CV75

It means they are not calling you one.

OK I watched it... thank you for keeping it short! Have a Merry Christmas!

Unless this clip is about a dirty mind I shall shun it. OK I watched it... thank you for keeping it short! Have a Merry Christmas!

Yes, you prefer "if you will" to see a much larger cohort of people as "ex-mormons" than I do, but we both narrow this down even further by those that join Reddit or listen to John Dehlin (and by "ex-tension") Mormon Stories.

I'm sure there are live venues as well. I wouldn't describe someone else's (whether and individual or a larger group) experience leaving the Church as "becoming "exmormons". I didn't see Posted Sunday at 05:55 PM but they seem to be exaggerating and misapplying the numbers while emphasizing the online venues for community.

Oy vey iz mir, what a shanda! What will the neighbors say? ...Meh, just bring me grandchildren...

I think you are dumbing it down (Ludic fallacy) by identifying the Mexican cohort as you see them, rather than as they see themselves. In consideration of the OP, and your use of the term "exmormon," ex-Mormons would be those who found a home in such venues as Mormon Stories (about 15 views per subscriber annually -- subscribers and non-subscribers combined, 35% of whom were never affiliated with the Church) and The Exmormon Foundation (little if any direct Spanish language content). I think it would be simpler for you to say that many people leave the Church, period, and that 3% of these (total global maximum) watch and support Mormon Stories. The rest simply move on with their lives. Take a siesta!

Killjoys they may have been, but I see no evidence they thought the writer(s) of Esther had dirty minds. I think all things considered, they probably considered the storytelling techniques reflected more sophistication that that: subtlety, wit, irony, social commentary, innuendo, double entendre, etc. and not vulgar, crude, explicit or base jokes generally considered "dirty," and not even coming close to what Nephi called "much rudeness." Plus these were social norms not generally considered shocking at the time.

How many of the 80% in Mexico (for example) intentionally broke away from Mormonism, considering their decision a morally compelling one and social risky, and thus sought out new communities or networks to support their transition away from the Church, with the aim of pursuing personal / communal growth beyond their former identity as Church members? This is what I would consider an "exmo" or "postmo" as opposed to, say, "lapsed", "cultural," "habitual," "inactive" or "less active", etc. I think the distinction is important as a matter of integrity as to how someone describes themselves or represents others.

And of course some other more likely factors to consider: https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1388&context=insights Although I do like this image, courtesy AI:

But I'm not seeing the imprint of a dirty mind in the telling of the story or the other examples. The imprint of politics and ideology, yes.

Ah very interesting! Becoming more and human like! Thank you.

Sorry I can't understand this.

I would not at all say the inclusion of the 5th century BCE versions of these terms (real and imagined) in an ancient narrative evaluated by modern readers exploring themes of female roles, agency, power/empowerment in a patriarchal world proves that the author had a dirty mind and more than Mormon's epistle (Moroni 9) prove he had a sadistic (and dirty) mind. What does it mean to read the Book of Esther "with any imagination" relative to a dirty mind? When I suggested you have one, it was in jest, pointing out with a non sequitur that your answer to my question as to whether the instances of women in the Bible not being represented (the absence of evidence) harmfully outweigh the instances in which they are represented was a non sequitur. I think I straightened things out here: Posted yesterday at 05:26 PM without suggesting the Bible is dirty (interpreting innocent things in a lascivious, vulgar, lewd, prurient way) or written by similarly dirty minds. Though it does touch on many sensitive topics.

No, go ahead, do it !!! OR

ha ha I have an open mind about it, and while I do not actively use it (I look at it when a Google Search brings it up), I would expect it to have a link to its source, just like the Google AI does in its search reply. If there isn't one, I will seek one out for myself.

Can you c/p the source it uses to draw this conclusion?

Hi Calm, Matthew 18:18 indicates that the Twelve were given the keys, and vacancies in that number/quorum were filled (Acts 1: 22 -26). Paul did not fill any vacancy; he was "appointed and commissioned and sent out" by God directly for a particular mission to the Gentiles, seeming to also bridge their community with the Jewish one, but outside of what the Twelve were doing to run the kingdom. Are you suggesting 1) there might have been others, including Junia who were called directly by God and later (as Paul) had their commission recognized by the governing body of Peter, James, John and the other Twelve; or 2), given Joseph Smith's comments about the Female Relief Society being part of the restoration of the primitive gospel, she was similarly called; or 3), as counselors in modern times are sometimes called into the First Presidency outside of the Quorum of Twelve, women had similar counselor- or advisory-type roles among the councils of the primitive Church as they do today; or 4) something else (and what is the NT basis for this)?

People and their norms came before the scriptures, so their writing about God's involvement in their lives would reflect their times and customs. People then may use these histories and traditions to justify the perpetuation of traditions and customs, for better or worse. I think the light of Christ may inspire some to break away from tradition and custom, but also manage them in a way that moves God's work forward. The same with revelation by those with the keys to receive it, and the same with God's direct intervention when He doesn't find it expedient that they continue.

Please share the good (I mean, the dirty) parts!

Yes, but I wouldn't call them dirty-minded. I reserve that for my contemporaries

So, if we know that instances are left out, we are not dependent on the Bible to see how important women are or how we treat them. This is why I think people use the Bible (as with texts of other religious traditions) to justify their habits; the people came first.

I don't think I've ever looked at this website, basing my decision on what its proponents have had to say about it on this forum.

You have a dirty mind.

Do the instances of women in the Bible not being represented outweigh (whether numerically or harmfully) the instances in which they are represented? I'm sure there is a debate in there somewhere. Women are both silenced and highlighted with or without examples and instructions from the Bible, so the root cause seems to be deeper than that; the Bible is but a mirror of the writers, compilers and users, for better when inspired and for worse when political. I think what you are getting at has to do with building Zion along the lines of the Restored Gospel.