would be utterly horrified by the appropriation of their name for the platform they created. It is perhaps the single, clearest realization of Lehi's great and spacious building I've seen. Indeed, the site grooms women and men to turn from Christ and his Church. Here groom is used in it's truest sense, just as a pedophile grooms a child. Not all actions will be bad. Some will be kind and generous and on the face of it virtuous. Likewise, not all the discussion is bad. But, it is all a flaxen cord. So why follow it? There are occasionally insights to be gained, just not spiritual insights they suppose they promulgate. The Savior's admonition for us in the midst of wolves is to be as wise as serpents I also follow a men's right group. This one is secular since there aren't any significant one that purports relationship to the Church that I'm aware of (that, in of itself, has a message). The similarity in tone and message and vitriol is remarkable. In my youth my father once remarked that the extreme "left" and "right" (here Exponent II and MRA group) are not so much as extreme ends of a straight line but the ends of an Ω (Omega) character. They just aren't that far apart.
  4. While the Church may not be the author of this outrageously sexist policy common throughout Western society, it, as the divine institution it is must know better (and if not, it is not divine). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/nyregion/office-temperature-sexist-nixon-cuomo.html
  5. The fact that this is even an item of discussion does point to some issues about the "egalitarian nature" of the Church. The keys of the Priesthood do operate in a patriarchal fashion. No sister can hold keys of the Priesthood. But does that mean, outside of that context, the administration of the Church at a local level has some degree of gender equity? Those who clamor about the issue make one or both of the complaints: 1) the keys are only available to males (even if only some males) -- that is unfair 2) ignoring Priesthood keys, the organization of the Church is still very gender imbalanced It is important that one understand which complaint one is addressing (even in giving of the complaint or in responding to the complaint). Jana Riess did not do a great job in separating the two issues.
  6. What are examples of things these two researchers and like-minded ilk are concerned about?
  7. No. The study wasn't about epigenetics. Twins are suggestive of it. The testosterone thing seems ... fishy (which could be thought of as a fetal pun). XX babies get more testosterone and therefore are masculanized and like girls? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_theories_of_homosexuality
  8. The New York Times has a write up of the largest population survey of genetics of sexual orientation. Some key findings, but people are encouraged to at least read the NY Times article before posting (pretty please ). It's not long. A person was considered same sex or bisexual if they reported a same-sex sexual experience and that included between 2 to 10% of the sample (varied between which group they got data from) Between 8-25% was associated with a plurality of genes (no one single gene) with a few other genes that maybe were influential but couldn't quite be quantified well for an estimated 32% genetic influence whether someone will engage in same-sex sex at least once in their life The rest of the influences were assumed to be social or environmental There is some controversy as to whether or not this study should even have been published lest the science be misused socially.
  9. I'm almost done with Bridges. It is quite good and I highly recommend it. One of the aspects about the book I enjoy is that it just makes sense. It makes sense enough that I find myself having difficulty differentiating between that which I "always" knew because it is obvious and that which I changed perspective on.
  10. Thank you for your post. It was nice to see and understand a bit more. Sharon Eubank's FairMormon talk "This is a Woman's Church" speaks a fair bit about some of what you speak about. Maybe in the US we would be ready for some changes that elsewhere in the world would be a significant stumbling block. While that wasn't Sis. Eubank's direct message, it was a message I personally got. In that vein I recall some of the worldwide training that the Brethren put out to be more inclusive in the voice of the sisters in Ward Council and such. Yet, the membership as a whole lagged/lags behind in implementation. There was the whole talk about women in their callings exercising Priesthood authority. Yet, sometimes in the general membership this isn't acknowledged in practice. From my experience I see the Brethren as pushing the membership of the Church forward but socially we have been laggard. But they are still pushing. Certainly, the Brethren have their own social biases and cultural hangups. But I believe that they are much more susceptible to correction than the general body of the Church is and that as a general rule they are ahead of the curve as it were. While they aren't perfect, I believe if we as a Church would better implement the things we have already been asked to do by our prophets, more changes would come more quickly. As a consequence I tend to find little merit in those that would fault the hierarchy of the Church as the problem, that it is we who are the problem. Others would counter my claim by saying that the Church is systematically flawed and that if we change the system then the problems would be better addressed. I find that kind of like saying that the economic injustices of the world would be solved if we'd just live the Law of Consecration. That's true, they would be. But we aren't willing to live the Law of Consecration. We barely live the law of tithing. What's different between the Law of Consecration and the Law of Tithing analogy is that we have the Law of Consecration. We don't have a public prophetic delineation of how Celestial Society will handle gender issues. In response my mind goes to the words of Lead Kindly Light: The night is dark, and I am far from home; Lead thou me on! Keep thou my feet; I do not ask to see The distant scene--one step enough for me. I just keep trying to make those one steps. But so very many are upset at just how slowly we, as a people, are stepping along. They are also upset that we don't have the end destination officially pronounced, just the direction.
  11. I believe that several of those defending the status quo are quite open to the possibility of women being ordained to priesthood office and holding priesthood keys. It's more of a question of what do we do about it? defend the status quo and the Brethren and assert that they are acting according to God's wishes on this revile the status quo and claim that the Brethren, even if well intentioned, are propagating an situation not pleasing to the Lord There is some subtlety in between. But both of the positions seem to be held by more than one of the posters in this thread. The point of my original post was to see if there were rational reasons one could give that would help another understand one's perspective (even if they didn't agree with it). Some motion in that direction, but far less than what I had hoped. Some useful discussion on aspects related to the primary question, and important ones at that, but the heart of the matter remains. Ah well.
  12. Completed the training. Seemed to pretty much what the BSA one did (a few minor differences) and more. It was generalized to both primary, young men, and young women. I don't see the LCR having been updated yet to report the protection training status of the members.
  13. Agreed. I guess some of the questions from some of the others is then why can't a sister be asked to preside at places not-traditionally associated with their presiding? An extreme example: a branch president and his counselors (if any) are absent. The elders quorum president/cy is absent. No high councilors. Can the branch relief society president be asked to preside? Or, should it go to the lone priest in the branch? What is the governing principle at play that would extend to more established and higher level functioning units? Get those principles clearly elaborated and that should help the conversation be more effective.
  14. Just to point out something. Women do preside at meetings. The Primary President presides at primary activities. The Relief Society president presides at Relief Society meetings. In most wards, the Laurel class president and the priest quorum president take turns presiding at combined meetings (the adult YM and/or YW presidents/presidencies do/should not act as if they preside). What then is different about Sacrament Meeting or a baptism (ward or mission level)? Well, one of the things seems to be that a priesthood ordinance is performed, one that requires keys (as some priesthood ordinances don't recall keys (from the Church)). How all of this enters the discussion. I'm not sure. But, I do appreciate the comments from both sides of the coin. It is useful.
  15. Since the Church will no longer be affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, the youth protection training mandated there won't be required. I see this as basically the youth protection training that was required under scouting but expanded to include more parties. This expansion is a good thing.
×
×
  • Create New...