wenglund Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 The brethren must exercise absolute control over the entire functionality of the church.Wrong. It isn't about absolute control. It is about order. Only those obsessed with control would assume otherwise.The church doesn't need women to tell it how to do its job.Correct. As a practical and sensible matter, the Church also do not need men to tell them how to do its job. Rather, that is the responsibility of a wise and loving and informed and authoritative God.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
swfarnsworth Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 If we were to simply return to Joseph Smith's teachings, and ignore Orson Pratt and Brigham Young (whom we ignore anyway because of Adam God), we wouldn't have to explain "spirit babies" and "spirit births," because we would be teaching that spirits are uncreated. According to Joseph Smith, the spirits of humanity always existed. God (and presumably Heavenly Mother) stood amongst them, organized them by identifying their leaders, the noble and great ones, and made them his (and her) children by providing for them a plan. Two gay gods could just as easily do that as two straight gods of opposite gender.I'd really like to believe the last part (about two gay gods), but if that were the case, I can't imagine that God would have consigned all past gay members of the Church who honestly wanted to stay faithful to a state of life-long celibacy in the most family-centric religion in the Western World.As an individual, I am uncreated in the sense that the matter that makes up my corporeal being has always existed, and the same is true of the spirit matter that makes up my spiritual being. My corporeal matter was not always organized into a thinking, functioning being; my parents were required for that.I have never heard the organization of spirits refer to God identifying the noble and great ones. Neither have I heard of God's spiritual relationship to us being a reflection of Him offering us a path to salvation. There are those spirit children who rejected the plan, who would therefore not be His spirit children, but he appears to have power over them anyway. Why? Because they are, to the best of my knowledge, His spirit children. 1
Damien the Leper Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Wrong. It isn't about absolute control. It is about order. Only those obsessed with control would assume otherwise.Correct. As a practical and sensible matter, the Church also do not need men to tell them how to do its job. Rather, that is the responsibility of a wise and loving and informed and authoritative God.Thanks, -Wade Englund-Why are you interacting with me?
Damien the Leper Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 You cannot even entertain the idea they do what they do because there is no scriptural exception to whom have held the Priesthood in every scriptural age?That would be unnecessary.
Damien the Leper Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) This assumes of course that there is no God in the equation. He is conspicuously absent from your discussion of Church leadership. Hmmmmmmm........Conspicuously? Not at all. Why should I, as a non-believer, be obligated to put God in the equation? God and I no longer have anything to do or say to each other. Edited October 3, 2012 by Valentinus
The Nehor Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Conspicuously? Not at all. Why should I, as a non-believer, be obligated to put God in the equation? God and I no longer have anything to so or say to each other.Ahhh...so you are arguing that women should have pretend powers like guys do to bless and ordain? Do you also spend time arguing for fair and equal access to pink dragons regardless of age, gender, or race? 1
Tacenda Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 If there was any way that my mother could have baptized me at the time, I would have asked her to do it. In retrospect, I'm glad that my dad did it because it was part of his "job" as my "spiritual mentor" (for lack of better words), something that I was not old enough to appreciate at the time but is now as meaningful to me as was all the nurturing that my mother did for me when I was a small child.I would not be opposed to women receiving the priesthood if there was a revelation on the topic. I'm not even opposed to it now, but the effect this would have on the roles of men and women in the family (as mothers and fathers) is cause enough to make me more than hesitant to declare that the brethren are acting without inspiration/for their own interests on this issue.Yes, it's happening in my ward right now.oh...is your ward in Utah?
swfarnsworth Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 oh...is your ward in Utah?No, what would being in Utah have to do with it? He's 12, and does not want to be a deacon.
Calm Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Conspicuously? Not at all. Why should I, as a non-believer, be obligated to put God in the equation? God and I no longer have anything to so or say to each other.The majority of posters on the board tend to include God as a indirect partipant at the very least, if you are not interesting inengaging with him, perhaps there is a board out there that you would find to be a more comfortable fit.....not kicking you out by any means, you just don't seem to have much engagement in the discussion that you once had.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 That would be unnecessary.Could you expand on that answer? Veiwing things in historical perspective is not necessary?
Damien the Leper Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Ahhh...so you are arguing that women should have pretend powers like guys do to bless and ordain?Sure...why not? It's an Equal Opportunity Religion right?Do you also spend time arguing for fair and equal access to pink dragons regardless of age, gender, or race?Now you're just being ridiculous. Try again.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Conspicuously? Not at all. Why should I, as a non-believer, be obligated to put God in the equation? God and I no longer have anything to do or say to each other.Because that is the context upon which the argument rests.
Damien the Leper Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Could you expand on that answer? Veiwing things in historical perspective is not necessary?History is subject to how one interprets it. As others have said, history isn't completely reliable. For instance, some academics have interpreted Romans 16 to has Paul speaking of a female apostle, Junia. For further reading check here and here.Other academics will disagree.What is it exactly that you're asking me or looking for?
Damien the Leper Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 The majority of posters on the board tend to include God as a indirect partipant at the very least, if you are not interesting inengaging with him, perhaps there is a board out there that you would find to be a more comfortable fit.....not kicking you out by any means, you just don't seem to have much engagement in the discussion that you once had.You are correct. Now that God is no longer relevant to me I don't participate as much here.I'm not here to ruffle anyone's feathers. At the very least, I think I'm trying to understand the thought processes of religious practitioners. Because I no longer believe it is evermore difficult to comprehend why faith is essential, how faith is essential, what makes it essential.I do not want to pursuade anyone not to believe. They have every right to do so.While I'm trying to understand for others, I'm also trying to mourn the loss of my faith because it is devastating. I'm trying not to be angry or bitter because that isn't going to do anyone any good.
Damien the Leper Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Because that is the context upon which the argument rests.Only one side of the argument rests on this. The other part is psychological influences that play into the development of beliefs.
juliann Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 My wife says she doesn't want to have to do it all. And some wives say they don't want children. Some wives say they don't want to go to church. Some wives say they want a divorce. Somehow, I'm betting you only throw in the anonymous wife/best friend/cousin/guy down the street when you need some easy backup. 2
juliann Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 While I'm trying to understand for others, I'm also trying to mourn the loss of my faith because it is devastating. I'm trying not to be angry or bitter because that isn't going to do anyone any good.Just for the record, your effort to restrain negative feelings is apparent and appreciated. 2
Tacenda Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 No, what would being in Utah have to do with it? He's 12, and does not want to be a deacon.It just seems more cultural here in Utah, expected out of everyone or you might stick out like a sore thumb. More people born in the covenant in Utah. Where in the mission field there are more converts and they might not have the peer pressure. In Utah almost everyone is Mormon depending on where you live. There are more diverse neighborhoods though.
juliann Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Ahhh...so you are arguing that women should have pretend powers like guys do to bless and ordain? Do you also spend time arguing for fair and equal access to pink dragons regardless of age, gender, or race?Well, we do talk about hypotheticals quite a bit. The most problematic part of this is your choice of pink dragons to represent women. I don't know where you stand in all this, but a more respectful analogy might be wise. Just sayin.... 2
Damien the Leper Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Just for the record, your effort to restrain negative feelings is apparent and appreciated.As I said, I'm trying and thank you for the compliment.
juliann Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 This is kind of like saying that boys have manhood or fatherhood hoisted on them.Thanks, -Wade Englund-No it's not. Priesthood is not a mere synonym for male. It has no mother and father. It has no gender. It is much more than that. 3
The Nehor Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Sure...why not? It's an Equal Opportunity Religion right?Now you're just being ridiculous. Try again.So you admit that pink dragons are more ridiculous then the LDS Priesthood? Yet you deny the existence of both. Might wanna work on logical consistency there.
The Nehor Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Well, we do talk about hypotheticals quite a bit. The most problematic part of this is your choice of pink dragons to represent women. I don't know where you stand in all this, but a more respectful analogy might be wise. Just sayin....Nice try but might want to recheck the analogy. I compared pink dragons to the Priesthood, not women.
juliann Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 It just seems more cultural here in Utah, expected out of everyone or you might stick out like a sore thumb. More people born in the covenant in Utah. Where in the mission field there are more converts and they might not have the peer pressure. In Utah almost everyone is Mormon depending on where you live. There are more diverse neighborhoods though.I believe most of church growth can be attributed to births so your judgmental stereotype is untrue. So is your assumption that there is some "culture" in Utah that is weirder than anywhere else. You don't sound like you have lived in many places. This kind of stuff gets so tiresome not to mention off-topic. 1
juliann Posted October 3, 2012 Posted October 3, 2012 Nice try but might want to recheck the analogy. I compared pink dragons to the Priesthood, not women.Come on. Pink? It's unnecessary mockery that creates diversion like this.
Recommended Posts