Senator

Can you demonstrate this scripturally? It’s an extrapolated doctrine.

It is, if not a bit frustrating also. This is one of the cases where the apologetic can be just as offputting as the original issue. You see in order to arrive at the “correct” understanding of the issue one needs to employ the wordsmithing skills of a seasoned attorney in order to parse out all of the fine nuances and meanings of words. And in the end, you just kind of feel manipulated.

Not only a spiritual connection, but a marker of standing in the church. That cultural church and the dogmas that it created carried real weight. Buck against those cultural dogmas and it was a sure sign that apostacy was knocking at the door. So many of the people that I know that have left or distanced themselves from the church, claim the church culture was the aggravant, only then to be told "it was never about the culture". Then the feelings of gaslighting explode.

I envy your mental and spiritual aloofness. I certainly wasn't raised to think that way. But I'm getting there

There you go ladies. You finally got permission (from a man no less) to do what you've been saying needs to be done all along.

I am uninterested in continuing this unending questioning to help you understand. It’s not that difficult. Instead of wanting to understand, I feel you more want to just continue this cross examination down to the finest minutiae until you can catch me on some contradiction or illogic. No not interested

I am not suggesting that all men should be held responsible for the actions of some men. However because of the actions of some(many) men, all men may inherit a collective consequence of such actions, which comes in the form of default suspicion, caution, distrust, by women.

I'm more concerned with the women and the generational harm borne at the hands of men. As one being among that category, I mourn that.

I'm writing this post outside of the forum just in case the bot check wants to check me and blow my post away. This discussion has been extremely instructional to me. I thank the several articulate female voices here that have demonstrated to me what they are trying to say when such phrases as "all men are potential rapists" are used. You have flipped a switch, as it were, in my thinking. Like Smac, I too, retracted into a defensive position. “That's a provocative, unfair and prejudicial statement!” Yes, it is! That’s the point! I think it is meant, among other things, to get our attention. It got Smac’s attention. It got my attention. The thought came to my mind that a woman’s collective default mentality to exercise caution towards all men stems from the trauma of generations of abuse and harm suffered at the hands of men. It’s a function of an evolutional necessity for survival. It’s written into their DNA! And so, I feel absolutely no want nor justification to push back against it. In fact, it’s just the opposite. I have had an overwhelming sense of collective guilt, if you will, for the suffering that my gender has inflicted on women through out the ages. Scars that are so deep that only the actions of infinite loving God can heal and rectify.

Why did you inject their religious classification into the discussion. It is neither relevant nor appropriate. It is as if in order to discredit their argument, you needed to discredit them personally by showing their betrayal to the good name of "Latter-day Saint women in 2026"? Really?

!@#& I am so sick of this Bot crap. Just wrote a response only to be greeted with a picture quiz to find the motorcycles... and blew my post away. 😤 I'm done

I do not take offense. I am not a victim. But I could certainly understand how a victim could take offense at your generalized statement.

Are you also directing this at the women victimized?

It happens numerous times during the same visit, and always when I move from thread to thread. It's really frustrating

Is anyone else being driven bonkers with this Bot protection. I am constantly having to identify crosswalks, bikes, busses, bridges. I can't count how many time I have lost a response post due a bot check. Unless I just doing something wrong, this will likely drive me from this forum. (no clapping)🫵

And ultimately all of the LDS claims to truth and authority boil down to someone's personal spiritual experience. Namely, Joseph Smith. So, yes it is authoritative, to those who believe it.

You don't think Navidad's "non-covenant authority" spiritual experience is authentic? Yet, that's the way it is. What are you going to do about it? Tell them their spiritual experiences can't possibly be true because they don't all align and don't have the correct authority? Ok?! Meanwhile Navidad and scores of other go about their spiritually rich and abiding walk in Christ.

But not necessarily. And I think that is what Navidad is getting at.

If I had to choose between "experience[ing] real influence from the Holy Spirit" or a claim to priesthood authority, I would choose the former any day.

Then I'll file that away in the ol rumor bin

Can you provide any references for these claims?

I dunno. Jesus said that there would be few that find it. I would add that "there would be few that find it beautiful. Why? As you say, "humans"

For what its worth, I appreciate that you have taken the personal initiative to change the dynamic of the discussion. How refreshing it is to observe a discussion and come away actually informed and my understanding broadened. Kudos!

I agree, out of mere speaking convenience, groups do need names. And you will never please everyone. I do hope they get shortened, because those phrases are awkward.

Comes across a bit kitschy. But whatever