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

[smac97]

It was not my intent to demean anyone. I'm only saying that there isn't a standard code of conduct for women.

If there "isn't a standard code of conduct," where do you get off faulting women for disagreeing with you about the ERA? How do you reconcile these two points?

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.

Of course, any alternative viewpoint you don't like, you can disregard or demean by declaring that it isn't "reasonable," right?

Is opposition to the ERA based on religious beliefs "reasonable?"

Is opposition to the ERA based on adherence to and preference for "traditional" gender roles "reasonable?" It's a foregone conclusion, given your remarks here, that your answer is "No." But then that takes us back to the your-way-or-the-highway problem.

And you did not answer my questions:

Can your worldview accommodate differing viewpoints about the ERA? That some people - including women (!) - could have opposed in on reasoned, principled grounds? That these alternative viewpoints might have been right?

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.

You previously claimed that your class curriculum "presented both sides without criticizing either," and yet you cannot identify a single cogent argument against the ERA? Not one? The anti-ERA side was entirely devoid of reasoned argument? That is your idea of a curriculum "present(ing) both sides?"

Moreover, your utter contempt for "tradition" is noted, both because you refer to it as "mere" and because you put it in scare quotes. But have you considered that "tradition" might just survive as such because it is an amalgamation of the observations, experiences, and wisdom of communities of people? That is not to say that all traditions are created equal, but your wholesale derision of the concept in its entirety is, frankly, problematic.

I know that we can sit at our computers in 2013 and marvel at the oh-so-stupid generations which have come before us, but I think that this is a short-sighted worldview.

By the way, is your utter contempt for "'mere' tradition" reasonable? You reject tradition qua tradition, which seems a bit absurd and knee-jerkish to me. For example, my brother lives in Samoa and travels frequently throughout the South Pacific. He works for the LDS Church on a number of endeavors pertaining to hygiene, food cultivation, food preparation, clean water, and so on. He has noted that many cultures in developing countries have fairly thorough understandings of which foods they need to eat in order to stay alive. He has specifically noted that these cultures learn this information from - you guessed it - tradition. The cumulative experience of their ancestors helps them understand which foods to grow and consume, and what plants and such to avoid. By your reckoning, however, these cultures are not acting "reasonably" because they are relying on tradition. That doesn't make sense to me.

Thank you, Smac. This is honestly probably the best chastising I've gotten in a while.

I was not intending to chastise, just honestly and spiritedly disagreeing (and defending my faith and its adherents). I hope we can be friends.

Thank you,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2013 by smac97

[wenglund]

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?

I don't think it is coincidental that those who support "gender egalitarianism," or egalitarianism of most any sort in public policy, tend to also be supporters of big government. Who else would they have in mind to enforce their view of egalitarianism? I am of a mind that many of the supporters of social issues like ERA and SSM, etc., may not fully buy into those causes, but they support them as a way to further the end of big government. But, now we are waxing more than a bit political, and so I shan't say more.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[smac97]

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

And yet here we are, with certain parties declaring that "gender and sex" are the determinative issue here.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2013 by smac97

[KevinG]

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.

This is nothing new: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not.

( Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1954], 135.)

[ferball]

And yet here we are, with certain parties declaring that "gender and sex" are the determinative issue here.

"Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." -Hinkley and Crew

The problem we often run into with any sort of discussion about gender equality is that the last century of "feminism" and "women's liberation" has been spent trying to make women into men. Why does the group in question want women to have the priesthood? Because they want to be the same as men. Centuries of Patriarchial governance and culture ingrained in us the superiority of men, so for a woman to be worth anything she has to be able to do what men do. I happen to think this is wrong. Women are different and special and by trying to make them the same as men cheapens their divine nature and purpose. The day that a man naturally gives birth to a child is the day that I will believe in gender equality as it is being foisted upon us by all the secular activists.

[Damien the Leper]

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 get your point. But I need to correct something that I stated. I meant religious and secular and not secular and federal.

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.

Easy bud. I already apologized for my bigotry and you're still coming at me with guns blazing. Jesus is the Shepherd and I ultimately look to Him even if it means looking past prophets. I see nothing wrong with my method. To each their own.

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'...

How many times did I apologize for my bigotry and you still decide to steamroll over me. I suppose apologies and admitting wrong isn't good enough for you?

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.

First, perhaps it would be best to define the church as the members rather than separate entities. Without members there would be no church. Also, there isn't a comparable marital relationship to be established between the institutional church structure and hierarchy and the actual membership. When was the last time there was an actual sit down meeting between the many people of local membership and the leadership to discuss their concerns? Where is the dialogue?

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.

This is a two way street. With my employer, at the start, I explained I respect her only as the authority figure because she is the one that gave me a job. I also explained that she had not earned any deeper authoritarian or personal respect because that was not warranted. I explained that my work ethic is that I will come in, do my work right, make any necessary corrections, etc. but I was not there to coddle egos or make friends. I have been with the same company for 8 years and my ethic has not failed. Essentially it came down to: you do your job and I'll do mine. We both do it right and stay out of each others way. It's simple.

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.

Again, I think you're misunderstanding me. The universal application does not imply effect on specific dynamics. As an overall principle, I believe the quote can be applied to any institution with a hierarchical structure. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

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

A friend of mine works at the corporate level of Banner Health Care. He was with Sun Health prior to the merger. He consistently stands my the statistical information as an HR representative that emails to HR and/or filling out comment cards is ineffectual. He has seen many resignations because of the lack of authentic communication between the CEO and as far down as janitorial staff. He has made his case and Banner is considering implementing changes so that the staff has a voice that can be heard.

This is not how the church works.

[Damien the Leper]

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-

Not to derail so far into politics but even the most conservatively minded persons are evidently for "big government" so long as the people representing them have money and can best represent capitalism and shovel money into the wallet.

What do you mean by gender egalitarianism in my romantic interests? I'm sexually attracted to only one gender. This is not in conflict with gender egalitarianism. The only way it could be was if I had a bias that goes beyond anatomical and emotional.

I am not sure why you are attempting to draw comparison between public policy and personal relationships. Could you explain further, Wade?

[Damien the Leper]

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-

You are right, Wade. I had to take a break from the board last night to really think about this. What I said was absolutely disrespectful to womanhood altogether. I woman who chooses to be a wonderful stay at home mom and homemaker is just as sacred and important as the woman who is married with kids but chooses to put their child in daycare so that both parents can equally provide for the home. My assertions were, in fact, very sexist.

I apologize to any and all women and men who may have been offended by my remarks.

[Damien the Leper]

If there "isn't a standard code of conduct," where do you get off faulting women for disagreeing with you about the ERA? How do you reconcile these two points?

I can't. Again, I was wrong.

Of course, any alternative viewpoint you don't like, you can disregard or demean by declaring that it isn't "reasonable," right?

No. I can't because that isn't fair.

Is opposition to the ERA based on religious beliefs "reasonable?"

I don't know.

Is opposition to the ERA based on adherence to and preference for "traditional" gender roles "reasonable?" It's a foregone conclusion, given your remarks here, that your answer is "No." But then that takes us back to the your-way-or-the-highway problem.

You're right. The "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude doesn't work and its not ethical.

And you did not answer my questions:

Can your worldview accommodate differing viewpoints about the ERA? That some people - including women (!) - could have opposed in on reasoned, principled grounds? That these alternative viewpoints might have been right?

I hope that I can. I hope that I can see these alternative viewpoints, on both sides, are right for some but not for others.

You previously claimed that your class curriculum "presented both sides without criticizing either," and yet you cannot identify a single cogent argument against the ERA? Not one? The anti-ERA side was entirely devoid of reasoned argument? That is your idea of a curriculum "present(ing) both sides?"

I wasn't clear. I apologize. There were videos and articles presented on both sides. The class was to examine the relationships between the two. As the professor stated, and I stupidly forgot, was that it wasn't about who is right or wrong. Both sides presented reasonable and logical arguments but I allowed my own bias to cloud the much bigger picture that the professor was trying to portray. That is probably why I got a "C" in the class.

Moreover, your utter contempt for "tradition" is noted, both because you refer to it as "mere" and because you put it in scare quotes. But have you considered that "tradition" might just survive as such because it is an amalgamation of the observations, experiences, and wisdom of communities of people? That is not to say that all traditions are created equal, but your wholesale derision of the concept in its entirety is, frankly, problematic.

I know that we can sit at our computers in 2013 and marvel at the oh-so-stupid generations which have come before us, but I think that this is a short-sighted worldview.

By the way, is your utter contempt for "'mere' tradition" reasonable? You reject tradition qua tradition, which seems a bit absurd and knee-jerkish to me. For example, my brother lives in Samoa and travels frequently throughout the South Pacific. He works for the LDS Church on a number of endeavors pertaining to hygiene, food cultivation, food preparation, clean water, and so on. He has noted that many cultures in developing countries have fairly thorough understandings of which foods they need to eat in order to stay alive. He has specifically noted that these cultures learn this information from - you guessed it - tradition. The cumulative experience of their ancestors helps them understand which foods to grow and consume, and what plants and such to avoid. By your reckoning, however, these cultures are not acting "reasonably" because they are relying on tradition. That doesn't make sense to me.

I do not mean to disrespect tradition. I just find it hard to identify with it after it being shoved down my throat all the way through high school. In high school, I developed a disdain for "orthodox" Christianity because there were evangelical churches in town that encouraged their kids to witness to us godless Mormons at school. This is about when I read Ehrman's book The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. The book opened my mind to the notion that orthodoxy was essentially in the eye of the beholder and not necessarily absolute. I tend to avoid tradition because I am open to the idea that there could be a better way.

My issues with tradition are not about some narcissistic need to rebel. Some just don't make sense to me any longer.

I was not intending to chastise, just honestly and spiritedly disagreeing (and defending my faith and its adherents). I hope we can be friends.

Thank you,

-Smac

Of course we can.

[Deborah]

Can your worldview accommodate differing viewpoints about the ERA? That some people - including women (!) - could have opposed in on reasoned, principled grounds? That these alternative viewpoints might have been right?

I certainly opposed the ERA just on the language, which was too vague and too open to interpretation. Furthermore for what the were supposedly purporting we already had laws on the books. I was part of a group of women, including many non-LDS who showed up on the lawn of our Congressional representative with signs opposing this bill and our state, North Carolina, was one of the reasons this Amendment to the Constitution was defeated.

[jwhitlock]

I certainly opposed the ERA just on the language, which was too vague and too open to interpretation. Furthermore for what the were supposedly purporting we already had laws on the books. I was part of a group of women, including many non-LDS who showed up on the lawn of our Congressional representative with signs opposing this bill and our state, North Carolina, was one of the reasons this Amendment to the Constitution was defeated.

I had problems with it from a federal power grab standpoint. You're correct in how broad and vague it was; the amendment was so general in nature that the feds could have used it to claim all kinds of new powers. Look at what they've done with RICO or the Patriot Act.

[Mystery Meat]

I don't know if anyone has pointed it out yet, but I saw an interesting post on another site that had to do with this. There is an interesting example of how Israelites (members of the church) agitated for change in 1 Samuel 8. Several things jumped out at me as I read it.

The people begged Samuel for a King. Samuel didn't want them to have a king, but he took it to the Lord, who told him to do as the people said, even though it was against his will, but to warn them about what a wicked king would do. Samuel went back to the people, warned them it was not the will of the Lord, but the people told him they wanted a king anyway. Their reason for wanting a King is perhaps the most telling: they wanted to be like the rest of the world.

I think this directly relates to whats going on here. I don't think there is anything wrong with people asking their leaders about an issue. "Is it possible that women could be ordained? Could God want that?" But if the prophet says its not the will of the Lord, that should be the end of it, at least for a "season." I don't want to condemn all of them, but I get the distinct impression that the ordainwomen movement takes the attitude of women need to have the priesthood. The president of the church could tell them it was not the will of the Lord, and I think there would be some of them (perhaps many) who wouldn't care.

[smac97]

Valentinus,

I get your point. But I need to correct something that I stated. I meant religious and secular and not secular and federal.

Okay. That doesn't change the point, though, that there is a vast relational difference between a secular goverment and its constituency and the LDS Church and its members. There is (or should) also a significant difference in how church members air their concerns about matters of church doctrine, policy, practice, etc. as compared to how the constituents of a secular government air their concerns about matters of secular governance.

Easy bud. I already apologized for my bigotry and you're still coming at me with guns blazing.

I think I was working on my response at the same time you posted your apology (I added bits and pieces to my response over an extended period of time).

Jesus is the Shepherd and I ultimately look to Him even if it means looking past prophets. I see nothing wrong with my method. To each their own.

I understand and respect that. But members of the LDS Church believe that the Brethren are in alignment with the Shepherd, which is why Jesus said "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).

There is, of course, wiggle room in this. The Brethren are not perfect. They can and do make mistakes. Church policies can need revision, and on occasion are revised. But at the macro level, LDS belief is incompatible with believing in Jesus by "looking past prophets." So while that method may work for you, it won't work for us.

How many times did I apologize for my bigotry and you still decide to steamroll over me. I suppose apologies and admitting wrong isn't good enough for you?

See above. I think my post was a work in progress and overlapped with your apology.

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.

First, perhaps it would be best to define the church as the members rather than separate entities. Without members there would be no church.

No, that would not be best. The "Church" is more than its members. Its members did not create the Book of Mormon and other moder scriptures. Its members are not the fount of revelation and priesthood authority. Its members did not organize it of their own accord. This is God's Church, and we are invited to join it and move its work along. But we don't own it (like, say, we own the government).

This is not just a point of semantics. If we equate the Church with its members, then it is merely a social group, one that can change its doctrines based on the opinions of the members, one that could accommodate giving women the priesthood based on a majority vote or some other type of consensus. But we aren't a social group. Our doctrines do not originate with us, nor does priesthood authority originate with us. It is therefore fundamentally wrong for church members to disregard what the Church is and instead to treat it like some sort of country club, with factions forming to change how the rules are written and who gets to be in charge.

The person who started the OrdainWomen website is on record as demanding the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will do." Do you see how fundamentally incompatible such an attitude is with the concept of prophetic authority and continuing revelation?

More in the next post.

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2013 by smac97

[smac97]

Val,

Continued:

Also, there isn't a comparable marital relationship to be established between the institutional church structure and hierarchy and the actual membership.

Yes, there is.

When was the last time there was an actual sit down meeting between the many people of local membership and the leadership to discuss their concerns?

I assume you refer here to communications between bishops and stake presidencies, and between stake presidencies and area authority seventies, and between area authority seventies and area presidencies and general leadership. Is that correct?

But to directly answer your question: It happens all the time. I am in my ward's bishopric. We have ward councils once a month to discuss the status of the ward and address any concerns that have come up (I should point out that these meetings include numerous sisters, who are active participants in the meetings). We also have a BYC (Bishop's Youth Committee) which involves leaders of the young men and the young women. We also meet separately as a bishopric to discuss sensitive issues that are better left undisclosed to the ward council.

A few weeks ago my bishop asked me to attend a meeting with the stake presidency and all of the bishops in stake (the bishop was unable to attend). That meeting also addressed a number of issues and concerns pertaining to our stake. These meetings are held, I believe, quarterly. However, I also believe our bishop meets with the stake president once a month to address the status of our ward and to sensitive issues.

I was previously on my stake's high council, which met at least twice a month. Again, these meetings included discussions of concerns of church members.

I have been in numerous meetings where the stake president has described communications he has had with the area presidency, including communications regarding various concerns of church members (he does not, of course, discuss sensitive or confidential issues).

So it kinda sort blows my mind that you think the local leaders in the LDS Church do not meet and discuss concerns from church members, and that you can ask with a straight face "when was the last time there was an actual sit down meeting between the many people of local membership and the leadership to discuss their concerns." This happens all the time. Gadzooks! We Mormons are in meetings up to our eyeballs! One gripe I have is how we sometimes meet for the sake of meetings, and also how we sometimes are not conscious of the amount of time spent in meetings.

But to suggest that Mormons don't have a mechanism for airing concerns? That's just utterly not true.

Where is the dialogue?

You must not get out much. There is dialogue all over the place in the LDS Church. That is not the problem. Rather, I think the problem is with malcontents who disregard what the Church claims to be, and who instead take a my-way-or-the-highway approach to "dialogue" (such as the founder of the OrdainWomen website declaring that she wants to priesthood and "nothing less will do"), and who then falsely accuse the Church of not listening.

"Where is the dialogue" indeed. Tell me, Val, what dialogue can be had between a Church claiming to be led by God and a person who demands a change in doctrine, and that "nothing less will do?"

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.

This is a two way street. With my employer, at the start, I explained I respect her only as the authority figure because she is the one that gave me a job.

You are dodging the point. If you had a concern about your employer, would you start up a publicity campaign against her? Would you issue press releases criticizing the way she runs her business? Would you talk to media outlets to voice your demands? Is such an adversarial approach feasible in most employer-employee relationships? Honestly, I think not.

You previously claimed that your class curriculum "presented both sides without criticizing either," and yet you cannot identify a single cogent argument against the ERA? Not one? The anti-ERA side was entirely devoid of reasoned argument? That is your idea of a curriculum "present(ing) both sides?"

I wasn't clear. I apologize. There were videos and articles presented on both sides.

Evidently not, seeing that you cannot identify a single cogent argument against the ERA.

The class was to examine the relationships between the two. As the professor stated, and I stupidly forgot, was that it wasn't about who is right or wrong. Both sides presented reasonable and logical arguments but I allowed my own bias to cloud the much bigger picture that the professor was trying to portray. That is probably why I got a "C" in the class.

Okay. Might a similar bias be clouding your perception of the issue under discussion here (whether LDS women should receive the priesthood)? You have expressed elsewhere your antipathy for organized religion. The LDS Church is one of the most organized there is. I wonder, then, if you have a sufficient grasp of the LDS perspective.

I do not mean to disrespect tradition.

Well, Val, ya did. Openly and candidly.

I just find it hard to identify with it after it being shoved down my throat all the way through high school.

I can relate. Mainstream "news" media, academia, Hollywood, etc. combine to shove all sorts of nonsense down my throat these days, all the while totally ignoring important stories that don't fit their preferred narrative (witness the recent near-total media blackout on coverage of the Kermit Gosnell trial).

I tend to avoid tradition because I am open to the idea that there could be a better way.

Again, that seems like a very knee-jerkish way to go. You avoid tradition not on its merits, but because it's tradition? Have you thought about the possibility that some traditions are "the better way," which is why those ways have become traditions?

By the way, might I ask what your relationship is to the Church? Feel free to not disclose this if you so prefer. From the substance of some of your comments, I had thought you were not LDS, but you have indicated otherwise. Knowing your perspective on the Church might help avoid misunderstandings on my part.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 13, 2013 by smac97

[jwhitlock]

I can relate. Mainstream "news" media, academia, Hollywood, etc. combine to shove all sorts of nonsense down my throat these days, all the while totally ignoring important stories that don't fit their preferred narrative (witness the recent near-total media blackout on coverage of the Kermit Gosnell trial).

I live in PA and I had to look up this guy on Google to find out about him.

You make excellent points in your responses to Val.

[smac97]

Thanks. I hope Val returns.

[Damien the Leper]

Thanks. I hope Val returns.

I will return. I need to take some time and thoughtfully consider your responses. I will try to respond within the next few days. School has me swamped as we are coming up on finals.

[smac97]

I will return. I need to take some time and thoughtfully consider your responses. I will try to respond within the next few days. School has me swamped as we are coming up on finals.

I quite understand. I'm finishing up the semester myself. I am very much looking forward to the completion of finals.

Thanks,

-Smac

[wenglund]

Not to derail so far into politics but even the most conservatively minded persons are evidently for "big government" so long as the people representing them have money and can best represent capitalism and shovel money into the wallet.

What do you mean by gender egalitarianism in my romantic interests? I'm sexually attracted to only one gender. This is not in conflict with gender egalitarianism. The only way it could be was if I had a bias that goes beyond anatomical and emotional.

I am not sure why you are attempting to draw comparison between public policy and personal relationships. Could you explain further, Wade?

I am looking at the notion of "gender equality" as a general principle, and not just in terms of public policy. My reasoning for doing so is to determine if there is good reason that the general principle may or may not apply specifically to public policy or otherwise. If there is good reason to prefer one sex over another in our personal lives, then might that same reason logically extrapolate to public policy?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I live in PA and I had to look up this guy on Google to find out about him.

If nothing ruins your day more this guy will. I am still sick from remembering when Glenn (Beck) talked about him in 2011. I cannot believe it took almost 3 years for something to happen.

[Bikeemikey]

If nothing ruins your day more this guy will. I am still sick from remembering when Glenn (Beck) talked about him in 2011. I cannot believe it took almost 3 years for something to happen.

Trials take a long time... not sure there is anything sinister in that...

[Stone holm]

Valentinus,

Okay. That doesn't change the point, though, that there is a vast relational difference between a secular goverment and its constituency and the LDS Church and its members. There is (or should) also a significant difference in how church members air their concerns about matters of church doctrine, policy, practice, etc. as compared to how the constituents of a secular government air their concerns about matters of secular governance.

I think I was working on my response at the same time you posted your apology (I added bits and pieces to my response over an extended period of time).

I understand and respect that. But members of the LDS Church believe that the Brethren are in alignment with the Shepherd, which is why Jesus said "whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same" (D&C 1:38).

There is, of course, wiggle room in this. The Brethren are not perfect. They can and do make mistakes. Church policies can need revision, and on occasion are revised. But at the macro level, LDS belief is incompatible with believing in Jesus by "looking past prophets." So while that method may work for you, it won't work for us.

See above. I think my post was a work in progress and overlapped with your apology.

No, that would not be best. The "Church" is more than its members. Its members did not create the Book of Mormon and other moder scriptures. Its members are not the fount of revelation and priesthood authority. Its members did not organize it of their own accord. This is God's Church, and we are invited to join it and move its work along. But we don't own it (like, say, we own the government).

This is not just a point of semantics. If we equate the Church with its members, then it is merely a social group, one that can change its doctrines based on the opinions of the members, one that could accommodate giving women the priesthood based on a majority vote or some other type of consensus. But we aren't a social group. Our doctrines do not originate with us, nor does priesthood authority originate with us. It is therefore fundamentally wrong for church members to disregard what the Church is and instead to treat it like some sort of country club, with factions forming to change how the rules are written and who gets to be in charge.

The person who started the OrdainWomen website is on record as demanding the priesthood, saying that "nothing less will do." Do you see how fundamentally incompatible such an attitude is with the concept of prophetic authority and continuing revelation?

More in the next post.

-Smac

You ever wonder about the apparently different roles of Old Testament prophets and modern prophets?

[smac97]

You ever wonder about the apparently different roles of Old Testament prophets and modern prophets?

I think your question has some unestablished presuppositions about it. In any event, it's a bit off-topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 16, 2013 by smac97

[wenglund]

What ever came of the female priesthood session? Was it well attended? Anything news-worthy come out of it? Were they able to talk God into giving woman priesthood authority? Or, was this yet another in a series of relative non-events?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Stone holm]

I think your question has some unestablished presuppositions about it. In any event, it's a bit off-topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

What "unestablished presuppositions" just curious whether there was a difference or whether the Old Testament Prophet would have been worried about who wanted the Priesthood rather than calling Kings and existing Priesthood leaders to repentance?