"What Women Know"...

[Douglas Hunter]

Active and faithful are not the same. And a key to know whether one is heading towards Apostasy is to see whether they will criticize their leaders.

A few things here, first you are right that active and faithful are not the same thing. I was not claiming they are, I was claiming that the person I know is both.

Second, I do not buy the idea that the letter is an example of overt criticism of Sister Beck. As I read it what is really going on is that a different set of ideas is being proposed. Yes, it is done in contrast to sister Beck's talk, to a degree it is calling her talk into question but is the letter a simple or direct statement of criticism of sister Beck? I say, no it is not. It is using Sister Beck's talk as occasion to present a another set of possibilities for thinking about these issues within the Mormon context. That can be frightening to some, and I understand that, but Sister Beck's talk and the response to it give us an opportunity to think about gender, how it works in our lives and what is expected of us based on gender. That is not a bad thing.

Third, This thread in particular and this board in general seems to be home to a great deal of "you are either with us or against us." thinking. I for one reject that structure of thought. There have been in our history, and continue to be today, a plurality of ways for us to be faithful Mormons. These sisters are suggesting a few ways this can be the case. So I resist the rush to draw lines in the sand, to make claims about who is apostate and who isn't. Its an opportunity for dialogue if we will claim it.

[MormonMason]

There are two women on that list that claim to be in my stake and neither of them are in the stake directory. Something's fishy ...

Those on the DNC list are omitted from the Stake Directory. That alone shows them not active, believing members and mothers who live the gospel.

[Kenngo1969]

I know one of the woman who signed this petition and she bore her testimony on Sunday. Very nice too!

And who does she think is responsible for putting President Beck in the position she now holds, the Tooth Fairy?

[Douglas Hunter]

post deleted.

[The Nehor]

There are two women on that list that claim to be in my stake and neither of them are in the stake directory. Something's fishy ...

Yeah, I found one of those too.

[Buckeye]

FYI at least two of the women who authored the letter are currently Gospel Doctrine teachers.

Are all the authors also signatories?

[bert10]

This part is especially apostate: "In October 2007, Julie B. Beck, president of the Latter-day Saint women's organization, the Relief Society, gave a speech in the semiannual worldwide General Conference titled â??Mothers Who Know.â? Beck's focus on LDS families, and more particularly on the role and influence of mothers, is a subject close to our hearts.

...

Several ideas within the body of President Beck's talk conflict with our inspiration and experience. We are authors of our own lives, and this is the story we know to be true:â?

That's apostasy through and through. Any woman who signs this doesn't know the first thing about the workings of God, in my opinion.

We are the authors of our own life...is not apostate teachings. It is in fact truth. God gave us the powers to bring down heaven on the earth or to raise hell on it.

However, that document will not lower one IOTA the Divorce rate for LDS and for Christians. As long as men and woman ignore their nature and the order of authority, responsibility...divorce rate shall not come down.

Peace be unto you

bert10

[Drewm777]

We are the authors of our own life...is not apostate teachings. It is in fact truth. God gave us the powers to bring down heaven on the earth or to raise hell on it.

However, that document will not lower one IOTA the Divorce rate for LDS and for Christians. As long as men and woman ignore their nature and the order of authority, responsibility...divorce rate shall not come down.

Peace be unto you

bert10

I did not actually have in mind criticizing the part about them being authors of their own lives. I mean to criticize the fact that they pit their "inspiration" and what they "know" against what church officials teach and openly and repeatedly propagate their ideas to a wide audience in an attempt to spread their opposition to church leadership.

That's apostasy by definition.

Apostasy mandates excommunication according to the handbook. Any church leader who has a member in his ward or stake ought to inquire more into the situation and take appropriate action if the person is indeed in apostasy. I hope that most who sign the petition do so in ignorance. If they do it not out of ignorance, they are in an open state of rebellion and should be cut off to protect the members of the church who might be exposed to their heresy and to help them reform and repent and to get the spirit of the Lord back in their lives.

Get out of the thread like you were told to now.

Chaos

[Douglas Hunter]

And yes, publicly attacking her position is unquestionably an act of apostasy.

Pharon,

What would be helpful to me would be for you (or anyone else) to quote sections of the letter that you see as overt attacks.

Also this thread has not focused at all on the ideas the women expressed in the document, rather than making all these claims of apostasy why not directly address the content of the document?

I wrote above that the talk and the response to it provide an opportunity for dialogue. But I seem to be alone in that view.

[Drewm777]

You're not actually a Mormon, are you Zeddy?

Sister Beck is sustained by the entire body of Church membership as the General President of the Relief Society. The Relief Society is the Church's organisation for women, after the pattern of the Priesthood. If she's not a Church leader, no-one is.

And yes, publicly attacking her position is unquestionably an act of apostasy.

While we hear that some of those associated with this petition still claim to be active, faithful members, the prime movers and shakers are apostates known of old. So their still-LDS henchwomen are affiliating, associating and agreeing with the teachings of people out of fellowship with the Church.

As regards Sister Beck's talk: I am reminded of something that (I think) Elder Oaks said, to the effect that it is the responsibility of Church leaders to teach the ideal, and not dilute the message by enumerating all the possible exceptions, qualifications and provisos that might attach; that is for individuals to work out for themselves. With that in mind, Sister Beck's talk is right on the money: she has described the ideal.

And now it is up to all LDS women, whether petition signatories or not, to decide just how it applies to them.

Likewise, it is up to LDS men to decide whether they are doing all they can to ensure that their wives have the best opportunity to realise that ideal. For instance, some of us might have grown a little too used to a dual-income lifestyle, complacently allowing our wives to keep working without asking them whether it is really what they would rather be doing.

Regards,

Pahoran

Great post. I wish you had been here before when I got thrown in the fire and suspended for expressing similar views. Oh well.

What would be helpful to me would be for you (or anyone else) to quote sections of the letter that you see as overt attacks.

I believe if you back through the thread you will see that some of us have already done that. You'll also see that some of us were not permitted to go into great depth for whatever reason.

*treading lightly*

[Douglas Hunter]

I mean to criticize the fact that they pit their "inspiration" and what they "know" against what church officials teach and openly and repeatedly propagate their ideas to a wide audience in an attempt to spread their opposition to church leadership.

That's apostasy by definition.

I hope that most who sign the petition do so in ignorance. If they do it not out of ignorance, they are in an open state of rebellion and should be cut off to protect the members of the church who might be exposed to their heresy and to help them reform and repent and to get the spirit of the Lord back in their lives.

Drew you are so quick to be judge and jury on this matter, I'm always stunned when I encounter such authoritarian and absolute thinking. But I choose to see something more interesting in your post. What you are doing in the first part I quote above is to point out the potential conflict between personal revelation and institutional teachings. I think its worth taking that potential seriously. What are the methods we use to judge if the experience we associate with the spirit are right? Will we ever feel the presence of the spirit and it not be the spirit at all? I don't know the answer to that.

Are we not promised that we can and will receive revelation about our own lives? Perhaps you would say "Yes" but they should keep personal revelation personal. But we don't have much of a community or much of a Church if everyone who is identified as being marginal has to be silent. But, more to the point: what part of the document is directly in conflict with Church teaching or doctrine? Give a few quotes from the document that are clearly and seriously in conflict with official doctrine. I would find that helpful.

As for the second part of what you wrote, I don't think I support the authors of the document in ignorance. I can also tell you that I am not in an open state of rebellion against the Church.

please consider the possibility that one can be faithful, can love the Church, can fulfill their callings, can baptize and bless their children, can pray in humility, submit themselves to priesthood authority, can seek every day to be more Christlike and also support the sisters who penned that document.

I know that will be hard for you to believe, but I hope you will at least consider it.

[Douglas Hunter]

I believe if you back through the thread you will see that some of us have already done that. You'll also see that some of us were not permitted to go into great depth for whatever reason.

Yea, I must have missed those, mostly what i've seen are simple attacks that don't really deal with the ideas. If there is a post that you think really deals with the ideas in the document let me know. Feel free to contact me via email too you seem to not want to post much here.

[Drewm777]

Yea, I must have missed those, mostly what i've seen are simple attacks that don't really deal with the ideas. If there is a post that you think really deals with the ideas in the document let me know. Feel free to contact me via email too you seem to not want to post much here.

Please see post 3 and 4 for specific examples of what is clearly out of line with church doctrine and where the document actually attacks the teachings of the church leader.

If you can't see the clear apostasy in that, I don't think there's much point in discussion.

[Douglas Hunter]

Please see post 3 and 4 for specific examples of what is clearly out of line with church doctrine and where the document actually attacks the teachings of the church leader.

If you can't see the clear apostasy in that, I don't think there's much point in discussion.

I think as long as we are open to it there is always a point in discussion. I am interested in understanding your point of view, I think attempting the understanding, in and of itself, has value.

The posts you suggest, mention specifics but do not deal with the ideas contained there in.

Post three highlights a specific understanding of the SW story. and your reply begins with "what a load of crap" What I need is the "why". I may just be ignorant of the Church's teaching on the topic of the SW story but do we have a specific doctrine relating to that story? I understand that the most common reading of the story is to glorify the warriors but is there only one sanctioned and acceptable understanding of that story? Why, on what specific grounds, is their interpretation of the SW story crap, and apostate?

As for post four, I'm not as convinced as you are that the statement consists of an overt hostility to or confrontation with the Church, as I mentioned before I think the most accurate way to think of it is as a contrast not a confrontation. Nonetheless, if you are saying that its worth looking at the tension there and working to understand its meaning, and being open to the possibility that we may at times put ourselves ahead of the Church, I agree. I think humility and faithfulness requires we be open to such possibilities. Again the how and why are important. Condemnations don't explain anything. And since we obviously approach the issue from radically different perspectives what is obvious to you is not going to be so to me. Its not that I'm stupid, we just don't share a frame of reference.

[miles45]

As regards Sister Beck's talk: I am reminded of something that (I think) Elder Oaks said, to the effect that it is the responsibility of Church leaders to teach the ideal, and not dilute the message by enumerating all the possible exceptions, qualifications and provisos that might attach; that is for individuals to work out for themselves. With that in mind, Sister Beck's talk is right on the money: she has described the ideal.

And now it is up to all LDS women, whether petition signatories or not, to decide just how it applies to them.

Likewise, it is up to LDS men to decide whether they are doing all they can to ensure that their wives have the best opportunity to realise that ideal. For instance, some of us might have grown a little too used to a dual-income lifestyle, complacently allowing our wives to keep working without asking them whether it is really what they would rather be doing.

Regards,

Pahoran

Perfect sense. It really is that simple.

I dont understand why it is made out to be more complicated then that. Listen to the talk, and decide for yourself how it best applies to YOU and/or family. You may choose to be content living the way you do. If that is working for you, great..continue to do it. If portions of the talk inspire you to re-examine things that you may want to do differently, well that is great to.

A talk like this is, is only as hurtful or helpful as the recipient wants it to be.

[Drewm777]

I think as long as we are open to it there is always a point in discussion. I am interested in understanding your point of view, I think attempting the understanding, in and of itself, has value.

The posts you suggest, mention specifics but do not deal with the ideas contained there in.

Post three highlights a specific understanding of the SW story. and your reply begins with "what a load of crap" What I need is the "why". I may just be ignorant of the Church's teaching on the topic of the SW story but do we have a specific doctrine relating to that story? I understand that the most common reading of the story is to glorify the warriors but is there only one sanctioned and acceptable understanding of that story? Why, on what specific grounds, is their interpretation of the SW story crap, and apostate?

They reject the overall story and call it "unutterably sad." The story is one about faith, the Lord's protection, and it condones the rightful use of war in defense of life, liberty, religion, property, and so forth. However, the authors of the petition reject the whole story as "unutterably sad" and also condemn all forms of war. The Book of Mormon is especially clear that there are circumstances when war is approved by the Lord. The OT is clear that there are times when the Lord actually commands war. So, they are out of harmony with the scriptures (which constitute the official doctrine of the church). It is not a matter of interpretation, but rather they call into question the entire text and its message.

As for post four, I'm not as convinced as you are that the statement consists of an overt hostility to or confrontation with the Church, as I mentioned before I think the most accurate way to think of it is as a contrast not a confrontation. Nonetheless, if you are saying that its worth looking at the tension there and working to understand its meaning, and being open to the possibility that we may at times put ourselves ahead of the Church, I agree. I think humility and faithfulness requires we be open to such possibilities. Again the how and why are important. Condemnations don't explain anything. And since we obviously approach the issue from radically different perspectives what is obvious to you is not going to be so to me. Its not that I'm stupid, we just don't share a frame of reference.

I agree overall with the necessity to try to understand the tension and investigate further. However, I disagree that it is not overt hostility seeing as it expressly and specifically condemns things that were in Sister Beck's talk. Sister Beck has been appointed by revelation and sustained by the Church, therefore to speak against her teachings in a public and repeated manner constitutes apostasy. This petition clearly speaks against what she taught publicly, and the very nature of a petition is that it is repetitive in nature.

[Mars]

I vote that this thread be closed. It's clearly a dead horse, and has moved to the realm of qualifying and quantifying apostate behavior, something precious few of us are, as it should be, capable of objectively identifying.

[Drewm777]

I vote that this thread be closed. It's clearly a dead horse, and has moved to the realm of qualifying and quantifying apostate behavior, something precious few of us are, as it should be, capable of objectively identifying.

I second the motion.

You have been told twice now to stay out of the thread. It really means stop posting in it. This is your last warning next time you will be thrown off the board. For now enjoy a suspension.

Chaos

[Iohannes]

Done. We don't allow emotional outbursts. You wee suspended for not leaving the thread like you were told to. Not for the request of thread closure. We don't pretend to be fair.

Chaos.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I come home in the morning light

My mother says when you gonna live your life right

Oh mother dear we're not the fortunate ones

And girls they want to have fun

Oh girls just want to have fun

The phone rings in the middle of the night

My father yells what you gonna do with your life

Oh daddy dear you know you're still number one

But girls they want to have fun

Oh girls just want to have -

That's all they really want

Some fun

When the working day is done

Oh girls they want to have fun

Oh girls just want to have fun

Some boys take a beautiful girl

And hide her away from the rest of the world

I want to be the one to walk in the sun

Oh girls they want to have fun

Oh girls just want to have

That's all they really want

Is some fun

When the working day is done

Oh girls--they wanna have fun

Oh girls just wanna have fun,

They just wanna, they just wanna,

They just wanna, they just wanna

Oh girls-- girls just wanna have fun

They just wanna, they just wanna,

They just wanna, they just wanna

Oh girls-- girls just wanna have fun

When the working-- when the working day is done

Oh, when the working day is done

Oh girls-- girls just wanna have fun

They just wanna, they just wanna,

They just wanna, they just wanna

Oh girls-- girls just wanna have fun

When the working-- when the working day is done

Oh, when the working day is done

Oh girls-- girls just wanna have fun.

[solomarineris]

Did any of the people who made the website or who signed the petition even attempt to read Sister Beck's talk and understand it? What did most of the points on the website have to do with Sister Beck's talk?

The disconnect was so pronounced that I have to think that those who created the website and those who signed it have agendas to remake Church doctrine and perspective in their own worldly images, and that Sister Beck's talk happened to be simply an opportunity to extract assumptions based on everything they think is wrong with the Church.

The allusions in the website are subtle and couched in terms that are designed to be softened to make them more palatable to the average person, but they are, nonetheless, attempts to present some things that are in opposition to church doctrine - in the context of other things that no one would disagree with.

Probably you are right, next time when women have these gung-ho feelings we should hand them each a

a copy of "Fascinating Girl" By Endelin.

[Douglas Hunter]

Mars, I disagree, in that Drew has actually tried to deal with the specifics.

They reject the overall story and call it "unutterably sad." The story is one about faith, the Lord's protection, and it condones the rightful use of war in defense of life, liberty, religion, property, and so forth. However, the authors of the petition reject the whole story as "unutterably sad" and also condemn all forms of war. The Book of Mormon is especially clear that there are circumstances when war is approved by the Lord. The OT is clear that there are times when the Lord actually commands war. So, they are out of harmony with the scriptures (which constitute the official doctrine of the church). It is not a matter of interpretation, but rather they call into question the entire text and its message.

There is a lot to unpack here, beginning with the idea that they reject the Story. I don't read them as claiming that the story is no good or that we should not read it. What they are doing is changing the emphasis of the messages we take away from the story. They choose to emphasize the human cost of war over what you would call its rightful use.

As for the general theme of war in the scriptures you seem to think its a simple matter that the scriptures are clear [sic.] on. This is fairly self serving reading if you don't mind my saying so. When I read the scriptures I do see many places where war is regarded as necessary and fine, but then i read the King Bejnamin or sections of the D&C texts that are not overly welcoming of war and its costs. Also its worth asking how war fits in with Christ's teachings.

The place where you are wrong is when you directly link a specific reading of a specific story to church doctrine. I'm sure you can see the problem with that. We would then have to have narrowly defined specific approved readings of all scriptures. In short we would have to close down the potential meaning of all scriptures. This would be a real problem for many reasons but certainly around stories such as the flood in Genesis. In fact its very interesting to me that there are many Mormons who believe the flood story to be a literal, material history and many who do not. The gulf between those two understandings can not be underestimated and yet we live with it. I think the different readings of the SW story are no where near as radically different as our various perspectives on the flood. I agree they call into question the message of the text, but not the text itself. That is what's going on in the different readings of the flood story, its not just different interpretations, its two radically different conceptions of what scripture is. That tension is not present in the interpretations of the SW story.

But also it seems that you do not have a specific, definable doctrine that the sisters are hostile to. So it appears that you were responding to your own sense of the SW story, at least that's what I'm getting. But that's not apostate.

I agree overall with the necessity to try to understand the tension and investigate further. However, I disagree that it is not overt hostility seeing as it expressly and specifically condemns things that were in Sister Beck's talk. Sister Beck has been appointed by revelation and sustained by the Church, therefore to speak against her teachings in a public and repeated manner constitutes apostasy. This petition clearly speaks against what she taught publicly, and the very nature of a petition is that it is repetitive in nature.

again the specifics matter. Unless you are willing to point to the actual language of the document showing its hostility and condemnations as such your position remains vague. I think the best example of condemnation in the entire discussion is your own third post in this thread.