Storm Rider Posted April 5, 2018 Posted April 5, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, juliann said: Why are you avoiding the question? What terms have you used? I think I answered your question in my response to Calme Edited April 5, 2018 by Storm Rider
Rain Posted April 5, 2018 Posted April 5, 2018 13 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: I don't why this would be a surprise "coming from" me. I'm not sure what that means. I made the comment because she seemed so adamant about rejecting the idea that Priesthood quorums had stewardship over all members. She repeatedly rejected that notion and I didn't understand why she was rejecting that notion. One could dislike that arrangement but can't really deny that it was the arrangement. I don't disagree with anything you said about the RS. I don't see that acknowledgement of the assigned priesthood role diminishes the RS role. I understand your use of "adament about rejecting", though I'm not sure I agree that it applies to her. What surprised me is that you seem to be one on this board that supports women. It felt that you were throwing in an emotional word to describe her when I found little, if any, evidence in her words, that "upset" fit. So it felt odd that a supporter of women would paint a woman in this case as emotional. 1
Recommended Posts