Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

juliann

Contributor
  • Posts

    15,325
  • Joined

Everything posted by juliann

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Huh? I was answering someone else's question about board rules. It had nothing to do with you.
  6. 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.
  7. In other words, you have no substantive response. You are evidently oblivious to polyandry and it's practice.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Scholars have not been able to figure out what Paul was referring to. There is a possibility Paul just didn't like what these guys were doing. Not that they were actually not apostles, or whatever he meant by using that term. The most I can make out of it is that he saw them as competitors, which isn't about their actual status.
  14. Massachusetts had really rude drivers, I thought. But I agree about CA vs Utah. Driving in the SLC valley is scary.
  15. The trail of what we have accepted when it comes to intelligence/spirit is pretty sparse and sketchy. If I recall, we didn’t end up with a prophet version…was it a Pratt? Anybody know more about this?
  16. What "children?" Spirits? They already exist. The purpose of sex on earth is to create flesh and blood bodies. Do you have any evidence whatsoever that God created this way? The only thing I see in scriptures is it was done by word. So you are planning on a bloodless eternal body that is somehow pumped up with hormones? Dream on.
  17. I think it is really odd that we assume there will be any sex attraction in the CK. What would be the purpose? Women aren't going to be birthing flesh and blood children, there is no support for that whatsoever other than dragging mortality (and hormones) into the CK. If the church can't keep someone like Archuletta, who has been so supportive and helpful, there is a huge problem with how they are handling this matter. I hope it is a wake up call.
×
×
  • Create New...