Jump to content

rchorse

Members
  • Content count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

136 Excellent

About rchorse

  • Rank
    Newbie: Without form, and void

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Germany
  1. Mormon 9:22–24 vs Mark 16: 15-18

    Never mind.
  2. Do we know that, though? It expresses more of a fringe view on equality in the church based on the members I've interacted with. I've never once met a member that would say men are the head and women are the feet. Saying women are the feet seems almost calculated to offend. I'm sure there are people out there that feel this way, but I don't think any of us really has any idea how prevalent this type of thinking is. It just seems odd to me to give any weight at all to a couple of random slides from a largely unknown member of the church. And that's assuming they're even authentic and not a fabrication. There's really no way to know. But I've said my piece, and I'll bow out now.
  3. There are really only two slides, that I can see, as the 2nd slide is just repeated 3 times. There's also nothing to indicate it's an official church publication, how it was used, and by whom it was used. It really seems like something salvaged from the recycle bin on someone's computer. It also appears to be no more authoritative than the musings of some random guy or maybe a presentation in a local ward meeting. The fact that it shows a copyright by someone other than the corporation of the first presidency seems especially odd to me. Who bothers to put a copyright symbol on something like this unless they're planning to publish it? But then it would clearly not be an official church publication, as the copyright would be wrong. Bottom line, I see absolutely nothing to indicate official approval or that it was even reviewed by the church or discussed at anything other than perhaps a local level. It's like leaking the minutes of an odd ward council discussion and then trying to generate controversy because weirdo Brother X said something crazy like he always does. I'm having trouble understanding why I should care about one guy's opinion about gender equality in the church, even if the man was a mission president. Maybe you can help me understand.
  4. BYU Caffeine is APPROVED - Breaking news!

    As a BYU alumnus, I would have preferred they abandon the no-facial-hair policy first. Never cared much about caffeine.
  5. CNN article on Mormon dating issues

    The only thing worse than dating as an older single Mormon would be marrying out of desperation. I almost married out of desperation at 27, and it would have ruined my life. I waited a little longer and married someone great at 29. The mid-singles dating scene is truly horrifying. Anyone who has to navigate that landscape has my deepest sympathies. Going to a couple mid-singles wards with an older friend for a few Sundays is what ultimately led me to decide that there are worse things than remaining single.
  6. Curious about cafeteria doctrines

    Commonly held beliefs in the church I can't really get behind: Polygyny required for exaltation: I have no real moral problem with voluntary polygamy, but the math doesn't work out for it to be required, and it also seems unfair to women for it to be required. Plus, it being required just doesn't sit right with me. Women are more spiritual than men: I have a very high opinion of women, but I find this sentiment to be a cop-out for men. It's typically used as an excuse for laziness or bad behavior by men. "I'm just a man, I can't help being a slacker." I deliberately did not call these doctrines, as I don't see much evidence for either one really being doctrinal. And that really sums it up for me. The real doctrines that no one disputes as being doctrinal (divinity of Christ, for example), I have no issue with and find to be in complete harmony with the scriptures. The folk doctrines and cultural beliefs are where I tend to have issues.
  7. Facebook conversation

    Littlewood's law is nonsense. It's just a bunch of arbitrary definitions configured in a way to support his pre-determined conclusion. It can't be refuted because of the way the terms have been defined. But at the same time, the way the terms have been defined makes the law completely meaningless. It's like me defining God as myself and then saying to an atheist I can prove God exists because I exist. Pointless.
  8. While I believe the science behind evolution is sound based on what we know so far, one thing is very difficult for me to comprehend. Given what we know about genetics and our growing capabilities with editing genes and DNA and a God that is more advanced than we can currently understand, why would God ever use evolution to accomplish the creation? With the other powerful tools at His disposal, it would be the most inefficient exercise in creation possible. It just makes absolutely no sense to me. I don't really accept the argument that it's all just to test our faith. Rather, I think our entire paradigm on the origins of the earth is probably wrong in some fundamental way. But until we have perfect knowledge, evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have. I believe in God and that he created the earth. At the moment, I can't reconcile that with the science, but that's ok. I believe that once we know everything in full detail, it will all make sense. Edit: didn't see Cinepro's post before mine. Sorry for any redundancy.
  9. Maybe we should just give people, everybody, the benefit of the doubt until they've proven themselves untrustworthy. I try not to assume that everyone I interact with is out to deceive me. My guess is that Elder Holland sometimes gets a little carried away in his enthusiasm for the work and misspeaks. Both the critics and believers on this board exhibit the same behavior. I know I've done the same thing many times; not intentionally lied, but given inaccurate information when speaking off the cuff. I doubt there's a person on the earth who is unaffected by this tendency. When someone does a lot of public speaking and people are parsing his or her words in intricate detail, of course errors will be found. Does that mean everything they ever said is a deliberate deceit? To me, the example in the OP is nothing more than another piece of evidence that Elder Holland is human. I'm not seeing the big deal. No one can speak with 100% accuracy 100% of the time.
  10. Spritual Abuse (Not Unique to LDS)

    Not only were the examples extremely mild, they were more about differing priorities than the abuse described in the article. I could just as easily claim educational abuse if my child were pressured into skipping religious observance in favor of academics by an overzealous educator. Parents get to set family priorities. Just because yours differ doesn't make it abuse. Besides, is there such a thing as mild abuse? My understanding of abuse is that it is by definition not mild.
  11. A General Authority excommunicated?

    As for the criticism that the church violated its own policies by giving information about what the discipline was NOT for, I'll just leave here this bit from Handbook 1, section 6.10.9, which discusses announcing church discipline: Bold mine. There's also quite a bit more in this section about announcing church discipline. Announcing and clarifying the excommunication of a general authority are consistent with the policies of the church as written in Handbook 1. The confidentiality of the disciplinary process has never been absolute, with clear exceptions being authorized for the reasons mentioned above and others given in the handbook. Not to mention that since the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve are the ones who determine policies in the first place, it should be clear that they are authorized to make exceptions when they believe or feel inspired that an exception is warranted.
  12. Spritual Abuse (Not Unique to LDS)

    The linked article is very worthwhile and identifies behavior that religious people really should watch out for. The examples in the OP, however, are so mild in comparison to what the article is talking about, that to call them abuse is to abuse the concept of abuse. Not to mention that everything someone doesn't like gets called abuse these days. I find the word to be so overused, that it's hard to take seriously anymore.
  13. Perfect Fallibility

    Of course members of the church want its leaders to be perfect. But most recognize that they are not. I also want my wife to be perfect, but sadly she's not. I want to be a perfect father and husband, but sadly, I am far from being either. Most of the time, I give my wife a pass because I love her. She also gives me a pass most of the time, as well, for which I am grateful. Is there a reason I should feel bad about giving church leaders a pass on what I perceive as a trivial issue because I love the church and believe that its leaders are more often inspired than not? Or to the contrary, is there a quota of mistakes from church leaders that, once exceeded, requires me to disbelieve? Then to be logically consistent, there must be a quota of mistakes from a spouse that, when exceeded, universally requires divorce. Or a quota of mistakes as a parent that mandates loss of parental rights. Or only a certain number of mistakes I am to allow myself before I must commit seppuku. Or maybe it's really that faith is a choice, and it's up to each person to decide for themselves where the line is and when it is crossed in relationships with church, family, self, etc.? Why is it ok to judge someone for choosing to forgive and maintain belief, but not alright to judge someone for deciding the line has been crossed and they no longer believe? I don't think either form of judgment should be encouraged.
  14. What IS God

×