juliann

Cal answered 2 and 3. The Bloggernacle was the name for liberal LDS blogs, such as Times and Seasons. They were Mormon centered but walked the line, often going over into criticism. They saw themselves as intellectuals (and many were, the discussions could be sophisticated.) Their participation/influence has decreased just as message boards have. From what I have observed, liberal onliners who stay with the church have thoroughly rejected Dehlin and hls antics, and particularly his problems with racism and misogyny. I think it fair to say that "intellectuals," i.e., those who put in the time to read and analyze, are repelled by the anti-intellectual sloppiness of unstudied critics even though they are often critical of the church themselves.

There was a time in the heyday of his approach, where he must have been on reporters' speed dial. But now, they likely go more to Patrick Mason types.

He has also thoroughly turned off the Bloggernacle types. As more "intellectuals" found the freedom to start speaking freely and engaging with church problems on a more intellectual basis, the Dehlin-skip-corners-rather-than-read style didn't compete well. As with us and evangelicals, his opponents changed....and he didn't. In the 20+ years I've been in this arena, little has stayed static because the issues stay the same. It eventually turns into too many reruns. I would be as embarrased to donate to him as I would be to Tim Ballard, given Dehlin's track record with the treatment of women.

I don't know what to do with the devil thing either. In the OT, he is presented as the adversarial prosecutor in a court like proceeding. I think adversary is more suitable than "devil." I think the devil thing falls apart at the beginning of the story, where he is thrown out of heaven. It doesn't strike me as that bad of an act for that severe of a punishment...more of a difference of opinion. But a lot of Mormon stuff has trouble staying coherent once you get past a couple of propositions. I don't think that is a bad thing, it just means we have to move beyond the facile bumper sticker theology stuff. No one goes around saying a good spirit made them do every good thing, we tend to give the person, or take credit for it ourselves. It gets back to those who think they are entitled to revelation for every mundane choice they have to make. We have a very erratic way of managing all of this. As for evil, I don't think we need the "natural man" and the devil, the natural man tendencies should cover a lot of evil.

Question beg much? You need to document that such a list exists. I find that ludicrous. Who would compile it? How? What is the cut off for "large?" Do you really think tithing records are listed by the amount of money? Wouldn't alphabetically be more realistic, or geographically, if there are such lists? Even more ludicrous is that some GA would first, have access and second, plow through thousands of tithing records to find the big rollers.

I think this is true. But it is also true that the church subordinates women. Both co-exist. So it is one thing to say that the church shapes better men while still saying nothing about how it limits women. We do ourselves no favors by trying to redefine sexism in the church. It isn't about how anyone "feels." It is about what women can do vs what men can do based on nothing but their sex, the divide isn't deniable. (Claudia Bushman once told me that the church's entire purpose was to create better men. It has succeeded, now it needs to expand.)

Emily Freeman gave a barn burner talk. Probably my favorite explanation of walking the covenant path.

And her delivery was incredible!

Because that was his purpose. I've never understood those who think it elevates them to label people who don't share their opinions as "offended." It is an insult meant to silence, not understand.

Oh, geez....condescend much? Why don't you follow your own advice and if someone else's opinion doesn't apply, pass it by.

I love RS, I mostly skip SS since they started the Come Follow Me stuff. It turned into a few quoted scriptures and everyone talking about themselves. It became about feelings rather than scripture.

Deafness and blindness have developed into a metaphor of their own. It is rather like using black without it being an insult to Blacks. I think it is different when you pick out a rare disease to make a forced analogy. My friend was just diagnosed with a type of blood cancer which can shorten her life. I wouldn't appreciate that used as a spiritual lesson, either. You are probably right.

I agree. I think the men should be required to have a standard hair style, a buzz cut perhaps? It would make the balding members be less conspicuous.

I didn't like that at all. It diminishes an awful disability. The child he mentioned will never be able to decide to not have face blindness.

I think perhaps the biggest and possibly irreversible damage that this exclusion has done is the mess it has made with priesthood authority/power. It goes back to the unwillingness to admit women aren't equal and coming up with stuff to avoid it. Thus, they have watered down priesthood to keep women out by basically saying we can call on the same power without ordination rather than elevating it by including more worthy members. In other words, faith is just as effective as priesthood. Women kind of know that anyway merely from experiencing it but now there is language behind it.

It is not helpful to throw tithing in as a woman's issue. Aside from the leadership the church is throwing away, I don't think the current situation is a problem for adult women as much as our girls. (If you have poor male leadership it can become a big problem for women.) Single women are in a different category, however, since they have no way to network the male power circles. In no particular order, * older women and single women often feel disconnected. That is a loss of a powerful group that could advance church interests. * the church cannot keep excluding women at the current rate and expect growth. Low women representation at General Conference is a public embarrassment (along with the flower arrangements.) * women leaders at top levels need to be given the opportunity to grow and advance rather than being thrown out every five years when they are just learning the job. Again, no opportunities to network and make changes....probably not even enough time to learn how. That might be deliberate. * stop the ruse that there are "women led" organizations. Men ultimately call the shots. Turn the RS back to the women. *stop the ruse that priesthood ordination is needed for almost every leadership position when in other situations we accept that priesthood holders can designate authority. (I'm not explaining that well.) *stop the ruse that women are "equal". Admit what is going on for cryin' out loud, we look STOOPID when we make up lame excuses and reasons. * have women in every leadership decision making council from the top to the bottom, that includes the First Presidency. *stop, stop, stop the silly gender distinction stuff. If women want to talk about that, we will do it in RS. * girls should pass the sacrament.

Huh? I was answering someone else's question about board rules. It had nothing to do with you.

If I understand your question, the board rule was for those participating on the board where posters were called apostates and such for having different opinions.

Good grief. This again?

In other words, you have no substantive response. You are evidently oblivious to polyandry and it's practice.

You have not provided one iota of documentation, that means a source that you cite. Random scriptures aren't a source. So here is your first call for references, also known as CFR. If you continue with unsupported opinons after you have been asked for references, this thread will be reported.

So much question begging.... You cannot discuss polygyny without polyandry because all women are eventually sealed to all of their husbands so everything you are assuming for males applies to females. (And it is no longer a secret that women are also being sealed to a second living husband by special permission so there is no more pretending on that point.) Since your argument is based solely on eternal hypotheticals, you MUST include polyandry. At that point it all falls apart because it becomes a spiderweb of relationships based on nothing but guessing. If this was another less sensitive topic, it would require us to put aside the question begging and deal with the problematic nature of how we envision sealings.

We have a tradition on this board called "call for documentation." That means you will be expected to support your opinons with something valid. So start documenting with acceptable sources.

We don't have the same organization. Nor are the NT offices the same. Deacons weren't boys, for example. Elders were elders, older folks. And so on. It also depends on the era. For LDS, we need to be told what is wrong before it can be righted. We have dragged in way too much fundamentalist Protestant stuff. So I would see that as a positive. There is no way a mere chapter can do justice to every church figure/group. Particularly the so called gnostics. Given what we usually get (and you can be forewarned if groups are given the label of gnostic,) the chapter/author dealing with this did an exemplary overview in a book meant for a lay audience. That is hard to find anywhere, let alone something directed toward LDS readers. If you want a book that does all of the above, you will need many books, not one. This book has "introduction" in the title. That is all that should be expected.

LDS scholars do not defend the idea that we are a duplicate of the early church. What is similar is the evolution of early Christianity and Mormonism. Every home should have a copy of Ancient Christians: An Introduction for Latter-day Saints.