Jump to content

bluebell

Contributor
  • Posts

    26,540
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by bluebell

  1. You could be right. If you are I think that’s a bit problematic.
  2. Have you clicked on each section to see what is included under each category?
  3. And my point is that most experienced users didn't know that that stuff for women was on the front page, even though it's been there for years. What you say such a user is apt to note is just opinion, unverifiable and unsupported by any evidence. And all that that means is that both of our opinions on it are equally valid and it's a dumb thing to argue over.
  4. So were the most of the things that are now under the women's tab.
  5. Most inexperienced users wouldn't know that the adult section exists.
  6. If it was under the men category, you wouldn't have to search for it. You would have already seen it under there. But the ease of finding something isn't the point of my concern.
  7. These are not complaints, they are concerns. And that is not my only one. Women and the priesthood, for example, is not a segregated topic. It's as applicable to men as it is to women (at least that's what we were told for decades when we would have lessons on the oath and covenant of the priesthood and similar topics in YW and RS). So why make it segregated when it shouldn't be? The same is true for "women at the pulpit". That is not a segregated topic, but the new tabs turn it into one. Turning these topics into segregated topics is a step back for us, not forward. I do still have hope though that some of these sections will make their way to the men's tab as well since they are as applicable to them. Time will tell.
  8. Very much so. And, if my experience is any indication, men need just as much help understanding the roles of women in the priesthood as much as the women do. Why put something that benefits men as much as women, only in the women's tab? Why assume that "women at the pulpit" is only relevant to women? Those women at the pulpit were oftentimes speaking to men too (such as in GC). If it was relevant for the men they were speaking too, why isn't it relevant to men today? Putting this stuff only under the women's tab creates a damaging and untrue narrative about women's reach in the church, namely, that it only applies to other women. That wasn't true historically so why imply that's true today?
  9. This is true for the sisters too though. All of this stuff for women has been on the gospel library for a while. If these resources for women were already found everywhere else in the gospel library, and that's why the men's tab is embarrassingly empty, why do we need a women's tab?
  10. Did you have trouble finding that information before the men's section existed though? If you searched priesthood ordinances or priesthood blessings, the link came right up. How many people are going to go to the church's website looking for how to do a priesthood blessing and think "I need to go find the Adults tab"? Especially when a lot of people won't even know that an adults tab/men's tab exists. To be clear, I don't have a problem that they put it under a men's tab, but I don't think it's especially useful or user friendly either. The information is still right where it always was, and there's an easier way to find it than: gospel library---adults tab---men's tab---general instructions page link---general handbook page.
  11. Did you click on the men's section? What curriculum content are they organizing for the men under there?
  12. Where they were before? My issue is twofold. 1) Some of these things seem so forced and that can easily come off as condescending (Women and Family History?? Why does that tab exist? Was there a number of tabs they were trying to hit?) And 2) the men's section is laughable, even though many of the selections in the women's group also exist for men. Why do a 'women and family history' tab but not a men and family history? Why "the prophet speaks to women" but not "the prophet speaks to men"? Where is the "Latter-day Saint mens" podcast? I'm not saying this is definitely a bad idea (maybe it'll end up being amazingly useful). I'm only saying that it doesn't seem very well thought out, and, because the men's section seems completely phoned-in, could easily come off looking like the church thinks that women are hot messes who need the extra attention and guidance, while the men are doing just fine. But, I'm hopeful that the men's section is simply incomplete and that when it's finished it will also include many wonderful resources that will help them to understand their roles better as well.
  13. Of course not, because you also have free agency and can intervene if you choose. God could even help prompt you to be in that place at the right time, ready to intervene, to help facilitate you making that choice. If God is going to judge someone justly, He has to let them choose. You, on the other hand, do not.
  14. I think that we have to remember that it's not like God isn't stopping abuse because He's helping someone find their keys. He can do both at the same time if He chooses. It's not a division of His resources in any way so He never has to choose one or the other. And second, agency is important. If someone chooses to abuse another, then God is likely to allow them to make that choice, even though it's horrible for the one that is hurt. That's why agency is such a huge issue though. Evil exists because people have agency to choose to do evil if they want. Keys though (and other such problems) have no agency. God doesn't have to stop someone's agency to answer those kinds of prayers. Finally, I prefer a God who does what He can to make life easier sometimes, rather than one who says "because I cannot always intervene in people's choices when the stakes are high, I won't ever intervene when the stakes are low, just so no one gets the wrong impression."
  15. Being immersed in water doesn't make you clean though. You only become clean when the Spirit accepts that act and cleans you. The water (and being baptized in it) is the act that Christ has declared will signal to the spirit that you are worthy to be clean. It doesn't actually clean anything. It's water. It's not even blessed water. It's just plain water from the tap that goes into the sewer when we are done using it. Water can't clean sin from someone's spirit.
  16. As I said, this is how I look at it. You can look at it however you want.
  17. Yes they should. But they were made 'watchman' by the church, so I could see why the church might feel some responsibility for that. If I got my kids a babysitter who abused them, I would still feel a level of responsibility for that, even if there was no way for me to know they were going to do such a thing.
  18. It doesn't actually make anyone clean though, right? Because if you get baptized under false pretences, you are still not clean before God, despite the water of baptism. Baptismal water, on an unworthy person, cleans nothing. I don't believe that I can become clean without baptism, but that's not because I believe the water is literally cleaning my spirit. I believe it's because that's how God has declared it. Children who die before the age of 8 do not need to be baptised to become spiritually clean, so to me that means the water is not necessary to literally clean anyone. People (children) can be cleansed of their sin without it because Christ has declared that He will apply His atonement to them in that way. He has declared something different for the rest of us.
  19. I read this a couple of days ago and applaud the church for doing it. Sometimes you have to worry less about fault and more about helping people who have been hurt under your watch.
  20. Why would the water need to clean anyone off spiritually? Can the spirit not do it well enough?
  21. I'm with you on this one. What would the gathering of the House of Israel be a symbol of? Is it taught anywhere that it symbolizes something? Not that I'm aware of.
  22. From my perspective though, none of those things are literal. We aren't literally born of water. That rebirth is symbolic. No one comes out of the water as a literal new being-becoming the new being in Christ is a process. Being dunked into water and then coming up out again also isn't a literal birth. We are symbolically born of water in that instance, not literally born. Did JS call the laying of hands or the keywords and signs symbols though? I feel like in these examples, you might be creating symbols where they don't exist. Laying on of hands is a sign, but signs and symbols aren't the same thing are they? What would the laying on of hands be a symbol of? It's a sign of something but I don't see it as symbolising something.
×
×
  • Create New...