EllenMaksoud

If you have some time, I would like to hear about some of your experiences (without naming

the denominations) of the hate-filled doctrines that you have been exposed to in your

spiritual journey.  Would make for an interesting topic in the Social Hall.

Thank you,

Jim

I was invited to share some of my experiences in religous doctrines. I'll also mention religous cultures and how they can either build one up or tear one down.

When I was quite young, we were Easter Christians; meaning that we attended church at Easter only. Then my parents would spend the ride home re-living how the sermon re-ignited some bitter experiences they'd had.

As time passed, there was a Television Evangelist that was quite well known at the time. What ever he said was meaningless to me because I knew with certainty that when the program was over, the six pack was gone, and the paper read, he would be roaming the house looking for a child to beat, me. Later, the Mormon competition would sometimes come to the house, but their evangelism consisted of guilt and damnation. Generally, he would listen to them for a while and throw them out.

In my very early teens, I found myself in churches, but these days I can not remember how that happened.   There was nothing attractive about it because it felt like they were too condemning. "You have to abandon your life of sin, child."  It was so negative that I did not go back after a while.

In the Military, I knew I needed God, and believed, so tried a certain Monolithic church. At 20 years old, it just did not have the impact...

In my late 20's, I stepped out on the porch to look at the Sunset. There was thankfulness but also a yearning for meaning. Through what I still see as miraculous means, the next week end I had the book in my hands that would lead me to my first meaningful encounter with a loving God, and Jesus Christ. The book was, "Late Great Planet Earth", and reading that book and comparing it's scriptures and claims with several other Bibles that had somehow gotten into the house completely stopped me.

I was soon ( a couple week ends)  on my knees asking for forgiveness for my sins and asking Jesus Christ into my life.  Those first years of Christianity converted me from an actual fire breathing dragon, to a much flawed woman trying to learn to please God. We actually tried the RLDS church for a while, and while they were very nice folk,  we just did not get it and the ministry seemed to lack power. This was 1974

We eventually left our next church because the assumption was made that every thing our children did wrong was the parents fault.  Our children were becoming teens and no teen is entirely perfect. The next church we attended was all about "Prosperity Doctrine", and reading the bible and wanting to be closer to God, we could see that God was no sugar daddy.

In the 70's our culture was all about women's rights, and we actually stopped going to church for a while, perhaps thinking that church was not relevant. These were the years that extreme TV evangelicals began screaming about Gays. We knew that none of us were gay, but remembering the words of Jesus Christ about the "plank", we tried to ignore that talk. Later, we knew a gay man and saw how he was rejected, hated and cast out.

Then came the misguided American involvements in the Middle East. Years later we would know that the Sunni and Shia Muslims had been fighting for 1400 years and were not about to stop. The Media and certain TV evangelists began to polarize American Public opinion.  I can remember one evangelist say, "All Muslims will go to Hell". There were a good half dozen hate mongers in the 90's, and for me their words belied the words of Jesus the Christ.

Eventually, the hate hysteria about gays, Muslims, homeless and them dirty sinners got to be too much for me, and I quit. After that in just a few years, that church threw me out because I sinned. They used 1 Corinthians 5:11 on me, and even after I admitted my sin and repented they did not use Galatians 6:1.  A divorce followed and I was finished with the Jesus People. 

Islam was good at first, covering my sin with black cloth and anonymity, being the part of the worthless woman that I felt I was.  At first, I was actually involved in a radical group that, in retrospect, could have  contributed funds and other support to terrorism.  Wearing the full face and head covering, Niqab, gives one inner quietness but also draws hateful statements from fools. It was terribly frightening at times, and I eventually abandoned the Niqab for the Hijab. I imagine the only ones to experience that sort of hate and anger might be Mormon Missionaries and bill collectors.

And, Muslims have a persecution complex in America, complaining much about how the Kafir (infidel)(unbelievers) do mean things to them, though I seldom experienced it.

So, when I encountered the Mormons in Kirtland, it was a total mind blower for me. It has changed my life, made me a new creature in Jesus Christ in a way I had never encountered before anywhere. Oh, Mormons are not perfect. I have learned to not speak of politics, but have not yet thought of a way to stop those few bent on ranting and raving.

I have actually experienced more rejection because of my beliefs as a Mormon than I ever did as a Muslim. However, with those of the same ilk as my old denomination, I can freely laugh at their attacks. Perhaps one day one of them will actually want to listen.

Most keen disappointment: The Islam that I held as a cherished fantasy does not exist.

We do not have threads to bash other religions named or not.

Yes, it sounds racy.

Well, this is 2500 years later.

If you have some time, I would like to hear about some of your experiences (without naming

the denominations) of the hate-filled doctrines that you have been exposed to in your

spiritual journey.  Would make for an interesting topic in the Social Hall.

 

Thank you,

Jim

If you have some time, I would like to hear about some of your experiences (without naming

the denominations) of the hate-filled doctrines that you have been exposed to in your

spiritual journey.  Would make for an interesting topic in the Social Hall.

 

Thank you,

Jim

I would love to.  It may be later tonight. I just got off work and am in a lot of pain.

There are many teachings in the Quran that are unbiblical and which cannot be swept aside

by the 'its real meaning can only be understood in Arabic' excuse. For instance, the Quran

denies the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. It even contradicts some Old Testament

teachings.  This is something attested to by even Arabic scholars.  A more detailed comparison

is found here.

 

So, did these contradictions originate with Muhammad or was it because those who came

after Muhammad worked together to produce corrupted texts?

 

Thanks,

Jim

Please, lets keep this on friendly terms.  I spent 33 years as an Evangelical and left out of frustration with certain of my denominations hate filled doctrines. I became Muslim in the fall of 2005.  During that time, I used to be amused by Muslim scholars saying with some authority the strangest things about Christianity. At the same time, I just rolled my eyes at what some conservative Christians were saying about Islam. I think that John Hagee was one of the worst. Now, I get to listen to the sometimes outrageous opinions of both EV and Muslims about Mormonism, and visa versa. It is a crazy world out there. And believe me there are some woppers out there. You should hear what the EV used to say about the Catholics.

All this has made me really careful. Perhaps one of the marks of someone who really wants to know God is that they will not say evil of ANY other.  AND, I wonder if attack Christians just feel bad about themselves and their religion so they try to pull others down to their level. One of the things that keeps me Mormon in spite of the fact that I do not believe all of the "stuff", is that I have not seen them attacking anyone. 

I have been looking briefly at your link and so far it looks pretty good. AND I was a woman in Islam, so I was not involved in the deep discussions of the men. I used the Yusuf Ali interpretation of the meaning of the Qur'an. Because of the nature and antiquity of the Arabic in which the Quran is written, there is a lot of debate about what it means. And frankly, just like in Christianity,  there is wide divergence of thought in the faith. And, Islam split at the Death of Muhammad PBUH, just like Mormonism did, yes over succession.

So, there are five main schools of thought in Sunni Islam http://www.al-islam.org/inquiries-about-shia-islam-sayyid-moustafa-al-qazwini/five-schools-islamic-thought, then there are the Shia, the Sufi and the Ahmadiyya. I have been planning to attend an Ahmadiyya Mosque just to see what their beliefs are, but have not gotten around to it.

Some people love to hate Muslims; the Military/Industrial complex is one and the other I explained previously.  Those who have hateful things to say about others do not know the same God I do.

I am pretty casual in my Islamic thinking now, though I did start out wearing the Niqab. Much to the confusion of some, it just feels like I am both Muslim and Mormon, though this morning I did have bacon and eggs.

Got it, but here's the deal.

 

None of us will ever be good enough to return to the Father's presence so Christ made up the difference.  It was all for US not for Adam.

 

Can you resurrect yourself?

Gosh ! You are gonna hold me down until I say Uncle, huh ? 

God, does the resurrection procedure.  I never had any question about that. I just felt that the primary issue with Jesus Christ dying for us was to prove that the worm hole from this life to the next and back was two way.   Of course, we only need one way, but Jesus Christ used both.  I am sort of thinking about this from the point of view of Theoretical Physics and stuff.

Perhaps I'm missing your point, so let me see if I understand your thinking: Are you saying because we will be punished for our own sins and not for Adam's transgression that an atoning sacrifice for sin was not necessary?

If you will look at post 120 of this thread?  I was wrong and am sorry.  Colossians 1:14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.

Christ suffered for us so that we wouldn't have to.  Trough his suffering and death, he overcame both physical and spiritual death .  He could not have experienced spiritual death in order to overcome it without suffering for our sins.  He also suffered for us in order to know how to succor us with a perfect empathy.

 

 

 

There is another interpretation for that scripture which I will not get into now.  Christ is the Prince of Peace, so perhaps there is more to that scripture than meets the eye.  

 

The atonement was not simply to make our lives easier or to prevent "the sword" or hardship, it was to overcome the consequences of sin, which is physical and spiritual death.  We could not overcome that on our own and would be doomed to eternal hell without a savior.

Well, you can rest assured that I will not be bringing this up in Sunday School, or Relief Society.   The idea is a huge departure from conventional thinking.

AND, I remain faithful to my covenants.  And, I will not be revealing what caused all this unconventional thinking because I know I won't convince anyone on that either.

I've had some contact with both backsliden and observant Jews. I was amazed that one of the obervant Jews I knew actually yelled at and argued with G_d worse than my adolescent children did when they were young.  I have yet to encounter a Jew that has much respect for Christian thought.  I am stepping outside the box to think about God; trying to divine any deeper meaning than I see people living. This does not seem to frighten Jews, so why would it I? We are programmed and conditioned, sometimes memorizing texts that sometimes make life easier, but at times prevent deep thought.

.

The first time I questioned the Trinity, I worried for a moment that the man in church would strike me . Imagine my surprise when I encountered not one but to faiths that did also.

In the Articles of Faith, 1:2  We believe that men will be ^apunished for their ^bown sins, and not for ^cAdam’s transgression. So, no original sin. Colossians 1:14  In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins ...

^{_{I just hate it when I prove myself wrong with my own research.}}

In a spirit genuine of kindness I ask, how can one be a believing Latter-day Saint who does what Heavenly Father wants them to do, while simultaneously rejecting the very core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ? The following words of Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Book of Mormon, set forth the most basic foundational teachings the followers of Christ must faithfully believe and do:

13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.

14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—

15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world.

17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father.

18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words.

19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. (3 Nephi 27)

And you see a conflict?

We want our lives to be easier and happier, but in fact Jesus Christ said in Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. And through out the centuries since the crucifixion it has been the sword for many. I obey the covenants. but they are simply to make our lives easier. The real value of our lives is in loving Heavenly Father, and loving one another; responding in love when others hurt us, being charitable to those in need, not just through the church but with those we encounter. It used to be that I carried $100 in my purse in $20 dollar bills, and when I saw someone in need, I would give them one or two $20's. One must try to avoid giving money for drugs or intoxicants, but after a while one can mostly pick them out. You can find a mother in a grocery store who is staring intently at her shopping list. Or, you can find a young woman on the bus or near a strip club who is about to apply for a job stripping. You can pay for someone's gas at a service station. Or find someone in the Library.

I remain Mormon. I am alone, with no one to care for, and no one to care for me. So, in life it may be easier to more focus my attention on Heavenly Father?  If you have 6 toddlers, or a Job that drives you crazy, or a husband who looks at porn, or have a gambling habit, perhaps it is harder to seek Heavenly Father without distraction.

Sometimes people who you thought were close to you show you that they have regard only for their agenda and are not mindful of how much it hurts you. It is painful when members of the church try to badger you into a form of activism that is repugnant to you. The best life perhaps is to live peacefully before a Holy God. I repent of any unkindness that I may have committed.

I'm not going to "come after" you but I am going to say that it is pretty hard for me imagine Christianity without the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross -- the Atonement.  It's hard to imagine the Christian religion without its most basic tenet -- that Christ suffered for us.

I'm not going to "come after" you but I am going to say that it is pretty hard for me imagine Christianity without the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross -- the Atonement.  It's hard to imagine the Christian religion without its most basic tenet -- that Christ suffered for us.

I actually used to believe that.  But as I said before, if we are not paying for Adam's sin, then what did Christ suffer for us for? I am not going to run around trying to convert people to my thinking, however. There are some other ideas in religion that people do not agree on. One is the trinity. Jesus Christ said nothing about it, and the idea did not even surface until the 4th century.  Another one is Transubstantiation, though to be charitable, if people want to use that to help them establish a mind picture ...

In keeping with the ideas in Ecclesiastes,  the most important part of belief is will we do what Heavenly Father says to do? Do we love him, and will we love those around us? It is not about man made rules about bacon, or the wearing of the Hijab, or the eating of fish, or the truth of the Book of Mormon. Jesus Christ took all the mystery, ritual, and fear out of religion, and then we killed him ...  Men of Satan the deciever wanted all those rules to make belief burdensome, confusing and slavery so they could have power. However, at the end, the sheep will know their master.

This has been posted on a few other forums and I didn't see it over here yet.  It's interesting as he does give some hints about what his plans are (albeit vague) if the judge rules against him tomorrow: 

Who is Tom Phillips

I have a basic fundamental question about the atonement, and despite reading a lot, listening a lot, and thinking a lot, I still haven't been able to satisfy myself with an answer.

 

If God is all-powerful, all-knowing, almighty etc, then why did he need his son to sacrifice himself for us? Surely, just as I can forgive my children for their transgressions against me without requiring a price, he too can forgive whom he pleases in the same way.

 

I know as well as anybody (I think) the mechanics of the atonement, I just don't understand why it was really necessary. For example, God says that if we repent he will forgive us and we can enter his presence. Well, why couldn't he do that (forgive us on condition of repentence) anyway without an atonement? He is all-powerful etc so whatever he says goes.

 

The more I think about it, the less the atonement makes sense to me.

I'm not actually very taken with it either.  And I think that one day it will not be practiced any more.  That there is a God, and he is all powerful is clear. I question that Jesus Christ died for our sins, but that his death and resurrection was to prove that it is possible to move from life to death and back again; to prove an after life. That God would continue to punish us for over 10,000 years is not credible to me. (As non-Mormons believe). 

The idea that each of us is punished for our own sin and not that of Adam, pretty much erases the original sin idea, thus making the Atonement invalid. That certain classes of people would not be able to benefit from the Atonement "in this life", was the straw that tore it for me, as in folk who can not get Temple Recommends, is one ups man ship, and exclusionary to a very cruel degree.

Don't bother coming after me over this. I do not care what others think.

 

 

"Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what

they spend [for maintenance] from their wealth. So righteous women are devoutly obedient,

guarding in [the husband's] absence what Allah would have them guard. But those [wives]

from whom you fear arrogance - [first] advise them; [then if they persist], forsake them in

bed; and [finally], strike them. But if they obey you [once more], seek no means against

them. Indeed, Allah is ever Exalted and Grand"  (source: http://quran.com/4/34).

 

When you read this part of the Quran, did you view it as the words of a true God or a false

prophet?

 

Thanks,

Jim

 

Where did that come from?

I did and still do see Muhammad PBUH as a prophet, and so have a few members of the church leadership. I believe in the Qur'an, but since it is written in Classical Arabic, a language that is no longer actually understood very well, there is often confusion about its interpretation.  Interpretations of that passage run from very strict to not believing that it is allowed to hit a woman at all. I started out with the very conservative Niqabi crowd, but over the years moderated greatly.

Incidentally, belief in Muhammad PBUH as a prophet, and the Qur'an as from Allah SWT, is what made possible to embrace Mormonism so easily.

Whenever I read about how messed up others are when trying to be godly it gives me great hope for myself. Leah and Rachel's petty. competition in childbearing, Noah getting drunk once, Peter's denials and the apostles scattering, Captain Moroni's anger problems, Alma the Elder's naïveté, Nephi's obnoxious conduct with his brothers, the foibles of modern Apostles and Prophets. If they can be saved there is hope for me.

The most stark feature about certain Christian sects is the failure to understand and obey Galatians 6:1.  Sometimes one really has to dig deep to find that compassion.

Delegate, delegate. I only do dishes when allowed. I may be the boss but I'm not stupid

Although I was only nominally Christian when I married Christ does set an example. Christ never compels obedience we offer it to Him. Neither should a husband ever compel or force obedience from his wife.

I have known women who wore collars too. To them it symbolized a commitment like a wedding ring does. Only deeper.

I still have mine, but no one takes the key from me.

I never go to the store without a list but I do almost all the shopping in my house and I don't make the list.

I think my wife should obey me, my wife thinks she should obey me, it is who we are and we're when LDS was nothing more than a cheesy TV commercial to us. I don't claim religious justification for it or say others should be that way, how they choose to live their lives is up to them, but we are who we are and change for no man.

I guess I have just never seen the need for someone to tell us how to have sex or how to communicate with the person I am sharing my life with

AND, though it is not accepted in Western culture, Genesis 3:16 actually lays it out for women. However, to borrow a phrase from Islam, men and women need to work out their relationship equitably.  I was raised with a man that was so violent, I actually tried to defend myself from him with a hatchet, though he just laughed at me and took it. That any one should feel the need to defend themselves with violence is an abomination of the most vile kind. On the other side,  I actually met a Mormon woman with a locking collar around her neck. I totally understood that.

The best leaders I have known showed no need to let anyone know who is boss. Oddly, when I was working, I often had others working for me. I do not remember ever having to raise my voice. That you should tell your wife not to travel because it was too dangerous or something is understandable. That you should tell her how to bake a cake is down right overbearing and in my kitchen would be dangerous.

Stuff like this makes me gag. I'm disliking scripture more and more, I'm thinking it's more manmade everyday. The violence in scripture is so extreme, this and that is worse than any "R". Maybe my faith in them is shifting beneath me, talk about feeling like I jumped out of a plane with no parachute. Is this what alot of people experience? And I'm immature in my faith walk? Sorry to go on a tangent, back to topic.

Taken in context, after reading and praying about this incident in Ruth, I do not see it as so violent or to borrow a term from CS Lewis, "bent". And, now that I understand more, there was already some family attachment and in her gleaning activities, was already under Boaz's protection, that he had so far extended without strings. I think that part of the reason that I took note of the passage is because of my own psychological lenses. While I know of a goodly number of good Mormon men, my past left me in such a place as to be terrified of men with simply a growl.

As to the violence of the Bible, in many ways we here in America live in a very much less violent world than Ruth did.  I have had people tell me that they thought that God had a dark side in the OT, but that simply tells me that they have not actually read the OT with diligence.

Um, the word that MIGHT be feet, actually is closer in meaning to legs. AND the word that is used is not the same as the feet euphemism word, IIRC.  Maybe she just was just to uncover him so he(her protector and in charge of her welfare)would wake up and find her, and not wearing widow's robes but a regular everyday garment like other young women wear.  Naomi instructed her to wash off and change into that robe to indicate she was ready to move on.  So she did. Again reading social norms of 2014 into behaviour of an ancient nomadic desert tribe that was barely literate is like Disney-fying  fairy tales.  The original intent is erased or obscured.

 

And indeed the scriptures are man-made. They are the story of a flawed and disobedient bunch of folks who are led by leaders sometimes flawed themselves.  The wonder of it is that these people, like us today, as weak and willful as they and we are, can and do and did bring the Gospel forward. In spite of all our wicked ways, the Plan of Salvation is available and intact.

 

Yes, there are harsh and horrible realities along the way.  There are practicalities that make us in 2014 cringe. Luckily we have been saved for the latter-days....to live in a another crazy society with lots of warts.

 

The Scriptures give me hope. That we can and will hold on, even in our weakness.

Oh, I have seen some extremely dark people and Heavenly Father saved me. I still have an artifact from the past that I keep around to remind me of how bad it was and how good it is now being a child of Heavenly Father. I was just surprised to see what I saw in the Book of Ruth.

The truth about what?

Are you daring me to get blunt here? How long do you think this thread will last then?

OK, what the heck.

If he could say and she would believe that his lack of desire is not about her being sexy.  If he could get that her being cranky may not be about him. Sure, to him his beating his chest is not about her being inferior, but perhaps about his Testosterone levels, and his insecurity. We grow up in an unrealistic Judeo/Christian culture that lays expectations on us that just produce stress. That those innocent to her women's magazines might be pornographic to him.  I actually heard a bishop tell a wife that she needs to obey him, that he is the boss.  For a moment I thought I was back in Islam, and he was interpreting surah 4:34. We need to recognize that refusing to go to a store without a list is a survival tactic, not just a good idea. There is more, but let's see if this thread survives.

The Bible like to use euphemisms when it can. It's nice to have a warm body to put your cold feet on in the night. In scouts we used a hot rock from the camp fire for the same purpose. I'm sure nothing more was implied.

For your edification: http://www.isitinthebible.com/ot/ruth&boaz.htm

Wow, that is an interesting link.  That "feet" could have been "Private Parts", simply never occurred to me. In our decayed puritanical culture ... well, actually if groups of modern families were at a picnic, and we found one of our young couples dozing in the sun together, well I suppose we would know something was going on.

I wonder when the Book of Ruth happened? Lots of OT stories were repeated verbally for a long time before they were ever written down.

So, I have been watching some movies about Old Testament Characters on Netflix. Tonight it is "Ruth". In the movie it is mentioned that for Ruth to choose Boaz, she is to  find where he lays down at night and uncover his feet and lay down sleep by him. Hmmm, I I have not heard of this. Now, off to read the book of Ruth. 

Wow, the passage is in the Book of Ruth !

This is enough to make me wonder what is in the drinking water.

Last Saturday evening, our Stake had a meeting for married couples where we were promised to hear speakers that would tell us how to strengthen our marriages.  While I generally dislike Saturday evening meetings, I'm not one to pass up on a cheap date, so I was glad to attend, not expecting much.

 

At the very least, I can promise you I was not bored!  The meeting, under the guidance of the Stake President (who said we might have to re-dedicate the chapel afterwards), consisted of a talk by a married couple who do marriage counseling, an LDS OB/GYN, and the SP himself.  While at least 50% of the remarks involved cliches about marriages and innuendo (if there were any couples in attendance where the wife had a stronger sex drive than the husband, their situation was not addressed or acknowledged), there was plenty to keep everyone interested. 

 

Certainly, I would venture a guess it was the first time the words "orgasm", "sexual lubricant" and "Viagra" were used over the pulpit in that building.

 

They also showed a couple YouTube videos that were pretty funny:

 

 

Can't find the other one, but it was a comedian joking about the supposed decline in men's sexual desire after the age of 18.

 

It was the first Church meeting I've been to in years where no one was on their cell phone and everyone was paying attention. 

If someone had the guts to just be blunt and tell the truth, a lot more people would still be married.

Ellen, I wasn't even remotely suggesting that you have an ounce of racial bias. I was simply demonstrating how incomprehensible the "my plate is already full" response is to someone from my tradition.

As for men being "so much better at certain things," I'll just have to be left to wonder about those things, unless you're referring to reaching the top shelf, lifting furniture and killing spiders,

Spiders, yes that's the one !    I also hate crawling around under tractors, getting my hair full of dust from the fields, and turning away those Mormon Missionaries   NOT!

I know you were being somewhat facetious but I've heard this sentiment expressed by other women whom I also respect and admire, and yet, it still shocks me EVERY TIME. I can't speak for black members of the Church during, say, the 1940s and 50s, but I do know that black citizens were clamoring for the "soldierhood" -- the right to die a painful death on some faraway battlefield. Certainly, if any group has ever felt that they had already "done enough," it was black Americans who already performed the most backbreaking and thankless jobs in the country. Yet, they were willing to "up the ante" because they understood that, with equality comes responsibility. Most admirably, these people fought for the right to assume the responsibility FIRST with the hope of receiving the equality part later.

I simply can't imagine my grandfather (a WWII vet) saying, "Look, I already work hard enough around here. If I go to the army, what are the white guys going to do -- just sit around and watch football on Sundays?" He felt privileged for the "opportunity" to die for a country that very often mistreated him.

Yet, this Church treats its women with deference and respect (at least, ostensibly) and yet, I hear my sisters say, "I already do enough around here." This statement is so incongruous to the way that these wonderful saints selflessly and tirelessly serve the ward. I've never heard a woman express that sentiment when it comes to making brownies for the Cub Scouts or preparing a lesson for Sunday School, so why are they suddenly "too busy" to bless the sacrament, baptize their children or provide a blessing to a sick baby?

I don't suspect that this is AT ALL what the sisters mean when they say this, but this is how it comes across to someone with my warped sensibilities.

To be clear, as a Muslim, I spent years being with mostly "Black" people, with arabs, and others in the mix. So, I have no sinister feelings about Blacks..

I am just going to back down on this issue.because of my views on men in general. They are just so much better at certain things than me.

If everyone agreed it would be a rather dull and dreary world.

 

From the smallest cell to the largest Blue whale Evolution is an established fact. It is interesting to me that anytime we approach the limits of our knowledge some feel this need to invoke God into it.

I am reminded of Psalm 14:

1{To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.} The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

2The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

3They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

4Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the LORD.

5There were they in great fear: for God is in the generation of the righteous.

6Ye have shamed the counsel of the poor, because the LORD is his refuge.

7Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! when the LORD bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.

And, I do not dispute the role of human brilliance as long as we see that it is God that put that human and his brilliance there.

I have not studied Napoleon.  Though I was once told that he indirectly prevented England from giving Americans a huge flogging in the war of 1812.

Here: http://www.standard.net/stories/2014/03/17/lds-church-tells-mormon-women-s-group-not-protest

 

 

A few thoughts:

 

First, I am glad to see the Church asserting its property rights.  While it is unfortunate that some of these protesters are LDS, perhaps this will be a wake-up call to the adversarial nature of their conduct.  Put another way, they'll have to ditch the facade of their intended protest being something other than a protest.

 

Second, I think the Church is doing the right thing here.  I do not think protesters should be afforded some sort of privileged access to church property simply because some of them are LDS.

 

Third, I am concerned about Kate Kelly's comment that her group "will go forward with lining up outside the meeting."  That sound like she is planning to disregard the Church's instruction, and also the law.  Unfortunately, I think this group may be angling for a confrontation, as it will result in more publicity for their protest.

 

Fourth, I think Kate Kelly's claim about being "discouraged by church leaders comparing them with outside protest groups" is a bit absurd.  A protest is a protest, regardless of whether the protesters are "outside" or "inside" the Church.

 

EDIT:

 

Fifth, I think the article's title ("Mormon church tells women's group not to protest") is misleading.  The Church isn't telling the OW folks that they cannot protest, only that they cannot do so on Church property.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

Sorry, I need help ! I have not met one single active Mormon woman that wishes to do the men's job of priesthood TOO ! I feel sufficently occupied and I am not willing to take up the work of slackers.