EllenMaksoud

It took over 40 years (maybe 50, can't remember the exact dates) for sealing in families to actually become sealing in actual families ( revelation received by WW).

One can look at that as a correction of an error (after all people who were sealing in families to people not their parents were later sealed to their parents) or that adoption sealing was acceptable to the Lord in and of itself but that God wanted eventually actual families to be sealed and he was just waiting for the Church to come to a place where they felt the need to progress further in their understanding and practices as manifested by Pres. Woodruff speaking as our voice at that time.

I think the lack of immediate or relatively immediate correction leads to the conclusion that it was not wrong for the Church to be practicing the Law of Adoption sealings and it was right to replace them with the family sealings we have now. If Priesthood or some additional form of God's Power and Authority (or perhaps God the Mother's Authority) is eventually given to women beyond what we have today, I don't think that makes the current restriction wrong just the later change will be another in the line upon line development. We need to be careful through not to assume all possible change to be part of the process. This is one case where I believe one has to wait for actual revelation and implementation to occur.

I'd be most pleased if they would just obey their own doctrines.

there are those who would say anticipating a cure, suggesting this is a good thing labels their state (homosexual, transgendered, deafness, blindness, whatever biological variation one wants to choose) as something wrong and less worthy than others and is thus an unkind attitude.

A lot of "attitude" has to do with the attitude of the reader/listener.

I don't know the best approach.  I just know that in the end that God, Allah SWT, Heavenly Father will work it all out in the end. Life is really tough right now. I'm surrounded

Consider that nothing I have said here had any application to you personally, that there was no ill intent in any case, and that you therefore have no cause to feel injured.

Some of my family openly tell me that I am homosexual though there has never been any of that activity in my life. Some of us are neither male nor female.

Doing this does not require the acceptance of immoral public policy.

 

In judging my attitude as "unkind," you have just passed unrighteous judgment yourself.

And while we see homosexual and other activity as immoral, I do too, I believe we are on the verge of at least understanding the drives, if not finding a cure for these issues. We just need to put as much effort into that as we put into making spent nuclear rounds, and Predator drones. So, I will not devote one second of my time condemning others.

Doing this does not require the acceptance of immoral public policy.

 

In judging my attitude as "unkind," you have just passed unrighteous judgment yourself.

If you are offended, I apologize. Your attitude hurt me. What am I to do with that?

I think we can count on the Church in the future to continue to align itself with good, like-minded people in supporting public policy that safeguards and promotes morality, the traditional family, and other values we champion.

I heartily disagree that in supporting Prop 8, the Church was involved with radical, fringe groups -- unless that's how you regard the Catholic Church.

Whatever has been the long-term success of Prop 8, I don't for a moment regret the involvement of Latter-day Saints in promoting its passage. It was fighting the good fight.

You are judging me for comments on a subject that you perhaps have little knowledge of.  There are lots of good Mormons who know there will be further developments in these issues. More and more I am seeing the elderly medically evaluated to determine their cognitive abilities and the results of those tests being used to determine the future of their driving license. Things will change when those or more advanced tests will be used to determine a person's ability to make their own decisions to lead. I look at this with some trepidation because of my own age. This Sunday I drove a woman home who had just lost her license as a result of these tests.

Further, those without an issue have been allowed to determine the path and future of those with issues that "someone" has said to be a sign of moral decline. How smug of them. I know far too many good solid Mormons whose children or siblings have come out as gay or what ever. I wonder how the shoe fits now? Pinches a bit does it?

I am not saying that churches should become the site of homosexual orgies, but I am saying that it is high time that the devout become more devout and dedicated to finding solutions and helping those who suffer.

May you not be judged for your unkind attitude.

I have counseled many people with depression, clients and church members.  There is no single cause.  Physicians are often just as mystified as lay persons as to the treatment.

 

I had a friend I counseled email me today, coincidentally, who suffered from severe depression.   He was under a doctor's care but still wanted advice.  I had nothing to suggest except to say that he go out an walk a mile a day.   When he couldn't do that, I bought a gym membership for him and paid for a trainer for dozens of sessions.   That was 8 years ago, and today I received an email crediting that trainer for saving his life.  He's now entiering employment as a paramedic. 

 

So, go figure.  There is no particular cause, effect or solution.  But somebody battling with depression is going to find it hard to feel the Spirit, no doubt.

And sometimes there is no relief for the depression but one can point directly to the cause of it.  At times all one can do is absent themselves from those who are hurtful to us. You can't change others to make them stop being so mean, so you flee, not leaving a forwarding address.

The Church has pushed out a statement from signed by Michael Otterson

 

Open Letter: Context missing from discussion about women

 

It was given to several Mormon blogs including (but likely not limited to) Mormon Women Stand, By Comment Consent, and Feminist Mormon Housewives. The latter site has deferred posting it until they could formulate a response (hence not linked).

 

I personally found a great deal in the letter which was encouraging and true. Though, not every one will feel the same way. Just making sure everybody knows about it.

Yes, the criticisms 1-3 are right on target in my estimation. There is no path of appeal for women, or perhaps men also. And, I have heard of decisions by Bishops that make me break out in a sweat.

I especially agree that the church associating its self with radical groups does not serve us well. Almost invariably when I talk to a member of the public about the Mormon church, they immediately want to talk about Proposition 8. Gee, I hope we never do that again.

http://utahpoliticohub.com/responding-to-questions-about-gay-marriage-advocates-coming-out-of-the-closet/

 

 

 

 

Please keep it civil as we can.

Well, there is no evidence that the children of adoptive gays or lesbians make their children gay or lesbian. And, I do not think this is happening in statistically significant numbers. I think the best thing that heterosexual couples can do is concentrate on being good parents and not to focus on the real or imagined sins of others.

This is difficult because no one can agree upon where the line is between minding out own business and interfering in the lives of others to the extent that we think we are God's little helpers. In frustration, I left the fundamentalist church and became Muslim because of their hateful, condemning ways. Some would argue that I jumped out of the frying pan into the fire perhaps.

In reading this article it says

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865604105/Depression-More-than-a-bad-hair-day.html

 

 

"People with depression yearn for spiritual feelings and the warmth of God’s love, she said, but their symptoms often make it hard to sense and feel the Spirit’s positive comfort."

 

Which is true but also we read in the Doctrine and Covenants 14:2

 

"behold, I am God;Give heed to my word, which is quick and powerful, sharper than a two-edged sword, to the dividing asunder of both joints and marrow: Therefore give heed to my word"

 

Shouldn't the Holy Ghost cut through the depression? why does it sound like depression is a Holy Ghost repellant, it's not like depressed people don't want the spirit or get revelation, it's  like if you have depression, then you are cut off and can't feel the spirit despite what the DC says. What say ye?

Depression comes to us in lots of ways. For some it is a diagnosable chemical imbalance and there is more variation in symptoms and severity than you can even imagine. Sadly, at times people think that some Bipolar are just playing games. Then there is Depression brought on by extreme trauma that sets off symptoms that are often called  PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, and other labels.  Astonishingly, some think that depression is curable. It can be reduced and the sufferer can be given tools to deal with it.  I don't have much experience with Bipolar folk, but a lot with folk whose depression is brought on by abuse, assault, unlawful imprisonment, etc.

For the latter individual, the depression can be greatly reduced by the love and acceptance and healing those around them can give them. Conversely, those who others think have been healed, remain extremely vulnerable to the effects of further abuse. There is one segment of our culture that I am very familiar with whose suicide attempt rate is around 41%., 9 times the national average. And considering the circumstances for some individuals, I can not condemn them if they do suicide in spite of all we think we have done.

So a woman who likes to wear a Muslim-style headscarf comes to church, and the rumor spreads that she was a Navy Seal? THAT has got to be one of the great all-time rumors/gossip I have ever heard. 

They have been mostly, uncommonly kind at my ward. Still there were some very good things I learned while Muslim. Unyielding modesty is one. While everyone is out buying swim suits that seem far to blatant to me, the Burqini I bought seems just fine. Sometimes following your heart is the only thing you can do.

We're all imperfect, sometimes we're the ones who hurt someone else, sometimes it's another who hurts us.  When we realize the hurtful things we have done (and we have all done them at one point or another) it is easier to forgive those who hurt us I think.  I do believe we're all doing the best we can though.  The real evils in the world are not one another, the real evils are death, sickness, pain, misunderstanding... we all need to stand together and fight on the same team, look for the good in everyone, be the person we want others to be.

If you knew me, it would be easy to see that there is no polish. In fact, when I started in my present ward, the rumor went around that I am a retired Navy Seal. Yet, even the most hardened of us can be changed, and I thank Heavenly Father for that.

I am happy that you recognize that it is few and far between to find an unrighteous and domineering active Mormon.  Considering the situation within the general public, and within the world at large, my impression is that Mormon men are some of the kindest, and most sensitive people on this earth.  I've seen them move countless families in and out of houses, getting up in the middle of the night to give someone a blessing, taking on the burden of work day in and day out without daring to suggest that their wives could help provide, then come home, do the dishes, and tuck the kiddos in.  As a convert, I am incredibly impressed by the true blue's.  Yes, in any group you can find the oddball that doesn't quite get it yet for one reason or another, and the oddballs stick out because they are odd - but let's not overlook the ones who don't stick out, the quiet normal majority of them, the ones who represent what the church is really all about.

The painful thing about being in the presence of gentlemen is that when I encounter a plonker, my guard is down and I have been deeply hurt by these sorts. I am not able to understand why a woman would want to be in the male priesthood. Practically speaking, women already have a "priesthood" that makes the optimum use of our strengths.

My opinion: The Church will never back off from its unwavering commitment to the divine law of chastity -- meaning sexual relations only between a man and a woman who are lawfully married -- and you can count on it. It is the Church's steadfast position on this issue, amongst other things, that will likely bring the prophesied sore persecutions down upon the saints prior to the Second Coming. This issue will also likely be among other points of contention that will cause the prophesied great rift among Church members in the Latter-days. It's likely that when this division takes place there will be a mass exodus out of the Church by members who will no longer feel they can support and sustain the General Authorities. Cou Hld it be we are already beginning to see the battle lines being drawn right here on this board? Time will tell...

I have, perhaps foolishly, been really candid about my own struggles. This rift you speak of is in full bloom right now. Certain groups are even using falsehood to spread their ideas. My own Step Sister left home and worked as a maid so she could attend college rather than  be forced to stay home an be forced into marriage with someone she did not love. I'll never be anything in the church, and I will be dead before much else can happen. Heavenly Father will right the wrongs then.

Did Orin Hatch really say the Church is going to give up on its opposition to gay marriage, or did he say the world is going to accept it and we will have to learn to live with it while not actually condoning it?

Perhaps the latter?  If they do condone it, I have full confidence that it will not happen until there is irrefutable evidence proving it is not sin and that will have to wait a generation or two.

But are you also saying you believe the Church will eventually join the rest of the world and give up on its opposition to gay marriage?

I did not say that, Sen Warren Hatch said that.

I am taking the long view, and I think the SSM marriage issue will be solved by science like so many other issues in religion and the larger world. Copernicus nearly died because he knew the world was round, Tindale did die because he believed that all should have access to the bible. In spite of the fact that Joseph Smith had a black Bishop, after his death, they were excluded from the temple until the mid 1970's.

I have seen too many so called "diversity folk" being persecuted because what they say is not a choice. Their tears are real, and their suicides are blood on the hands of the people. I have no medical or professional religous background, but I am entitled to my opinion on these matters. I have a personal stake in this not because I am gay or lesbian, and I can say that the pain is real.

Right or wrong decisions will be made on these issues and whether it will bring blessings or damnation, I do not know.

Ellen,

 

Before I jump to conclusions, would you please explain a little more about what you mean to say in that last line about the Church and hubris?

I have run into a very few Mormon men who rule by intimidation. I have talked to some who were decades behind prevailing, proven, scientific fact and still hold to their opinions on certain issues.

Familiarity with the Long Tail principal may be warranted here.

 

While not every sister may be agitating for priesthood ordination, that is also not to say the Church has a ways to go with gender issues. Indeed, the vision and instructions the Brethren gave in the 2010 worldwide leadership training still has, in many cases, not quite realized itself in the local units.

 

PS: For the record, I am no ally of the Ordain Women movement.

Not to derail this discussion, but your mention of gender issues reminds me that Sen Hatch said that SSM will become the law of the land. Another rather highly placed mormon told me that it is likely that the church will make certain concessions on social issues to keep out of litigation.

And, if you talk to elderly Mormon women, there has already been significant social change in the church since the 40's. I do not know if this will lead to happiness or damnation, however.  ELCA Lutherans, Episcopalians, Menonites have made significant changes over the years. Hubris will not hold change in the Mormon Church off forever.

Do they have rules which would prohibit a man from obtaining any position in the group?

Only if he dresses appropriately.

I would call it possible seed planting. Like Johnny Appleseed, they will go around and spread the seeds of their agenda and hope that many seeds will begin to sprout their agenda.

I'd say it is likely some non-Mormon, radical feminist group. Those who are Mormons know that women hold the church together. I've been on the road for 12 days going from here to Rexburg and back again and attending church at White Salmon, Washington, and Arco, Idaho. I did not see anything alarming along the way. Though I felt like Idaho Mormons might be a bit smug.

Here: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57978283-78/women-ordain-lds-discussion.html.csp

Some excerpts/observations:

 

Well, I suppose that's a good thing.

 

Here is a link to those discussions: http://ordainwomen.org/six-discussions/

Currently only the first two are available. The rest will be rolled out over the next few weeks.

In "Discussion One," entitled "See the Symptoms" (the Church has a disease, apparently) is a game called "Patriarchal Bingo." It's essentially an exercise in cherry-picked griping.

One of the questions in this discussion states: "How can we cherish the parts of the gospel we love and treasure, while at the same time think critically about the ways in which we have been harmed or discriminated against?"

There is also an article, "Feminism 101: Patriarchy" by Ingrid Asplund. It's not particularly well-written, but it is not overtly critical of the Church, either.

There is another brief article, "Equality is Not a Feeling," by Heather Olsen Beal. This one is a bit more overt in its criticism of the Church:

 

TWO-PART PROCLAMATION FROM ME:

1. I don’t know what I think about God these days, but this much I know: God is not the author of inequality. I don’t care who claims otherwise. I’m not buying what you’re selling.

2. Separate but equal is bollocks. I don’t buy it in movie theaters, schools, water fountains, hospitals, government, laws, train cars, soda counters, or busses. I sure as heck don’t buy it in my church.

Here she is explicitly publicly accusing the Church of behavior on par with Jim Crow laws. That's troubling.

There is another section, "Ask a Feminist," by Chelsea Shields Strayer. This includes a laundry list of grievances about why she feels "unequal."

Discussion Two is entitled "Know the History." It is an attempt to present a historical/doctrinal basis for women to receive the priesthood. It consists mostly of three articles, a Dialogue article about an interview with Chieko Okazaki, a Sunstone article by Linda Newell, "A Gift Given: Washing, Anointing, and Blessing the Sick among Mormon Women," and an excerpt from the minutes of the 1842 organization of the Relief Society by Joseph Smith.

There is also a timeline which goes back to biblical times, and which asserts that Phoebe held the priesthood office of "deacon" and Junia held the priesthood office of "apostle" (citing Romans 16). I think this is a bold claim, both because it is disputes (there is considerable dispute about Phoebe being a deacon (see here: http://tinyurl.com/mu3lb2p) and Junia being an apostle - see here: http://tinyurl.com/nypuujz).

The page introducing these discussions (http://ordainwomen.org/six-discussions/) encourages people to "Please consider starting your own local discussion group (similar to a book club, all viewpoints are welcome)." It also includes a "Getting Started Packet" (http://tinyurl.com/kkjxdrf) which includes the following list of "Objectives of the 6 Discussions":

 

• To foster conversations that help people reflect on their own thoughts and experiences

• To reaffirm our faith in God and testimony of continuing revelation

• To encourage continued membership and full fellowship in the LDS Church as we explore the topic of women’s ordination

• To effect change through faithful agitation as a united group of LDS women

 

The first three bullest sound nice, but "faithful agitation" has a rather repellant ring to it.

And none of these materials reference the OW group's alliance with Margaret Toscano, an excommunicated apostate. That seems rather dishonest to me. I think the OW group needs to be open about this sort of thing, as I am reasonably sure that most LDS women are not going to be comfortable taking cues from a group which invited an excommunicated apostate to be a key speaker and contributor at its founding event.

Back to the Trib article:

 

This is a much different tack from the militant we-want-the-priesthood-and-nothing-less-will-suffice posture they previously exhibited.

 

I'm not comfortable with this. I seem to recall a whole bunch of hand-wringing about how the OW group had been mistreated in some online comments (I acknowledge that these comments I read were inappropriate and offensive). But now the OW group is accusing others who disagree with them of "a lack of faith." Will there be a similar outcry?

Personally, I agree that we should consider female ordination as a "possibility." But I'm not willing to publicly denigrate those who disagree with me as "demonstrat(ing) a lack of faith."

I do give major props to Sis. Downing for her next point:

 

I'm not as concerned about usurpation of power and authority, but rather denigration of the Church and the Brethren, defiance of instructions from the Church, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, disregarding the revelatory process in the Church ("nothing less will suffice"), and the OW group's now conveniently obscured alignment with an excommunicated apostate.

Back to the article:

 

I think this is the crux of Kate Kelly's boneheaded approach to this issue. Mormons will not, I think, ever like to see other Mormons deploying adversarial "social activism" against their own church. It's not that Mormons are "unfamiliar" with this approach, it's that they reject it when applied to a profoundly important doctrinal matter which can and should only be discussed with humility, sanctity, reverence, and submission to God's will as discerned through the Spirit and revelation.

Agitation (aka "direct action" against the Church), such as PR campaigns against the Church, defying the Church, trespassing and protesting on sacred ground, repeated deliberate attempts to disrupt and distract from sacred convocations, aligning with excommunicated apostates, and so on, is the hallmark of "social activism." And as much as it has alienated so many LDS from the overall message of the OW group, Kate Kelly seems too wedded to it to try a more appropriate approach. That's bone-headed.

 

I continue to lose respect for the OW group. They are not "asking," they are demanding. And they are demanding more than "the LDS prophet to inquire of the Lord," because they have repeatedly declared that "nothing less (than female ordination) will suffice."

Thanks,

-Smac

 

This is odd because every single woman I have talked to could care less to have the priesthood. Perhaps someone just wants to create a tempest where there is none.

My brother is exempt from this campaign because he has to maintain a full beard so he can be used as an extra in the Life of Christ videos.

 

  

I most certainly cutting my beard off for them !!!

I hear so much lately about how the church doesn't hide any of it's history and about how truthful and honest they are. Then I see something like today's BYU channel program on church history and I just have to shake my head.

 

The topic was regarding some of the early formal and informal historians, record keepers and diary keepers, one of which was Horrace K. Whitney.

 

They gave a little of his background and then proceeded to inform us of his "classic love story" with Helen Mar Kimball.

 

It was mentioned how they were "children of the restoration" and that they had been practically raised together and had gone to school together in Kirtland. They were considered "childhood sweethearts".

 

It went on to say that they were married and then the story turned back to how faithful Horrace had kept a record of the great trek to the west. Etc., etc.....

 

If I had been a non-member or an (heaven forbid) uninformed member, I would have come away from that telecast having absolutely no clue as to the real status of Helen Mar Kimball, her marriage to Joseph Smith, or plural marriage in general.  As far as I could tell from the information given, Helen and Horrace were simply high school sweethearts that fell in love and got married and were good ol' faithful saints for the rest of their days as all good saints should be. Ain't it wonderful? 

 

This is why it's difficult to keep a straight face when apologetic TBMs attempt to say that the church is upfront and forthcoming with their history. It just doesn't wash.......

It all seems elusive does it not?  I know that my Mother's side of the family were Mormons around 1860 and yesterday, my half brother said that his fathers side has a woman that was one of the wives of Joseph Smith. I've always felt that herritage does not make much difference if the inherritors do not live honorably and faithfully.

That's why the geniologies in the Bible are of so little value to me.

That's not a very nice thing to say about men.

See the smile, I was joking. Non Feminist women are reacting to two things. Though there are not very many of them, there are those men who think they are our masters. Hmph ! fat chance.  I just don't actually know what Feminist women are after. I just don't undestand it. I think that perhaps 1/4 or 1/3 of the women in our relief society just want men to be the good guys they can be and not hear from the men how superior they are.

And then there is the fact that every single woman is expected to marry and have a bunch of children. What if you are a woman where being a Doctor or Physcist is more to you?  I know what happens to some of those women.  Many just quietly fade away and leave.

So accoding to the traditional doctrine of the trinity, God is one being that manifests himself as three persons. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God. However not three Gods but one God. The roles never cross.

Most fundamental Christians believe that the resurrection is literal, and that Christ has a body of flesh and bone. They also believe that God (the Father) is spirit. If Christ is the Father then God has a body and is not only spirit. Or Christ must lay down his body when acting as the Father, which scripture says cannot happen because that would be death.

Is it just me, or is the LDS doctrine of the Godhead the only one that makes sense? I get confused hearing other faiths talk about the Godhead.

I don't know whose doctrine it is, but as for me, God is  God and has been that way always. Jesus the Christ was with God in the beginning, or shortly there after. I have heard some people say that the Holy Spirit if God's wife. The point is that we can not entirely know God. Job 36:26  "Look, God is greater than we can understand." I do not need to understand every little thing about Creation and how  God made it.  That's what I believe. I've seen arguments about Jesus the Christ being the God of the OT, and I was convinced for a while. Now I think they are just building a doctrine on over explaining something.

Did God exist before the big bang? I do not know. He says he has always existed, so I believe him. I have repeatedly witnessed two religous experts say almost exactly the same thing and still fight about something. Who is the fool? What do you think God thinks?

There are a couple doctrines that are practiced and they are from the pit of Hell. One is that as we live, if we are faithful, then we get better and better. The Bible does not say that. The day we die, we are just as fallen as the day we are born.  Another one I hear is that a TR makes us more worthy. and that to get one you have to be worthy. Someone just does not understand God there.