Calm Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 There are safeguards- including the requirement for a clerk or other Bishopric member to be present outside the office (usually in the clerks office connected to the Bishops office) and multiple layers of leadership including the Stake presidencies. I am a bit offended that your default position is that a man is inherently untrustworthy with a young woman's safety and that we must be chaperoned in their presence.I also find the caricature of the "standard LDS family" who never says no to be laughable.I think anyone who has issues with what the Bishop might ask their child just needs to discuss things with the Bishop. And if it is that one is afraid of the child being shocked about a subject because they are not familiar with it, then when the time is appropriate the parent should be talking to the child about it first so that there is no need to be afraid of the subject coming up and better to give the child a chance to talk about it with their parent because I can practically guarantee it is coming up in schools, if not in sex education classes than in comments made by other kids. A child who does not know about it may miss some of the references, but eventually they will learn about it.
Calm Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 And ordination of Men, in my view, will further those perversions, especially as men are continually obsoleted by the feminist movement,Huh? do you mean ordination of women?
Calm Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Which could get the police to them in less then then ten minutes.A lot can happen in "less than ten minutes". Plus it is wishful thinking that in every case of calling 911 it will be that "less than ten minutes" unfortunately. I have had to wait several hours for police to show up in the case of an accident.
Calm Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Of course your rebuttal rests upon an unproven tenet, that societal pressure altered the practice (not the doctrine) of plygyny and that societal pressure was a factor if the revelation that effectively lifted the ban on clacks holding the priesthood. You may have opinions on the matter, but opinions are hardly an effective rebuttal.GlennDon't forget that the lifting of the Priesthood ban was hardly "abrupt" either, there had been research done into the origins in the previous century, IIRC and the Lord's counsel had been sought on the matter by at least David O. McKay and probably several other presidents after him before finally being given the 'it is time'.
mapman Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I am sure your ward and mine are atypical. Every other ward and stake is sexist to the max.Well, for what it counts, I have never seen most of those things you listed in any of the stakes I've been in. I hope that my experience has been atypical, but I'm doubtful that it is.
Tacenda Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 That is a huge overstatement. They may not be the ones having the final say so, but to say they are even shut out of having input is ridiculous.I never made this statement, maybe someone else?
happy Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/lifestyle/54704734-80/women-leaders-lds-priesthood.html.cspThe SLTribune has apparently decided to run the Church. 1
spartacus Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 "Those" is a generalization. The article included changing the Priesthood to include women. The doctrinal reason against it was it is a representation of Christ, who was male, and was the bride-groom of the Church.Galatians 3:27"For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Calm Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) I never made this statement, maybe someone else?You quoted it which is indicated by the quote marks inside the quote. Jana Reiss was the one who stated it, I believe. I should have added her name. Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah
bluebell Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 The standards say "modest" and there are a lot of 2 piece suits that are more modest than a high and low cut single piece suit.Of course tankinis can be modest. Like you said, many are more modest than one pieces. The issue wasn't with the tankini though, it was with skin showing between the top and bottom pieces. Most YWs organizations and stake leaders require that if a two piece is worn, no skin can be showing. This only makes sense, because who wants to be the one to decide, at the activity when the girls are already present in their suits, how much belly is too much? No leader wants to be out at the pool during an activity with a ruler telling sue that her one inch is o.k. but that molly's three inches is pushing it (and what the heck will she do about sally who's got 6 inches of skin showing but who's mother considers that no big deal and completely modest because she regularly wears string bikinis?)It's easier for everyone if there is a blanket policy for these kinds of things. Some girls will push the boundaries with these kinds of things. No wiggle room makes for a much happier experience for everyone involved. 1
Atomic Punk Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 http://www.sltrib.co...sthood.html.cspThe SLTribune has apparently decided to run the Church.Nothing really new about that.
CASteinman Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I think LDS women are stronger and smarter then you think.Irrelevant and naive.
CASteinman Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Even if it is not what God wants that doesn't mean it is unreasonable. Yes it does.
Damien the Leper Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 1 Timothy 2:12Eeewww yuck! I suppose it's okay to look to bottom of the NT barrell for official policy and inspiration(?).
Tacenda Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 You quoted it which is indicated by the quote marks inside the quote. Jana Reiss was the one who stated it, I believe. I should have added her name.No problemo;-)
tyler90az Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 I think LDS women are stronger and smarter then you think.naiveYou just demonstrated what every critic of how the church handles women throws a fit about.
happy Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 Eeewww yuck! I suppose it's okay to look to bottom of the NT barrell for official policy and inspiration(?).Well, I suppose we can just toss the Bible under the bus.
Alvino Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 Alvino is the PC police apparently.I call it respect.
happy Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 (edited) I call it respect.Call it what you want. It didn't add anything to the dialogue. It was simply a noisy distraction. Bullying is a broad term that calls on a lot of things. I was bullied in school. I still have scars to prove it. I almost committed suicide over it. So what? Doesn't mean i get exclusive use of the term. Edited August 18, 2012 by happy
Storm Rider Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 My question is did God ever commend that women NOT exercise priesthood authority. They seemed to in a limited sense in the late 19th century (and still do in the temple today).Is this just one of those practices that we've picked up along the way or is there revelation/doctrine to support the current practice? Women used to not be able to pray in Sacrament meeting. That changed. It was a practice, not doctrine.Again, I don't know but from my limited understanding it seems that women not exercising priesthood authority is more supported by tradition than revelation.Sincerely -- if there are sources I'm not considering or aware of please let me know as this is an interesting subject.You are confusing some things within the priesthood. FIrst, there is the power of the priesthood, which is granted to women in many ways. They use the priesthood in the temple. Women have and do give blessings when men are not present. However, priesthood, the authority to preside is reserved for men in the Church. I cannot think of any explicit revelation that addresses this single topic, but I do thing there is much that is implied when one reviews teachings about the family unit, the role of man and the role of woman, etc.
happy Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 You are confusing some things within the priesthood. FIrst, there is the power of the priesthood, which is granted to women in many ways. They use the priesthood in the temple. Women have and do give blessings when men are not present. However, priesthood, the authority to preside is reserved for men in the Church. I cannot think of any explicit revelation that addresses this single topic, but I do thing there is much that is implied when one reviews teachings about the family unit, the role of man and the role of woman, etc.The Priesthood ultimately represents Jesus (a male). Jesus chose an all male collection of 12 Apostles. The female role (that of motherhood) was expressed through Mary. There is an entire system of patterns that can't just be ignored.
Storm Rider Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 The Priesthood ultimately represents Jesus (a male). Jesus chose an all male collection of 12 Apostles. The female role (that of motherhood) was expressed through Mary. There is an entire system of patterns that can't just be ignored.I agree with you; did you think my statement was in conflict?
happy Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 I agree with you; did you think my statement was in conflict?Adding to, not disagreeing. Sorry.
Alvino Posted August 18, 2012 Posted August 18, 2012 You must have a very interesting relationship with the Lord of the Universe, the Creator of All Things, God Almighty, Judge of the Quick and the Dead. I personally cannot fathom a God who acts unreasonably, but maybe that is not what you are suggesting.It should scare you guys a bit that you so easily confuse power and authority with being reasonable (look at the titles you gave of God).And yes, fathoming a God who doesn't act reasonably is easier than expected. Here's how: If you believe God truly dictates what is moral and what is not, or what is just and what is not, then you believe in a God who isn't reasonable in at least some aspects, since morality is arbitrary and being arbitrary is to not be rational. Think of Euthyphro's dilemma.I also asked for you guys' reasons for why God doesn't allow all women to have the Priesthood as men are allowed to and you haven't offered anything. You can have faith that God has, for some reason, good reason to not allow women to have the Priesthood as men do, but, do YOU know what those reasons are or do you have good reason to support women not holding the Priesthood other than "God said so"?
happy Posted August 18, 2012 Author Posted August 18, 2012 ] also asked for you guys' reasons for why God doesn't allow all women to have the Priesthood as men are allowed to and you haven't offered anything. You can have faith that God has, for some reason, good reason to not allow women to have the Priesthood as men do, but, do YOU know what those reasons are or do you have good reason to support women not holding the Priesthood other than "God said so"?Perhaps you should read harder. I saw plenty of explanations. I even just provided one. 1
Recommended Posts