Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JAHS

Ordain Women Responds To The First Presidency Statement

Recommended Posts

You have got it...given my age in comparison to you there is a good chance I will be able to fulfill that request...

 

Sweet! I'm what Heaven needs...a gay angel with a flaming sword. Babylon better watch out!!

Share this post


Link to post

There is certainly nothing salacious. Any member can read the handbook, it just can't leave the clerks office.

It's mainly, I guess because there is counsel for leaders on how to handle sensitive matters. When it comes to critics of the church, no excuse is too small.

But, if we are handling them as The Lord wants them handled, why would we fear criticism?

Share this post


Link to post

I think it is more likely it is to save the bishop time from having to deal with busybodies that want to tell him how to do his job.

Share this post


Link to post

Do you really think that having or not having the handbook will keep busybodies from counseling the Bishop?  I don't.  You might have more Bishops actually reading it, if the local Ward critic had a copy.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see why it matters why the church doesn't want the book to be public.

 

If the church wants to restrict Handbook 1 to the bishop's office then they should be allowed to do that.  People who circumvent the system to get a copy can come up with all the justifications they want for why it doesn't matter; knowingly having a copy of someone else's property without their permission is dishonest.

 

We (as in humans in this day and age) need to get away from the idea that if we want something, then we have a right to it.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see why it matters why the church doesn't want the book to be public.

 

If the church wants to restrict Handbook 2 to the bishop's office then they should be allowed to do that.  People who circumvent the system to get a copy can come up with all the justifications they want for why it doesn't matter; knowingly having a copy of someone else's property without their permission is dishonest.

 

We (as in humans in this day and age) need to get away from the idea that if we want something, then we have a right to it.

Handbook 2 is freely available as a download in the Gospel Library app. Anyone can get it. Handbook 1 is what is restricted to the Bishops office. 

Share this post


Link to post

Handbook 2 is freely available as a download in the Gospel Library app. Anyone can get it. Handbook 1 is what is restricted to the Bishops office. 

 

Yes, i meant handbook 1.

Share this post


Link to post

Not saying that they should be not allowed to do that, heck, they can restrict Handbook 1 for all I care.  On the other hand, restricting it does give some very mixed signals.  Whenever, something like that is kept semi-secret it always raises suspicion.  So yes, if the Church wants to make the critics suspicions look legitimate, then this is a very good way to go about that -- otherwise, if they are handling things the way the Lord wants them handled, no real point in guarding the handbook.

Share this post


Link to post

Not saying that they should be not allowed to do that, heck, they can restrict Handbook 1 for all I care.  On the other hand, restricting it does give some very mixed signals.  Whenever, something like that is kept semi-secret it always raises suspicion.  So yes, if the Church wants to make the critics suspicions look legitimate, then this is a very good way to go about that -- otherwise, if they are handling things the way the Lord wants them handled, no real point in guarding the handbook.

 

Sometimes, it's nice to know that there are people out in the world (or organizations) who do what they believe is right, regardless of what anyone else will think of it.  I am sick to death of these groups and companies that cave to every whim or complaint of other people.

 

I just want to yell, Grow a spine people!  Stop letting other people's reactions decide what you are going to do and be your own person for once in your life!

 

Regardless of why the church wants to restrict the handbook, the rebel in me is all for it, especially because it bugs some people so much.  :spiteful:

Share this post


Link to post

Not saying that they should be not allowed to do that, heck, they can restrict Handbook 1 for all I care.  On the other hand, restricting it does give some very mixed signals.  Whenever, something like that is kept semi-secret it always raises suspicion.  So yes, if the Church wants to make the critics suspicions look legitimate, then this is a very good way to go about that -- otherwise, if they are handling things the way the Lord wants them handled, no real point in guarding the handbook.

 

I agree with you; everyone, each individual, each company, each business, each government, absolutely everyone should live a completely transparent life.  There should never be anything said or done that should be only "your" business.  It should be our business; we should know what our neighbor thinks and does at all times and in all places. Nothing should ever be out of the public square.  It should all be in the media for all to read and watch.

 

What a joyous world we would live in because life would be so transparent.  No one would be suspicious of anyone else. No secrets, or even semi-secret, would exist.  A much more honest way of life.  

 

More importantly, humans have demonstrated our ability to overlook each other's shortcomings, foibles, and weaknesses so each of us is trustworthy enough to handle all of this information.  It is clear that we would be able to handle knowing absolutely everything about everyone and never abuse such knowledge.  

 

And all because we have those few that feel they are so special they must know everything about a few entities because they are suspicious.  It makes perfect sense to me.

Share this post


Link to post

I agree with you; everyone, each individual, each company, each business, each government, absolutely everyone should live a completely transparent life.  There should never be anything said or done that should be only "your" business.  It should be our business; we should know what our neighbor thinks and does at all times and in all places. Nothing should ever be out of the public square.  It should all be in the media for all to read and watch.

 

What a joyous world we would live in because life would be so transparent.  No one would be suspicious of anyone else. No secrets, or even semi-secret, would exist.  A much more honest way of life.  More importantly, we have demonstrated an ability to overlook each other's shortcomings, foibles, and weaknesses so each of us would be able to handle knowing absolutely everything about everyone.  

 

And all because we have those few that feel they are so special they must know everything about a few entities because they are suspicious.  It makes perfect sense to me.

Yes, but your hyperbole doesn't. It's one thing for you or me, or a private business to keep things private. But we aren't talking about an individual, we aren't talking about a private business, we are talking about the Church of Jesus Christ. We are talking about policies which are to guide leaders to whom thousands of people are expected to give deference because of the keys they hold. That isn't something you do in a corner.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, but your hyperbole doesn't. It's one thing for you or me, or a private business to keep things private. But we aren't talking about an individual, we aren't talking about a private business, we are talking about the Church of Jesus Christ. We are talking about policies which are to guide leaders to whom thousands of people are expected to give deference because of the keys they hold. That isn't something you do in a corner.

 

When we are talking about transparency as a standard for organizations, when should we demand absolute transparency?  Should they have control over other individuals or should it be required at a much lower level?  If it is an organization then it must be transparent?  This is a slippery slope because an organization can have very few individuals.  If they are made to be transparent then what makes it different for an individual?

 

If there are polices of governance should every policy be made public?  Why?  What is the purpose of making it public?  Who exactly is demanding that it be made public and what are their motivations?

 

Is it possible for an individual or organization to keep something confidential?  What is the difference between confidential and secret?

 

The last time I looked the Church does not do anything in a corner.  Critics love to revel in creating the farce of the temple ordinances being "secret"; I suspect it is these same critics that accuse the Church of keeping leadership manuals secret.  The farce is that temple ordinances are not secret and have been since the beginning of the mid-1800s up until today.  In fact, if someone is completely desperate to read these leadership manuals they can either find them on the internet or in books stores.  I recognize that it is a demanding process to Google things, but it is an inconvenience or cross that these critics will have to bear.   

 

I just Googled Mormon Church Handbook of Instruction and found a plethora of entries.  Exactly what is the real issue here?  Obviously it is not secret.

Share this post


Link to post

When we are talking about transparency as a standard for organizations, when should we demand absolute transparency?  Should they have control over other individuals or should it be required at a much lower level?  If it is an organization then it must be transparent?  This is a slippery slope because an organization can have very few individuals.  If they are made to be transparent then what makes it different for an individual?

 

If there are polices of governance should every policy be made public?  Why?  What is the purpose of making it public?  Who exactly is demanding that it be made public and what are their motivations?

 

Is it possible for an individual or organization to keep something confidential?  What is the difference between confidential and secret?

 

The last time I looked the Church does not do anything in a corner.  Critics love to revel in creating the farce of the temple ordinances being "secret"; I suspect it is these same critics that accuse the Church of keeping leadership manuals secret.  The farce is that temple ordinances are not secret and have been since the beginning of the mid-1800s up until today.  In fact, if someone is completely desperate to read these leadership manuals they can either find them on the internet or in books stores.  I recognize that it is a demanding process to Google things, but it is an inconvenience or cross that these critics will have to bear.   

 

I just Googled Mormon Church Handbook of Instruction and found a plethora of entries.  Exactly what is the real issue here?  Obviously it is not secret.

Temple Ordinances are sacred, I have never heard anyone argue that any portion of the Handbook is sacred in that sense.

Share this post


Link to post

Temple Ordinances are sacred, I have never heard anyone argue that any portion of the Handbook is sacred in that sense.

 

Just answer the questions; I assume it is not that hard if you are advocating that we should publish everything ourselves to ensure that no one is suspicious.  The fact that the exact same accusations were made about the temple is interesting, that is all.  What is interesting is that there is nothing in the corner; nothing secret; nothing withheld.  So my questions remain; what is the real issue?

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/women-bishops-church-of-england-_n_5584266.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

 

Just saw this on FB.  I think the church might one day evolve to something close, but just my opinion. 

 The Bishop of Canterbury has been pushing for the ordination of women since he became the BofC along with the liberal side of the Church of England's priests, which also started ordaining women in 1944.  After the WWII she resigned her license.  Since that time local synods and affiliated national churches began ordaining women.  1974 was the first year women were ordained priests; it was hotly controversial because three retired bishops took it upon themselves to ordain them.

 

This Church of England has very difficult time of retaining young people as members resulting in a 9% decline in membership over the past decade.  They are reviewing in-depth their church and how to retain members.  Though there are some conservative synods, it appears that they are now, as a church, firmly under the leadership of the liberal wing.  

 

It will be interesting to see how this impacts their growth or if the church continues to lose membership.   

Share this post


Link to post

Just answer the questions; I assume it is not that hard if you are advocating that we should publish everything ourselves to ensure that no one is suspicious.  The fact that the exact same accusations were made about the temple is interesting, that is all.  What is interesting is that there is nothing in the corner; nothing secret; nothing withheld.  So my questions remain; what is the real issue?

I thought I did. Temples are sacred. Policy Handbooks on the governance of the Church are not. Church governance is something which critics can legitimately take issue with whether inside or outside the Church. I personally don't give a rip about such things, except I hate to see my Church needlessly set itself up for criticism because that is something that affects us all. To me any Church, Coven, Synagogue or whatever which has sacred rituals they do not want profaned has a right and perhaps a duty to reasonably protect them. But Church governance, I just don't see the analogy. If certain situations are to be handled in such a manner, then so be it. If it's the Lord's policy, then there is no need to hide it.

Share this post


Link to post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/14/women-bishops-church-of-england-_n_5584266.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000051

 

Just saw this on FB.  I think the church might one day evolve to something close, but just my opinion. 

I hope not. Heck of an example, a denomination founded on a demand by a king to formalize an adulterous relationship. I'll take the First Vision any old time over that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...