Does Heavenly Mother Sustain Ow?

[mfbukowski]

This is part of the issue I see.  College aged girls are growing up in a very different world than we grew up in.  They are used to absolute equality of opportunity between the sexes.  They are used to women being included in every level of administration in schooling, business, politics, foreign policy--places that traditionally have been men's territory.  This potentially will be an issue that is going to be difficult for them to accept.  I worry sometimes that the inherent "patriarchy" of the church is going to result in the loss of many of our daughters and granddaughters.  

Hopefully we will receive further light and knowledge on these questions, and I think it is clear from the very fact that a person in the position Sharon Eubanks holds, said what she said, and I see that, as well as Elder Oaks recent talk, as an indication that the brethren are seeking revelation on these issues

[katherine the great]

Hopefully we will receive further light and knowledge on these questions, and I think it is clear from the very fact that a person in the position Sharon Eubanks holds, said what she said, and I see that, as well as Elder Oaks recent talk, as an indication that the brethren are seeking revelation on these issues

It will be interesting to see what the next decade or so brings.  

[Senator]

How would we know what those realities were so we could adjust it properly?

 

How can we know how to resurrect someone so we can get on with it?

[Senator]

Again, how would we know? Who is it who is supposed to tell us that?  Isn't that making yourself the prophet?

 

Again, to me it amounts to "vote with your feet". 

 

No, not at all.

 

So anyone who recognizes a fault with the church should just vote with their feet?  That's It?

[Calm]

I was talking last week with a young woman TBM relative of mine who lives in SLC and is a college student, about how she feels ostracized because she does not stand up for OW, but like you and me for that matter, would like to see all this better defined. I told her about the Eubanks talk and she was very excited.

I am just wondering how it is possible that so few can intimidate so many faithful women who feel they cannot speak out against OW. That is how she felt.

It depends on the environment. There are those who feel ostracized of they speak up for OW, even if they themselves don't support the ultimate goal or some of the methods.

I assume the higher density of younger age and more activist inclined plus the alleged negative view of the LDS faith that exists at UoU according to many reports would tend to increase numbers of OW supporters where other areas are more likely to be the reverse.

Originally OW presented themselves as faithful members only in their interactions with the press, they did not mention they had others included. I don't know if this helped them attract more or was a problem for them. It was the first red flag for me. I don't think it was wrong to include others, they should have been upfront about it in interviews though.

Edited August 15, 2014 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

How can we know how to resurrect someone so we can get on with it?

Well if and when we need that, it will come through priesthood channels I imagine.

 

We have a little epistemological problem here suggesting that the church does not correspond to eternal reality when the only way we can glimpse eternal reality is through the church, I suppose.

 

Unless you have another way that God is telling you, and then you don't need the church.  Which is it?

 

So I am just looking to the solution to the problem you have proposed.   Of course to me, the problem does not exist, because my position does not rely on a correspondence theory of truth.  We have discussed this before of course.  I am just wondering how you solve your own problem with this, how you know what the eternal realities ARE to show that they do not correspond to church teachings.  I sustain the church as the best path to God that mankind knows.  Of course some changes might be in order, but that is what an open canon is for.  We can seek further light and knowledge.

 

I suppose you might claim that you already have it, and the church needs to catch up.   Maybe OW also thinks they receive revelation for the church, I don't know.  But then why do they value their membership in an apostate church?  Why do you value your membership in an apostate church if that is what you believe?

 

To me, this view is a mass of confusion, to coin a phrase.

 

I am just trying to get people to think through these positions they take and at least come up with something that makes sense, and stick to one story.

[mfbukowski]

It depends on the environment. There are those who feel ostracized of they speak up for OW, even if they themselves don't support the ultimate goal or some of the methods.

I assume the higher density of younger age and more activist inclined plus the alleged negative view of the LDS faith that exists at UoU according to many reports would tend to increase numbers of OW supporters where other areas are more likely to be the reverse.

Originally OW presented themselves as faithful members only in their interactions with the press, they did not mention they had others included. I don't know if this helped them attract more or was a problem for them. It was the first red flag for me. I don't think it was wrong to include others, they should have been upfront about it in interviews though.

Interesting- yes, my young relative attends U of U, so that could be a major factor.

[mfbukowski]

It depends on the environment. There are those who feel ostracized of they speak up for OW, even if they themselves don't support the ultimate goal or some of the methods.

I assume the higher density of younger age and more activist inclined plus the alleged negative view of the LDS faith that exists at UoU according to many reports would tend to increase numbers of OW supporters where other areas are more likely to be the reverse.

Originally OW presented themselves as faithful members only in their interactions with the press, they did not mention they had others included. I don't know if this helped them attract more or was a problem for them. It was the first red flag for me. I don't think it was wrong to include others, they should have been upfront about it in interviews though.

Interesting- yes, my young relative attends U of U, so that could be a major factor.

[ERayR]

OW consists of faithful members, nonmembers including those who belong to other faith positions, and excommunicated members and even those who have described themselves atheists.

I am not sure how they could have a coherent theological position given that.

 

Self described

[mfbukowski]

No, not at all.

 

So anyone who recognizes a fault with the church should just vote with their feet?  That's It?

Equivocation.

 

This is not "a fault", this would be a central flaw in the doctrine of the Nature of God.

 

I suppose those who don't care about theology or the stories we believe about God making sense, then those would stay.  I know for a fact there are a lot of religions which don't make sense and still have members, but in my opinion, they are not this church.

 

I have already left a couple of churches that I finally decided didn't make sense, or didn't cohere with what I thought made sense.  I could not stay there telling myself stories I did not believe.  I don't see any reason for it.

[sethpayne]

Deserve?

No, absolutely not.

He listens to us and commands His servants to listen because He loves us, but at no point do we deserve anything.

We are, and always will be, unprofitable servants, forever in His debt.

Deserve and entitlement have no place in His church.

Here, we are all servants. We serve Him in the manner and time He calls us to.

After everything Jesus did for us, I don't think it is too much for him to ask of us.

This is not our church, it is His church.

 

Do we not believe that God is constrained by natural law?  God has decreed that humankind does indeed deserve something:  free agency.  He doesn't give it to us and he can't take it away.  It transcends Him.

[Erin15]

Do we not believe that God is constrained by natural law? God has decreed that humankind does indeed deserve something: free agency. He doesn't give it to us and he can't take it away. It transcends Him.

Yes, we are free to join His church and to leave it, but at no point do we get a vote in how He runs it.

[juliann]

Yes, we are free to join His church and to leave it, but at no point do we get a vote in how He runs it.

Of course we do. This is made clear throughout scripture. He adapts laws and doctrines to us, obviously. If not, we would be living the law of consecration or hanging out with Enoch.

[Brian 2.0]

I am not sure how one can sustain the church AND support OW, I guess as they purport to do. I am just looking for some kind- any kind- of coherent position, because as of now I don't see any.

Is it not possible to truly sustain your leader while at the same time disagreeing with something particular that the leader is saying or doing?

[Erin15]

Of course we do.

That is exactly the kind of thinking that lead KK out of the kingdom.

No, we don't get a vote in how He runs His church. We submit patiently to Him and serve Him in the way He asks us to and in the place He asks us to.

That is what it means to be a disciple. Not my will, but Thine.

[readstoomuch]

I think she values peace,unity, charity and kind discussion of differences. I think she is sad that my daughter gave up many of her beliefs over OW tactics and OW causing dissension makes her sad. She loves those greatly in OW or the Church in general.

[Calm]

That is exactly the kind of thinking that lead KK out of the kingdom.

I highly doubt that.

God loves his disciples and as far as I can tell does not desire for them to become robots. Instead, he teaches us to develop out talents, our discernment, gives us choices of many good things to choose from. He wants to be one with us as we want to be one with him. Does that always mean his will is the only exercised? How is he one with us if so?

Above all he gives us stewardship and the only scripture that indicated a servant who would only do the Lord's will and not put in his own input on how things was done, his one talent was taken from him and given to another who had taken the five and done what he thought was appropriate...apparently with no input from his Lord. And because his Lord was pleased with his work he rewarded him.

Am I committing an error when I choose to remove items from the information given to me by the Stake people so I can include stuff I think is most important when I write up the bulletin. Is not my vote for what the bulletin is to be of value? It is my stewardship after all.

Edited August 16, 2014 by calmoriah

[Erin15]

I highly doubt that.

God loves his disciples and as far as I can tell does not desire for them to become robots.

It's not being a robot, it's being humble. And that He absolutely requires.

Fault-finding against the church, seeking after greater praise and position, feeling that you know better than the brethren, a sense of entitlement, all of those sins have their roots in a lack of humility.

[Calm]

It's not being a robot, it's being humble. And that He absolutely requires.

Fault-finding against the church, seeking after greater praise and position, feeling that you know better than the brethren, a sense of entitlement, all of those sins have their roots in a lack of humility.

Good thing none of those were what Juliann was claiming.

[Erin15]

Good thing none of those were what Juliann was claiming.

Cal, please allow Juliann to answer for herself. Your habit of inserting yourself and speaking for her is tiresome.

[sethpayne]

That is exactly the kind of thinking that lead KK out of the kingdom.

No, we don't get a vote in how He runs His church. We submit patiently to Him and serve Him in the way He asks us to and in the place He asks us to.

That is what it means to be a disciple. Not my will, but Thine.

 

Ok.  for a while you had me going.  Well done.

 

[Brian 2.0]

That is exactly the kind of thinking that lead KK out of the kingdom.

No, we don't get a vote in how He runs His church. We submit patiently to Him and serve Him in the way He asks us to and in the place He asks us to.

That is what it means to be a disciple. Not my will, but Thine.

You don't assume that the church is run completely as Christ would run it if he were here today, do you?

There's bound to be some some differences between

Christ physically being here and running His church

and

Christ running a church through revelation with fallible men.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[mfbukowski]

Is it not possible to truly sustain your leader while at the same time disagreeing with something particular that the leader is saying or doing?

I don't think this is about sustaining leaders- it is simultaneously disagreeing with fundamental core doctrine while also saying that "I want to stay in an erroneous church". The question is whether or not we have the fundamental relationship between Heavenly Father and Mother "correctly" and consistently described or not

They have put forth no answer to "correct" what they find in error.

If this was a romantic relationship it's like saying "I'm mad at you for who you are, but I still want to stay with you".

It makes no sense to me. We have no evidence that Heavenly Mother is ordained to the Priesthood, yet they want a calling that apparently Heavenly Mother herself does not have, and yet they want to affirm that the church is "correct" enough to stay in as members.

I don't get it.

Were I to want women to be ordained, I would state it clearly and support what I saw as the "correct" doctrinal position I was desirous of creating. They have done none of that. They need to change the LDS view of Heavenly Mother completely in order to have their case even make sense, and they don't even see that.

[Brian 2.0]

I don't think this is about sustaining leaders- it is simultaneously disagreeing with fundamental core doctrine while also saying that "I want to stay in an erroneous church". The question is whether or not we have the fundamental relationship between Heavenly Father and Mother "correctly" and consistently described or not

They have put forth no answer to "correct" what they find in error.

If this was a romantic relationship it's like saying "I'm mad at you for who you are, but I still want to stay with you".

It makes no sense to me. We have no evidence that Heavenly Mother is ordained to the Priesthood, yet they want a calling that apparently Heavenly Mother herself does not have, and yet they want to affirm that the church is "correct" enough to stay in as members.

I don't get it.

Were I to want women to be ordained, I would state it clearly and support what I saw as the "correct" doctrinal position I was desirous of creating. They have done none of that. They need to change the LDS view of Heavenly Mother completely in order to have their case even make sense, and they don't even see that.

Can someone say the following?

"I believe this is God's church on Earth, but since it's run by imperfect people seeing through the glass darkly, the church isn't perfect. There are some thing I don't believe are run as Christ would run it if He were here. I believe women and the Priesthood is one of those things."

I feel like you are creating a false dichotomy.

[sethpayne]

Self described

 

So there are NO faithful OW members?