Teancum Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Seems unreasonable to me. Put her mug on the computer and set up a live feed. Cheaper, easier, quicker, less inconvenient. Why not put her on speaker phone? In person is great, but the meeting was established knowing she's not around. Plus, there was something about her need to help take care of an ill family member.Simply asking too much, it seems to me.Yea! She can FACETIME,Skype or they can set up a Go To Meeting.....I do this all the time with my clients that are all over the US and world.
Teancum Posted June 17, 2014 Posted June 17, 2014 Hmm. I think that could be a feasible solution. But I could also see the bishop requiring an in-person appearance. I occasionally drive down to St. George to attend hearings in-person because the judges require it. A telephonic or Skype appearance is just not the same as an in-person appearance. Plus the hearing usually requires coordinating the schedules of several people, and that can become problematic when, at the scheduled time, a technological glitch prevents the hearing from going forward. So I could see her bishop (who I understand is an attorney) being reluctant to schedule a Skyped disciplinary council.It's a judgment call. But at the end of the day, her refusal to attend is not, I think, a question of finances. I'm just not buying that.Thanks,-SmacSkype or some other method works well. Better than not being there. 1
Zakuska Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) And he was resurrected, received the fulness of Godhood and everything else.Where is there any indication that by his choice he not only deprived himself, but all men of a fundamental blessing?Where in all of scripture has someone been obedient to God, taken the leap of faith and for that leap been blessed by not only having the removal of a previously held blessing (if I understand you correctly) but ends up being placed under the dominion of another who did not exercise the same level of faith rather than being elevated and granted additional blessings and stewardship?The line of reasoning that Eve was deprived of the Priesthood makes no sense in the context of everything else in the scriptures. Technically she wasn't obedient though because she did eat. She wasnt spared from the consiquences of her choice and neither were we. However a means was provided to remedy the situation. Adam then saw he had to eat because in order to obey Gods other command he had to remain with her. Paul seems to link church authority and the subjugation of women to their husband to Eve. 1 Tim 212 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. But after reading a few paragraphs of this:http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171 I'm second guessing some things and my gut is grumbling and my head is churning again. Edited June 18, 2014 by Zakuska
Tacenda Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 This guy makes some good points in this BlogSpot. http://rationalfaiths.com/kate-kellys-local-leaders-follow-handbook/ Did Kate Kelly's Local Leaders Follow the Handbook?
teddyaware Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Hmmmm. Perhaps some of the entrenched believers here could be viewed as fanatical in their view points as well. One's own fanaticism is hard to see. Do you believe Joseph Smith was a fanatic? Just curious to know.
Teancum Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Do you believe Joseph Smith was a fanatic? Just curious to know.Not relevant to the discussion.
Duncan Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 This guy makes some good points in this BlogSpot. http://rationalfaiths.com/kate-kellys-local-leaders-follow-handbook/ Did Kate Kelly's Local Leaders Follow the Handbook? yes http://seesangelsinthearchitecture.wordpress.com/2014/06/14/theres-no-big-mystery-here-folks/
juliann Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 I recommend Deborah and Esther.Esther was definitely brave, but at some point we have to stop soft peddling what she had to do to get the job done....give up her body. The wife she replaced was also extremely brave...and did what we would applaud today. She refused to support the king. We also don't give Hagar her due...for the ridiculous reason she ticked off her mistress who borrowed her womb. So the few women that are there are either minimized or tossed out completely. And I think this illustrates our current predicament with the way we talk about women. I can only take so much of trashing of any Mormon woman before it becomes distasteful. 4
juliann Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Technically she wasn't obedient though because she did eat. She wasnt spared from the consiquences of her choice and neither were we. However a means was provided to remedy the situation. Adam then saw he had to eat because in order to obey Gods other command he had to remain with her. Paul seems to link church authority and the subjugation of women to their husband to Eve. 1 Tim 212 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety. But after reading a few paragraphs of this:http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=1171 I'm second guessing some things and my gut is grumbling and my head is churning again. Why don't you bold and underline the command for women to be silent? That would so solve this yapping women problem in like one page. And it's scriptural!
Mystery Meat Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Esther was definitely brave, but at some point we have to stop soft peddling what she had to do to get the job done....give up her body. The wife she replaced was also extremely brave...and did what we would applaud today. She refused to support the king. We also don't give Hagar her due...for the ridiculous reason she ticked off her mistress who borrowed her womb. So the few women that are there are either minimized or tossed out completely. And I think this illustrates our current predicament with the way we talk about women. I can only take so much of trashing of any Mormon woman before it becomes distasteful. I agree. I think most members agree that they would have no issue with any sort of revelation declaring any improvement for the status of women within the Church, including receiving the priesthood. People just don't like KK's tactics.
mfbukowski Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Agreed that they currently are. And if they were one day unhappy with their roles in the Church? Would it matter?Of course not. We would just lock them in their rooms where they belonged. After all, they are only our wives. Edited June 18, 2014 by mfbukowski 1
The Nehor Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Esther was definitely brave, but at some point we have to stop soft peddling what she had to do to get the job done....give up her body. The wife she replaced was also extremely brave...and did what we would applaud today. She refused to support the king. We also don't give Hagar her due...for the ridiculous reason she ticked off her mistress who borrowed her womb. So the few women that are there are either minimized or tossed out completely. And I think this illustrates our current predicament with the way we talk about women. I can only take so much of trashing of any Mormon woman before it becomes distasteful.If having sex with your spouse counts as "giving up your body" then I do not see that as a negative on her character.Not sure about Hagar. I suspect there is more to that story. I do feel bad for Leah who was roped into a deception by her father. Not sure why that story has not been made into a really funny movie. I also like Sarah. Abraham trusted her enough to repeatedly put his life in her hands.
Calm Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) For those who consider Dehlin's podcasts a positive approach to the Church: http://josephsmithspolygamy.org/the-june-9-2014-anti-mormon-message-of-john-dehlin Includes this comment in response to a question of why Hales used "anti-mormon": You bring up a good point. It is difficult to classify statements that are false and inherently destroy faith without choosing a word that is pejorative. Do you have any suggestions?I feel bad for John Dehlin. I thought we were friends, but his willingness to ignore my research on Joseph Smith and instead blindly (apparently) repeat claims by Grant Palmer and Alex Beam is troubling to me (and somewhat surprising). Many of John’s statements in the interview (which he hasn’t posted yet I don’t think), I addressed in my podcast in 2013. I presented evidence questioning their validity, if not to disprove them, but John ignored it all. The morning prior to the interview I sent John a list of 18 problems with Beam’s claims in his chapter on polygamy. John ignored all of them too,My conclusion is the John Dehlin was not interested in questioning Beam’s claims. Searching for the truth regarding Joseph’s actions seemed secondary to having a non-confrontational gathering to validate Alex’s published views, whatever they were. If his book contained falsehoods, then the objective was to validate, not expose, them. Immediately after the interview my wife and I wished we would not have participated.“Anti-Mormon” is pejorative, and I’m not happy to use it here. However, if a statement would reliably cause doubt and is of dubious accuracy, I wonder perhaps what you would label it? I believe it accurately describes the statements John made, but maybe “faith-destroying,” “antagonistic,” “dissenting,” or something similar would have been more socially acceptable? Regardless, my wife and I take no joy in reporting what happened. Should I write, “Don’t shoot the messenger?” I appreciate the comment. I took no notes because John Dehlin had indicated that I might be able to do a separate podcast responding to Beam’s chapter on polygamy and I assumed John might let me have a copy of the entire interview so I could respond to it as well. John didn’t like my wife’s questions to Beam and said he was no longer interested in having a response. I feel bad but wonder about John’s commitment to documentary transparency. I’d love to see Alex Beam produce and defend historical documentation to support his polygamy claims. Edited June 18, 2014 by calmoriah 3
The Nehor Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Of course not. We would just lock them in their rooms where they belonged.Are we really supposed to be happy with our role in the church. I don't really like my calling right now. Should I be complaining more? I do not know of any scripture that assures everyone that they can find a place on earth anywhere where they are assured of contentment and fulfillment. 2
Calm Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) If having sex with your spouse counts as "giving up your body" then I do not see that as a negative on her character.I don't believe that Juliann was criticizing Esther for her willing sacrifice, but rather pointing out the reason why Esther was in the position in the first place and had the power to do good was pretty much sexual. Do we really want to promote the idea to girls that they should use sex and seduction to get what they desire, even if that desire is a good thing (besides children that is)? Queen Vashti refused to comply with the king's drunken order to come and "display" her beauty before all of his guests. For that she gets kicked out instead of being applauded for her modesty and in essence in that day and time protection of the king's dignity. But she disobeyed a command and supposedly that might cause other women to disobey their husbands, no matter even if the command was wrong and for that had to pay. And be replaced by a young virgin who qualified by winning what was in essence a beauty pageant and satisfying the king sexually. Edited June 18, 2014 by calmoriah 3
The Nehor Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 I don't believe that Juliann was criticizing Esther for her willing sacrifice, but rather pointing out the reason why Esther was in the position in the first place and had the power to do good was pretty much sexual. Do we really want to promote the idea to girls that they should use sex and seduction to get what they desire, even if that desire is a good thing (besides children that is)?Sure, why not? You can draw the same moral for the opposite gender from David and Solomon.
smac97 Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Skype or some other method works well. Better than not being there. Well, being there is better than either Skype or not being there. So there! Thanks, -Smac
maxrep12 Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Here is what he actually said Certainly "anything" is possible, but it must be thru revelation. He was clearly making a PR statement, speaking to a reporter, and avoiding additional criticism of the church as he had done in other interviews. This subject has been clarified by the church in recent official statements in General Conference, etc. Agitation is not the standard by which doctrine is changed, regardless of how you are trying to spin his statement.Thanks for the clarification. I had not read the complete exchange between President Hinckley and the reporter. That said, there does seem to be a trend within the church, where practice becomes doctrine, when in fact the practice may simply be tradition. I believe Josephs intent to give women the priesthood fell through cracks after Carthage.
Calm Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Given the restriction of marrying nonJews, Esther being placed by her uncle as a candidate for queen with the nonJew king takes on additional impact. He basically pimped her out. For the good of their people and she did save them as directed by her uncle when they could have been wiped out. But it was contrary to God's law it would seem to me. Was it important enough for expediency to bypass such laws? I don't recall reading anything that suggests her uncle was following inspiration in volunteering her as one of the king's numberous concubines. 1
sethpayne Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Given the restriction of marrying nonJews, Esther being placed by her uncle as a candidate for queen with the nonJew king takes on additional impact. He basically pimped her out. For the good of their people and she did save them as directed by her uncle when they could have been wiped out. But it was contrary to God's law it would seem to me. Was it important enough for expediency to bypass such laws? I don't recall reading anything that suggests her uncle was following inspiration in volunteering her as one of the king's numberous concubines. Depends on if you read the Hebrew version of the Septuigant. If memory serves, God is involved in the Septuagint but is not even mentioned in the Hebrew. Edited June 18, 2014 by sethpayne
Calm Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Depends on if you read the Hebrew version of the Septuigant. If memory serves, God is involved in the Septuagint but is not even mentioned in the Hebrew.In what way?
Calm Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 I believe Josephs intent to give women the priesthood fell through cracks after Carthage. Wasn't there two years between the RS foundation and his death? Any hint of such a movement during that time? 1
Calm Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 This guy makes some good points in this BlogSpot. http://rationalfaiths.com/kate-kellys-local-leaders-follow-handbook/ Just got a chance to glance at it, but it claims I believe either in the blog or in the comments that just 9 women have access to the CHI Volume 1. Given that I've read it myself and know several women who have asked to read it, this is obviously a false claim. A woman has just as much access to the CHI legally as any man and that is by asking her bishop to view it. I suppose there might be bishops out there that have told their members no, but I haven't encountered any when I wanted to check something.
Zakuska Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 Of course not. We would just lock them in their rooms where they belonged. After all, they are only our wives.I thought wives like that were supposed to be locked up in the upper rooms of the Salt lake temple for indoctrination proceedings?
JLHPROF Posted June 18, 2014 Posted June 18, 2014 That said, there does seem to be a trend within the church, where practice becomes doctrine, when in fact the practice may simply be tradition. I believe Josephs intent to give women the priesthood fell through cracks after Carthage. While I agree with your premise, I don't believe Joseph ever intended to ordain women to be Deacons, Teachers, Priests, Elders, High Priests etc. I believe he had an higher level intention when he promised to make them a "Kingdom of Priests".
Recommended Posts