Calm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 if so, women also need priesthood, just like men, in order to practice it, be a part of it, learn from it. Or something else….
stemelbow Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Whether one reasonably sees it as people presuming to counseling God, or whether one sees it simply as people presuming to judge whether the leaders are in err and presuming to take upon themselves to rectify the presumed leadership error, is not only a meaningless semantic quibble (if it walks like a duck...), but it is beside the key and secondary points of my comments--which, since two of you thus far appear to have missed it, perhaps I should have bolded the words "focused" and "gospel of Christ" for your benefit. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Didn't help. You seem to be wandering around in left field. Counseling God and wondering if another fallible human is wrong is not the same thing, as you wish to paint it. So with that, peace out. 1
stemelbow Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Or something else…. Great. So what are you thinking?
Calm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Moreover, it occupies places in line that are intended for those who are eligible for admission and have a realistic chance of gaining it. If it is like last year's, they stood in a separate line and either waited until there was an opening or there was a second usher assigned to them. The only men in the line with them meant to be there as support…at least that is how it was reported IIRC. Having camerapeople and reporters around would be disruptive imo. It certainly seemed like it last time especially when they are all in mass around either Sister Todd or Sister Kelly, I can't quite remember which or both.
Calm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Great. So what are you thinking?I would assume it is something of the power and authority of God the Mother. 1
stemelbow Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I would assume it is something of the power and authority of God the Mother. In comparison to that of the Father, how is it different?
Calm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 In comparison to that of the Father, how is it different?We may find out one day... 1
stemelbow Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 We may find out one day... It may very much be the same. I guess us not knowing leaves us with the notion that its okay to ask the question, even perhaps press the matter. 1
wenglund Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Didn't help. You seem to be wandering around in left field. Counseling God and wondering if another fallible human is wrong is not the same thing, as you wish to paint it. So with that, peace out. Protests on Church property, and making pointed public demands, is a far cry from "wondering if another fallible human is wrong," though you are free to pretend otherwise--in peace of course. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
stemelbow Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Protests on Church property, and making pointed public demands, is a far cry from "wondering if another fallible human is wrong," though you are free to pretend otherwise--in peace of course. Thanks, -Wade Englund- I'm not saying I condone any public demands being made nor even protesting. But that does not equate to counseling God anyway. Its far more, infinitely more, along the lines of "wondering if another fallible human is wrong" about something, than it is counseling God. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 If it is like last year's, they stood in a separate line and either waited until there was an opening or there was a second usher assigned to them. The only men in the line with them meant to be there as support…at least that is how it was reported IIRC. OK. I hadn't understood that before. Having camerapeople and reporters around would be disruptive imo. It certainly seemed like it last time especially when they are all in mass around either Sister Todd or Sister Kelly, I can't quite remember which or both. And yet having the photographers and videographers present is crucial to their intent, it seems to me. Otherwise, why bother, especially at this point, when it has been made clear in advance that they can't have the tickets? It's clear to me that's why the no-cameras rule is being enforced just now: to short-circuit their publicity-seeking endeavor, even if they do elect to disregard the request not to go on Temple Square. To clarify: They are not being prevented from staging a public protest demonstration; they just can't use the temple grounds as the setting.
stemelbow Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 OK. I hadn't understood that before. And yet having the photographers and videographers present is crucial to their intent, it seems to me. Otherwise, why bother, especially at this point, when it has been made clear in advance that they can't have the tickets? It's clear to me that's why the no-cameras rule is being enforced just now: to short-circuit their publicity-seeking endeavor, even if they do elect to disregard the request not to go on Temple Square. To clarify: They are not being prevented from staging a public protest demonstration; they just can't use the temple grounds as the setting. They showed a clear lack of respect to protest on the Church's property to begin with. They never should have pulled that one.
wenglund Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I'm not saying I condone any public demands being made nor even protesting. But that does not equate to counseling God anyway. Its far more, infinitely more, along the lines of "wondering if another fallible human is wrong" about something, than it is counseling God. Your up-the-chain input scale is obviously quite different from mine. I would put "wondering" (curiosity to know something) on the left end of the scale, "counsel" (giving advice) in the middle, and making public demands (an insistent and peremptory request) on the right end of the scale). I have no idea how you can rationally consider "insistent and peremptory request" as infinitely closer to "curiosity to know" than "giving advice," but there it is. To each their own. Again, though, this is beside the key and secondary points of my earlier comment. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 They showed a clear lack of respect to protest on the Church's property to begin with. They never should have pulled that one. Lack of respect to who or what? The Church? The Church Leadership? The Lord? How much respect was shown to the Temple Leadership when Christ whipped the money changers at the Temple? The Leadership at the time felt that He should never have pulled that one. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 (edited) Lack of respect to who or what? The Church? The Church Leadership? The Lord? How much respect was shown to the Temple Leadership when Christ whipped the money changers at the Temple? The Leadership at the time felt that He should never have pulled that one.This comparison is so profoundly inappropriate in so many ways it is breathtaking. Edited March 31, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 3
Storm Rider Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Lack of respect to who or what? The Church? The Church Leadership? The Lord? How much respect was shown to the Temple Leadership when Christ whipped the money changers at the Temple? The Leadership at the time felt that He should never have pulled that one. I beg your pardon; these purple wearing individuals are Jesus and the leadership of the LDS Church are money-lenders set up in the temple. You really think that works? What drugs are you on? Seriously? 1
stemelbow Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Lack of respect to who or what? The Church? The Church Leadership? The Lord? How much respect was shown to the Temple Leadership when Christ whipped the money changers at the Temple? The Leadership at the time felt that He should never have pulled that one. In my mind, if they are as right as they think they are, then it's probably merited for them to protest on the church's property. But I don't think they know how correct they are. That's just my guess. With that, I find it disrespectful to go on someone's property to protest them. Most wouldn't stand for that.
stemelbow Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Your up-the-chain input scale is obviously quite different from mine. I would put "wondering" (curiosity to know something) on the left end of the scale, "counsel" (giving advice) in the middle, and making public demands (an insistent and peremptory request) on the right end of the scale). I have no idea how you can rationally consider "insistent and peremptory request" as infinitely closer to "curiosity to know" than "giving advice," but there it is. To each their own. Again, though, this is beside the key and secondary points of my earlier comment. Thanks, -Wade Englund- That's because you keep equating fallible mortals with God in all of this. 1
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 I beg your pardon; these purple wearing individuals are Jesus and the leadership of the LDS Church are money-lenders set up in the temple. You really think that works? What drugs are you on? Seriously? Purple wearing?
Scott Lloyd Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Purple wearing? http://ordainwomen.org/wearpurple/
Calm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 In my mind, if they are as right as they think they are, then it's probably merited for them to protest on the church's property. But I don't think they know how correct they are. That's just my guess. With that, I find it disrespectful to go on someone's property to protest them. Most wouldn't stand for that.Even if they are right, it doesn't merit disrespectful and divisive behaviour.
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 http://ordainwomen.org/wearpurple/ Thanks, hadn't seen that. Wonder if they were using the color in the sense of donning the purple as the Romans did, or as the identifying color that lesbians use. In either case, poor choice, would have been more poetic to have used Red. Can you imagine the epithets that would have flowed from that?
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Even if they are right, it doesn't merit disrespectful and divisive behaviour. That could be considered a two way street you know. 2
Calm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 That could be considered a two way street you know.Given my public statement recently, I not only know but am on record stating that more or less. 1
Stone holm Posted March 31, 2014 Posted March 31, 2014 Given my public statement recently, I not only know but am on record stating that more or less. Personally, I don't really support what they are proposing to do, but I am beginning to have a lot more sympathy for their cause mainly because of the reaction of some members. And I always have that gnawing concern as to whether I am siding with the modern day Pharisees and Sadducees -- a concern which makes me waffle sometimes, even though we have been repeatedly assured that it can't happen now.
Recommended Posts