Female "Priesthood Session" Held At University Of Utah Saturday Night

[MormonMason]

The term in the NT (acts 9:5 and 26:14) relates to those not willing to follow the prompting of The Lord.

When read in conjunction with acts 2:37 a prick seems to be spiritual in origin.

Not sure about donkeys.

That is a relatively common interpretation understood by those who do not read Greek. The line of text mentioning kicking against the pricks in Acts 9:5 doesn't exist in any Greek manuscripts but 629 (15th century) and in a few Latin versions and the Vulgate. It does occur in "Textus Receptus" because of 629, but it has as much authority and claim to authenticity as the Comma Johanneum.

The "pricks" in Acts 26:14 are kentra, meaning "ox-goads." These were sharp devices (usually sticks with sharpened iron tips) that were used to try to force a beast of burden to go in the direction desired by the beast's master. The phrase itself is an allusion to a well-known (at the time) Greek and Latin proverb, stated by Euripides in his Bakchae 794, and in Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1624, which is: "Do not kick against the pricks."

In Acts 2:37, the word used is katanussō, which means "I pierce," "I sting sharply," "I stun," or "I smite." In other words, "they were stunned in their hearts" by what they had heard. It does not imply in itself any spiritual experience. That it is a spiritual prompting is an interpretation but not actually stated by the text.

Edited April 11, 2013 by MormonMason

[smac97]

This is an odd comparison.

It's a far more apt comparison that yours, which compares the Church to a secular government. I think, when discussing the propriety of public criticism, the Church is more comparably situated to a family or self-selected community, or perhaps even an employer. Right-minded husbands who have disagreements with their wives do not do their marriages any favors by publicly criticizing and berating their wives, publicly demanding that their wives alter their behavior, publicly trying to put their wives in a negative light, etc. The same, of course, can be said for how wives handle disagreements with their husbands, how siblings handle disagreements, and so forth. You don't "air the family's dirty laundry," so to speak.

The same goes with an employer, who should rightly some measure of loyalty and discretion from its employees. That is not to say that an employee cannot or should not voice concerns, only that they should not employ public adversarial tactics. "Biting the hand that feeds you" is the phrase that comes to mind.

Even with secular government, adversarial PR campaigns have limited utility. Public officials can be willing to listen to their constituents, and will probably be more attentive if the complaining constituent does not utilize public pressure tactics designed to make the officials look bad. "Honey attracts more flies than vinegar."

I do not think it is appropriate for observant members of the LDS Church to publicly criticize the doctrines of the Church. What are your thoughts on that?

There are huge dynamics of differences between the two scenarios.

There are also "huge dynamics of differences between" between publicly criticizing secular government officials and publicly criticizing the leaders of one's own church. And yet you are the one who is drawing a one-to-one comparison between the two.

I agree that the analogies I offered are imperfect (analogies, after all, are comparisons of two otherwise dissimilar things). However, you quote Theodore Roosevelt, who was speaking specifically of criticism of elected public officials, and then declare that the principle in his comment "stands true no matter the circumstances" (by which you were referring to criticism of the LDS Church). Um, no, it doesn't. To quote a previous comment in this thread: "There are huge dynamics of differences between the two scenarios."

The most interesting dynamic is that in one scenario, there was a meaningful dialogue and understanding. In the other, there is nothing but indirect remarks and silence. Hardly the same or comparable.

You miss the point. My wife criticized me, but she did it in the proper way, in the proper time, and with a proper motivation. I submit that the people agitating for women to receive the priesthood are, in the main, expressing their criticisms improperly in terms of time, place and manner.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

I find it interesting that you diminish the value of something a person(s) is "griping" about considering that it doesn't mean all that much to you. This is historically typical. I remember in my women's studies course learning about the women who were anti-ERA.

You relied on a "women's studies" course to learn about women who opposed the ERA? Was the course's curriculum in favor or opposed to the ERA? What about the instructor? How does one go about learning such a subjective topic (the views of "women who were anti-ERA") in such a course?

I thought it fascinating how easily dismissive and "gender role" embracing these women were. Now they are mere specks on the sidelines of history.

So all women must think alike? To oppose the ERA is to be "'gender role' embracing" (I'm not sure what that means, but it is apparently a bad thing)? There's no room for principled disagreement about the ERA? Women should know their place, and that place is in support of the ERA, and if they do not dance to the tune sung by you and yours, they are "mere specks on the sidelines of history?"

What am I reading here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2013 by smac97

[Damien the Leper]

It's a far more apt comparison that yours, which compares the Church to a secular government. I think, when discussing the propriety of public criticism, the Church is more comparably situated to a family or self-selected community, or perhaps even an employer. Right-minded husbands who have disagreements with their wives do not do their marriages any favors by publicly criticizing and berating their wives, publicly demanding that their wives alter their behavior, publicly trying to put their wives in a negative light, etc. The same, of course, can be said for how wives handle disagreements with their husbands, how siblings handle disagreements, and so forth. You don't "air the family's dirty laundry," so to speak.

Really? I'm comparing two governing bodies: one secular and one federal. I could not and would not compare the relationship of the church governing body to the general membership as that of a caring parent to a child. That is just condescending.

The same goes with an employer, who should rightly some measure of loyalty and discretion from its employees. That is not to say that an employee cannot or should not voice concerns, only that they should not employ public adversarial tactics. "Biting the hand that feeds you" is the phrase that comes to mind.

What is the hand feeding you though? What is the motivation to bite the hand?

Even with secular government, adversarial PR campaigns have limited utility. Public officials can be willing to listen to their constituents, and will probably be more attentive if the complaining constituent does not utilize public pressure tactics designed to make the officials look bad. "Honey attracts more flies than vinegar."

I agree. However, there has been nothing in Toscano's criticisms that mirror a childish response such as "The church is just a big bully and I don't like it!"

There are also "huge dynamics of differences between" between publicly criticizing secular government officials and publicly criticizing the leaders of one's own church. And yet you are the one who is drawing a one-to-one comparison between the two.

Again, I'm talking about 2 governing bodies (hierarchical structures).

I agree that the analogies I offered are imperfect (analogies, after all, are comparisons of two otherwise dissimilar things). However, you quote Theodore Roosevelt, who was speaking specifically of criticism of elected public officials, and then declare that the principle in his comment "stands true no matter the circumstances." Um, no, it doesn't. To quote a previous comment in this thread: "There are huge dynamics of differences between the two scenarios."

You miss the point of the quote. The centrality of the message the quote is getting across is actually universal and not limited. It can be made applicable in many settings whether they be religious, political or other.

You miss the point. My wife criticized me, but she did it in the proper way, in the proper time, and with a proper motivation. I submit that the people agitating for women to receive the priesthood are, in the main, expressing their criticisms improperly in terms of time, place and manner.

Thanks,

-Smac

Then perhaps you can provide a possible time in which these "agitators" can sit down and visit with the FP and Q of 12.

[jwhitlock]

Real world according to whom? You? The LDS church? Me? Toscano? Who? We all have perceptions and biases. Again with being over dramatic.

I have read much of Toscano's work and watched videos involving her that date back to even the late 70s and early 80s. I don't perceive her in the same way that you do.

What personal sneers?

How ironic.

Is this the same brother-in-law that would not allow her to help put temple clothing on her sister for a funeral? If so, how dare she be upset that she isn't able to participate in something meaningful to not only her but her sister.

It's the same BIL that she slandered on TV by misrepresenting what really happened - because it was all about poor Margaret's feelings, and the rest of the family or the realities of the situation didn't matter. There's quite a bit more to the story, as people who were personally involved in the situation noted on this board. Toscano misrepresented the kind of person her BIL really is. In fact, if you were able to see anything clearly at all, Toscano airing her own dirty laundry on TV, slandering a man who had lost his wife just because she was upset, is a pretty sleazy thing to do. Evidently you don't have a problem with that kind of thing.

But that is an insight into what Toscano is really like. Given that she's able to do such things, I strongly suspect that the rest of the situations she portrays - including her excommunication - actually occurred somewhat differently than she wants us to believe.

So go ahead and be as sneeringly insulting to me as you want to be. Call me "petty" and "over dramatic". The fact remains that you're defending an apostate who can be rather nasty in her criticisms of the church, it's leaders, and its members, and you're telling us that there's nothing wrong with her. That's a pretty untenable position to be taking, given the facts.

[DonBradley]

Ellen,

Those are interesting questions. The ordination of women in the Community of Christ splintered it and was part of a broader liberalization that tends to lead to lower growth and less retention--as it did for them.

I believe other churches that have ordained women generally follow the same pattern, but this is probably more because they tend to be liberal denominations than because of female ordination. Are there evangelical denominations with female pastors? If so, I'd expect those would probably be growing--though it would be good to find out.

The liberal denominations tend to have only a tenuous grasp on their own faith claims: liberalization tends to mean the weakening of traditional beliefs and practices. Is it possible for a traditional denomination to ordain women and yet remain true to itself? And, more particularly, is it possible for the LDS Church to do so? I really think the answer to this latter question depends on how women are ordained. If the Church were to cave to outside pressure (which I don't think it will) and restructure its gender roles according to whatever the prevailing secular norms are, it would--necessarily--be weakened by this, and probably begin to go in the faltering direction of the Community of Christ. If, on the other hand, such a change genuinely came from within--from Joseph Smith's plan for the Relief Society, from our temple theology, and from revelation to the church leaders that women were called to such ministry, then I don't think it would need to weaken the Church at all, and could have the diametric opposite effect of making it synergistically stronger.

This is just one reason why I think a "protest" for women's ordination would be worse than misguided.

Don

[KevinG]

Then perhaps you can provide a possible time in which these "agitators" can sit down and visit with the FP and Q of 12.

Why can't they talk to their local ecclesiastical leaders like faithful members? So I get special rights to the Quorum of the 12 or first presidency if I find fault with the way they are running the Lord's church?

(Forgive me but Saints in Georgia don't usually suffer such delusions of relevance).

Edited April 11, 2013 by KevinG

[Damien the Leper]

You relied on a "women's studies" course to learn about women who opposed the ERA? Was the course's curriculum in favor or opposed to the ERA? What about the instructor? How does one go about learning such a subjective topic (the views of "women who were anti-ERA") in such a course?

The instructor was a 45 year old Republican who teaches history and gender studies. The curriculum presented both sides without criticizing either. The students criticized both sides themselves. The class was Women and Activism in America.

So all women must think alike? To oppose the ERA is to be "'gender role' embracing" (I'm not sure what that means, but it is apparently a bad thing)? There's no room for principled disagreement about the ERA? Women should know their place, and that place is in support of the ERA, and if they do not dance to the tune sung by you and yours, they are "mere specks on the sidelines of history?"

Now you're being ridiculous. The point of the ERA was to break down gender stereotyping, gender roles and provide a means by which women are not subject to a patriarchal society. It was to allow women to govern themselves, physically, emotionally, spiritually without the hang ups of societal norms or traditional perspectives.

Of course people can have a difference of opinion. No one is saying that anyone can't.

Tell me, what positive impact has those who opposed the ERA made on modern society?

What am I reading here?

Not sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

You're welcome.

[Damien the Leper]

Why can't they talk to their local ecclesiastical leaders like faithful members? So I get special rights to the Quorum of the 12 or first presidency if I find fault with the way they are running the Lord's church?

(Forgive me but Saints in Georgia don't usually suffer such delusions of relevance).

Are the local leaders going to pass along the memo or are they just going to let it go? If nothing can be done at the local level then there is no reason to bother with it.

[jwhitlock]

There are anatomical and physiological advantages to both genders. However, I reject gender complimentarianism. That is a mess embraced by Reformed people. Gender egalitarianism is the more appropriate and logical response..

It bears noting that the philosophy that rejects gender roles as complementary, and even demands in the name of total equality that gender roles be eliminated, is contrary to the principles of the restored gospel. Such a philosophy apparently refuses to accept the concept that complementary roles can place genders on equal footing; by necessity, that philosophy only perceives roles as necessarily requiring subservience of one gender to another.

This is why real world experience is so important vs. experimental philosophy. The church deals with real experiences and encourages its members to embrace appropriate principles of gender equality and roles in order to deal with the challenges of the world. Where members practice the counsel of the church, the relationships of men and women become powerful and fulfilling. Where the pendulum swings too far to either side, either to true subservience, or to the elimination of roles in the name of absolute equality, relationships and individuals suffer.

In both extremes, self centered behavior becomes predominant as life turns into a continuous demand for "rights", or a struggle for dominance. Both of those extremes are destructive in nature and are to be avoided. Yet feminists such as Toscano, in portraying themselves as fighting against one extreme (which turns into fighting against everything that they don't espouse, including balance) push such philosophies that conflict with gospel principles and demand that the church embrace their extreme, abandoning gospel principles that work when faithfully implemented.

That's what apostasy is all about.

[Damien the Leper]

How ironic.

Hardly.

It's the same BIL that she slandered on TV by misrepresenting what really happened - because it was all about poor Margaret's feelings, and the rest of the family or the realities of the situation didn't matter. There's quite a bit more to the story, as people who were personally involved in the situation noted on this board. Toscano misrepresented the kind of person her BIL really is. In fact, if you were able to see anything clearly at all, Toscano airing her own dirty laundry on TV, slandering a man who had lost his wife just because she was upset, is a pretty sleazy thing to do. Evidently you don't have a problem with that kind of thing.

Perhaps you could be kind enough to not be so presumptuous. You have made claims about the reality of the situation and yet you have provided zero substantial evidence to back up that claim. What Toscano airs is her problem. Perhaps you could look more closely at why she was upset (Hint: It wasn't because he was being patriarchal or male). Who are the people personally involved in Toscano's family life that post on this board? I've been posting here for a few years and no one has led me to believe they are that closely connected.

But that is an insight into what Toscano is really like. Given that she's able to do such things, I strongly suspect that the rest of the situations she portrays - including her excommunication - actually occurred somewhat differently than she wants us to believe.

So go ahead and be as sneeringly insulting to me as you want to be. Call me "petty" and "over dramatic". The fact remains that you're defending an apostate who can be rather nasty in her criticisms of the church, it's leaders, and its members, and you're telling us that there's nothing wrong with her. That's a pretty untenable position to be taking, given the facts.

Where exactly did I say there is nothing wrong with her? CFR. This better be solid and not allusions either. I disagreed with labeling Toscano as an apostate. Just because you don't like her criticisms of the church doesn't make her an apostate. Kerry Heinz will never come forward about the excommunication. They tried to get Toscano back in the early nineties and failed. So what if she is a radical feminist?!? Boo hoo! So what if she's critical of the church? The church ain't going no where and it will continue on as it always has.

[KevinG]

Are the local leaders going to pass along the memo or are they just going to let it go? If nothing can be done at the local level then there is no reason to bother with it.

Hopefully neither. Hopefully the local leaders and Saints can learn about how the Lord runs His church and resort to more civil methods like prayer, councils and requests rather than protests and media campaigns. However memos do get passed on and when the General Authorities visit they do ask what member's concerns are.

Again - this time without the sarcasm - why do small groups of people in Utah or the Intermountain West think they should have special access to the Brethren when the Priesthood is dispersed throughout the world to anyone who will covenant with God?

Edited April 11, 2013 by KevinG

[Damien the Leper]

It bears noting that the philosophy that rejects gender roles as complementary, and even demands in the name of total equality that gender roles be eliminated, is contrary to the principles of the restored gospel. Such a philosophy apparently refuses to accept the concept that complementary roles can place genders on equal footing; by necessity, that philosophy only perceives roles as necessarily requiring subservience of one gender to another.

Gender egalitarianism is a philosophy that embraces full equality without regard to anatomy. People really do need to get over this.

This is why real world experience is so important vs. experimental philosophy. The church deals with real experiences and encourages its members to embrace appropriate principles of gender equality and roles in order to deal with the challenges of the world. Where members practice the counsel of the church, the relationships of men and women become powerful and fulfilling. Where the pendulum swings too far to either side, either to true subservience, or to the elimination of roles in the name of absolute equality, relationships and individuals suffer.

Hogwash. This is just a simple fear tactic to maintain archaic and traditional social and familial structures that are outdated and being moved from the backburner to off the stove all together.

In both extremes, self centered behavior becomes predominant as life turns into a continuous demand for "rights", or a struggle for dominance. Both of those extremes are destructive in nature and are to be avoided. Yet feminists such as Toscano, in portraying themselves as fighting against one extreme (which turns into fighting against everything that they don't espouse, including balance) push such philosophies that conflict with gospel principles and demand that the church embrace their extreme, abandoning gospel principles that work when faithfully implemented.

That's what apostasy is all about.

Okay...here . I think I get what you're saying and I sincerely do think that I agree with you. Also, I apologize for being a d-bag.

[Damien the Leper]

Again - this time without the sarcasm - why do small groups of people in Utah or the Intermountain West think they should have special access to the Brethren when the Priesthood is dispersed throughout the world to anyone who will covenant with God?

Perhaps you are on to something. Maybe members should cut out the middle men and seek priesthood revelation and covenant from God personally. This isn't a far fetched idea. And it could be a better way of opening the lines of communication between Creator and created even further. Go to the source rather than a spokesperson.

[smac97]

Now you're being ridiculous.

Um, you were the one who slurred an entire category of women, apparently for no other reason than they disagreed with you about the ERA. They dared to leave the Feminist Plantation.

The point of the ERA was to break down gender stereotyping, gender roles and provide a means by which women are not subject to a patriarchal society.

Yawn. I'm not interested in debating the merits of the ERA. You came to this thread and demeaned women who disagreed with it (and you). I find that problematic. I think reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, and that disagreement does not mean women who opposed the ERA were the Stepford Wives you make them out to be.

It was to allow women to govern themselves, physically, emotionally, spiritually without the hang ups of societal norms or traditional perspectives.

Yeah, I know the ERA was (and, to some extent, still is) a shibboleth for ardent feminists. But can your worldview accommodate differing viewpoints about it? That some people - including women (!) - could have opposed in on reasoned, principled grounds? That these alternative viewpoints might have been right? That opposing the ERA did not make these women the dregs of society (as suggested by you, with your guilty-until-proven-innocent demand that I prove such women have made a "positive impact" on society)?

Or is this a your-way-or-the-highway kind of a thing? You pay lip service to diversity of opinion, but you demean women - as women - who opposed the ERA. Where on earth do you get the notion that these women are harmful to society, or that they have not have a "positive impact" on it?

I believe there are women on the Feminist Plantation who have improved society in some ways (and profoundly damaged it in others - Dr. Gosnell, call your office). There are also many women who have decided to not live on that plantation, and for that, for thinking for themselves, for deciding to not toe the party line dictated to them by people like you, they are demeaned by people like you. They are accused of not being contributing members of society ("Tell me, what positive impact has those who opposed the ERA made on modern society?"). They are - in your estimation - "mere specks" because, well, they don't think like you.

And I think the LDS women who opposed the ERA were much like my mother. They clothed, fed and raised their children. They served in their church and in their community. They paid taxes and tithing. They were law-abiding. They participated in the political process. And yet here you come, suggesting that they are "mere specks" who have not made a positive impact on society. Because they didn't agree with you about the ERA.

The mind reels.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2013 by smac97

[jwhitlock]

What Toscano airs is her problem.

This is the only thing in your post worth acknowledging, since doing something like that is, in actuality, a rather large problem. For her, and her credibility.

[jwhitlock]

Gender egalitarianism is a philosophy that embraces full equality without regard to anatomy. People really do need to get over this.

Hogwash. This is just a simple fear tactic to maintain archaic and traditional social and familial structures that are outdated and being moved from the backburner to off the stove all together.

Nice clear post, for once. This pretty well sums up why you and I are clearly on opposite sides of the growing polarization in society. This kind of philosophy will never, ever be compatible with what the restored gospel stands for.

For some reason, Nephi's vision of the Tree of Life and the great and spacious building comes to mind. Another piece fitting in place.

[Damien the Leper]

Um, you were the one who slurred an entire category of women, apparently for no other reason than they disagreed with you about the ERA. They dared to leave the Feminist Plantation.

You're right. I apologize. That was very rude.

Yawn. I'm not interested in debating the merits of the ERA. You came to this thread and demeaned women who disagreed with it (and you). I find that problematic. I think reasonable minds can disagree about all sorts of things, and that disagreement does not mean women who opposed the ERA were the Stepford Wives you make them out to be.

It was not my intent to demean anyone. I'm only saying that there isn't a standard code of conduct for women. Honestly, if you want to be a Stepford Wife then go for it. If you want to be an ardent feminist. Go for it. If you want to be somewhere in between...great. Just don't choose any of the areas because it is culturally normal or expected.

Yeah, I know the ERA was (and, to some extent, still is) a shibboleth for ardent feminists. But can your worldview accommodate differing viewpoints about it? That some people - including women (!) - could have opposed in on reasoned, principled grounds? That these alternative viewpoints might have been right? That opposing the ERA did not make these women the dregs of society (as suggested by you, with your guilty-until-proven-innocent demand that I prove such women have made a "positive impact" on society)?

If the grounds are reasonable then differing viewpoints are, of course, welcome. From the several videos and articles from anti-ERA proponents that were observed and discussed ad nauseum in class there has yet to be an argument that doesn't essentially come down to mere "tradition". Or perhaps I'm looking for too much.

Or is this a your-way-or-the-highway kind of a thing? You pay lip service to diversity of opinion, but you demean women - as women - who opposed the ERA. Where on earth do you get the notion that these women are harmful to society, or that they have not have a "positive impact" on it?

Again, I apologize for my bigoted assertions.

I believe there are women on the Feminist Plantation who have improved society in some ways (and profoundly damaged it in others - Dr. Gosnell, call your office). There are also many women who have decided to not live on that plantation, and for that, for thinking for themselves, for deciding to not toe the party line dictated to them by people like you, they are demeaned by people like you. They are accused of not being contributing members of society ("Tell me, what positive impact has those who opposed the ERA made on modern society?"). They are - in your estimation - "mere specks" because, well, they don't think like you.

Again, I apologize for my bigoted assertions. I was wrong. Perhaps the fence is the best place to be rather than on either side.

And I think the LDS women who opposed the ERA were much like my mother. They clothed, fed and raised their children. They served in their church and in their community. They paid taxes and tithing. They were law-abiding. They participated in the political process. And yet here you come, suggesting that they are "mere specks" who have not made a positive impact on society. Because they didn't agree with you about the ERA.

The mind reels.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, I apologize for my bigoted assertions. I was wrong.

Thank you, Smac. This is honestly probably the best chastising I've gotten in a while. Ugh...I feel like such a d-bag.

[Damien the Leper]

Nice clear post, for once.

I probably deserved that.

This pretty well sums up why you and I are clearly on opposite sides of the growing polarization in society. This kind of philosophy will never, ever be compatible with what the restored gospel stands for.

I'm honestly not opposed to the restored gospel. I just believe that the Gospel is soooo much more than gender and sex.

[smac97]

Really? I'm comparing two governing bodies: one secular and one federal.

Um, no, you're not.

First, the LDS Church is neither "secular" nor "federal."

Second, the LDS Church is also not a "governing body" in the same sense as the secular government is.

Third, my association with the LDS Church is utterly voluntary. My association with my government is not (I could move to another county, but then I'd be compelled to submit to that country's government, so association with government is never really voluntary).

Fourth, the leadership of secular government is determined by the voting electorate. The leadership of the LDS Church is determined by revelation from God.

Fifth, the leadership of secular government take their cues on how to govern from the electorate, from public opinion polls, from special interest groups, from party politics, from their desire to be re-elected, and on and on. The leaders of the LDS Church may listen to the voices of the world (the "best books" reference in D&C), but they take their cues on how to govern from scripture and from revelation from God.

Sixth, the leaders of secular government consist of a wide spectrum of people, from men and women of integrity to criminals and depraved individuals who manage to achieve public office. The leaders of the LDS Church, while certainly not perfect, are just and holy men (and women).

I could go on, but I think the point is made.

I could not and would not compare the relationship of the church governing body to the general membership as that of a caring parent to a child. That is just condescending.

Um, what? The Church is referred to as the "flock." As in sheep. Baa-baa. And since God speaks through His servants, I do not find it "condescending" at all to listen to their voices and follow to their counsel.

Now, if we are going to complain about condescension, we might want to address that person who sneered at women who opposed the ERA, calling them "mere specks" and implying they were/are not contributing members of society. Just sayin'...

Moreover, you are ignoring the actual intra-family dynamic I referenced: that of a husband and wife. I wasn't comparing the Church and its members to a parent and its child. I was comparing the Church and its members to me and my wife, and how my wife found a proper and effective time and means to voice criticism of me.

What is the hand feeding you though? What is the motivation to bite the hand?

My employer pays me, yes. As to your second question, I might bite the hand that feeds me if I let anger or pride govern my actions, or if I am stupid enough to think that publicly berating my employer is a wise course of action.

You miss the point of the quote. The centrality of the message the quote is getting across is actually universal and not limited. It can be made applicable in many settings whether they be religious, political or other.

You can't have it both ways, Val. In one post you say this message about criticism is "actually universal and not limited," but in another comment about criticism, you say that "there are huge dynamics of differences between the two scenarios." So a message about criticism cannot be "universal and not limited" when you like it, but then inapplicable based on "huge dynamics of differences between the two scenarios" when you don't.

And I don't miss the point of the quote. I get it. I agree with it. As it applies to criticism of secular government. What I disagree with is your declaration that it should also apply to criticism of LDS Church leaders by LDS Church members.

Then perhaps you can provide a possible time in which these "agitators" can sit down and visit with the FP and Q of 12.

I teach at the local university. Above me is my department chair, then an associate dean, then the dean, then administrators and vice presidents and, finally, the president of the university. If I had a problem with the terms of my employment, it would be absurd for me to demand a sit-down with the university president, particularly where there is a mechanism in place for me to express my views.

So it is with the LDS Church. There is a mechanism in place for members to express their views to leaders of the Church. Folks like you insist on ignoring this mechanism and going "straight to the top" with your particular grievance. And when that doesn't happen, folks who ignore the mechanism for airing concerns falsely state that the Church "doesn't listen" to those concerns.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2013 by smac97

[Tacenda]

Perhaps you are on to something. Maybe members should cut out the middle men and seek priesthood revelation and covenant from God personally. This isn't a far fetched idea. And it could be a better way of opening the lines of communication between Creator and created even further. Go to the source rather than a spokesperson.

Yahoo!

[wenglund]

There are anatomical and physiological advantages to both genders.... Gender egalitarianism is the more appropriate and logical response.

The nebulous notion of "gender egalitarianism" seems to me to be a codeword for "expansion of government."

Whatever the case, since you believe in "gender egalitarianism," does your belief hold true with your romantic interests? If not, then why not? If "gender egalitarianism" is the end goal for public policy, the why not for personal relationships?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Shanky82]

The nebulous notion of "gender egalitarianism" seems to me to be a codeword for "expansion of government."

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Please expound upon this. I'm in agreement, by the way. What happens if an organization, such as the Church, doesn't go along with "gender egalitarianism"? Will the government leave us alone?

[bluebell]

So, are there any new events planned by this group? Any sharing of what their next move is?

[wenglund]

It was not my intent to demean anyone. I'm only saying that there isn't a standard code of conduct for women. Honestly, if you want to be a Stepford Wife then go for it. If you want to be an ardent feminist. Go for it. If you want to be somewhere in between...great. Just don't choose any of the areas because it is culturally normal or expected.

Let's see...you, as a man, have gone from denigrating women who disagree with you, to now dictating to them the conditions under which they can or can't make their personal decisions. Were I to do the same, I would be called a sexist rather than egalitarian. Are you sure you want to keep on talking about this? Who knows what real sentiments about women you may end up inadvertently revealing?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-