Leaderboard

The secular fundamentalists keep saying Hobby Lobby won the right to deny their workers "easy access" to contraception. In fact, SCOTUS agreed that it should not be required to pay for abortificents (sp?) for them. Why did the court agree? 1. Corporations are often treated as persons, under the law. This is nothing new. It's appropriate here because of the unified faith of Hobby Lobby's (and the other company) very few owners. 2. HHS made no attempt to seek "least restrictive means" of attaining its goal of free contraceptives for all. It has granted other exemptions, so how can it argue that there were no alternatives here? 3. HHS can easily remedy this gap by either paying for the contraceptives directly (by taxing us), or by requiring insurance companies to foot the bill. And so, this is a victory of morals and perception. The ACA bullied people of sincere religious conviction, and SCOTUS drew a line. Why the secular fundamentalists are so outraged is that they WANT to force Christians to pay for abortion-inducing contraceptives. After all, they are secular, and they are ideological fundamentalists.

Out of curiosity I visited OWE, and despite their preface claiming to expose the false teachings of Ordain Women, I feel it is a page dedicated to slamming Kate Kelly and belittling her supporters. There are plenty of people that don't agree with Kate Kelly and Ordain Women, my parents and most of my family feel this way, but none of them are feeding into this vicious cycle of belittlement. I think the OWE page harbours a lot of hate.

Canonized scripture, Conference sermon specifically tailored to the individuals raising the issue, united statement of the 1st Pres/Q12--In the words of an esteemed (former) secretary of state, "what difference, at this point, does it make?" Suzie, I daresay you are familiar with enough Church history to know that conformance with some sort of legal code doesn't immunize one from excommunication. Nor, IMHO, should it. If the Holy Ghost tells a bishop or stake president that a Church member's heart is not right before the Lord, I don't think that bishop/stake president's hands should be tied in perpetuity while the member keeps the council bogged down in legal procedures. There should be fair play and adequate notice; sure. But this business of Kate Kelly acting like she has absolutely no idea why she was excommunicated is just silly. Babylon may buy it, and the sympathetic LDS intelligentsia may split hairs over it; but to most rank-and-file Mormons it's pretty clear cut: she demanded something that the Church leadership said the Lord was unwilling to give, and she wouldn't take "no" for an answer and tried to shame the leadership into giving her what she wanted anyways. FWIW--McKay did inquire of the Lord re the blacks and priesthood issue, and did get an answer (a negative one). But he did not formally announce that answer. Had he done so, the Church membership could have gotten even more entrenched in the status quo. Rather, he continued working quietly to prepare the Church for the "long promised day". Let me ask you this, Suzie--if Monson did get an answer, and it was a "no"--are you sure you want that answer presented to a solemn assembly and canonized as Official Declaration 3? IMHO, those who want to keep female ordination on the table as a long-term option should be grateful for the ambiguity. The Church hasn't stopped the dialogue here; they've merely stated that the apostles will contribute to it on their own (the Lord's?) terms. Those terms apparently do not involve giving Kate Kelly a photo-op or otherwise implicitly suggesting that someone can shout their way into the council room of the First Presidency. They shouldn't have to, MoE. The Church records are completely devoid of any record of a female ever being ordained to one of the four offices of the Aaronic Priesthood or five offices of the Melchizedek Priesthood, and OW knows it. It is they who are deliberately creating murky waters with the ambiguous use of the word "ordain" and the red herring statements about priestesshood made to the Nauvoo Relief Society. The LDS leadership shouldn't have to address that blatant lie, and frankly I think I prefer it in general when apostles don't get into the business of apologetics or historical analysis.

On the other hand, it didn't really change Benson's mind or reconcile him to the Church . . . also, as I recall, Benson's concerns included the alleged "propping up" of his infirm grandfather by the rest of the apostles for public display; so it wasn't really a policy disagreement so much as it was a personal/family issue that happened to involve the highest echelons of the Church authorities. And if such a discussion were to happen re women's ordination: why must it take place with the leadership of OW rather than with--say--the General Relief Society Presidency? Boy, I've got to tread softly here. I think (hope!) I've been pretty clear with my disapproval of the tone OWE is striking. Outright name-calling is the province of the witless. (Irony alert!) However . . . I do not think that Kate Kelly's individual conduct, or beliefs, are completely off-limits in this discussion. To the degree that Kelly has misrepresented historical facts, misled her following as to her current Church disciplinary status, or withheld pertinent information about her disciplinary process--she should be called out on that; and openly so. If she's going to claim that her bishop had no just cause to excommunicate her, then she's inviting a very close scrutiny of her personal conduct. If she's going to claim that due to a unique revelation she has more insight into the mind of God than the First Presidency and the Q12 do, then she'd better be ready to demonstrate that her righteousness is on a par with theirs.

Agreed. I guess you must have been "CMC" that they're talking about. I know we've had our differences but I agree with you here. Their method is not the way. To be fair, the "idiot" comments and making fun is more the posters, which anyone can be, but if they're going to censor you and not censor the "what an idiot" comments, it pretty clearly shows what they're supporting. You and I don't agree on the OW issues. But Kate Kelly is a child of God and deserves our love and compassion, not belittlement and hate.

I would love if Monson comes straightforward and says they prayed about it and they got "X" answer but it didn't happen (just yet). I understand your points JAG, and you know I respect you a lot and your views but I disagree in your overall view with how this issue was handled. I believe Kelly's excommunication could have been avoided if the Church engaged in a proper dialogue with her and OW. As a sister in the Gospel, I feel very sad for her and her entirely family and it frustrates me, angers me and saddens me all at the same time that there are groups such as OWE who are using this opportunity to attack Kelly and say horrible things that I believe a Latter-Day Saint should never say to someone going through an excommunication process. And then we wonder where do we get the "holier than thou" perception from. We have a lot of bullies in our midst.

I have 2 daughters and after watching it it hit me hard wanted to share it I think it has a great message for all girls.

Maureen, you seem to be basing your conclusion on a vary shaky foundation given how utterly inappropriate it would have been for Kelly's leaders to go public with the content of that December meeting in December or, indeed, at any time prior to Kelly's actual excommunication. It does appear, from the notice of probation, that there were concerns about Kelly misrepresenting her conversations with priesthood authorities, certainly as early as that May 22 letter and very likely at least as early as her meeting with her stake president on May 5. Moreover, Kelly's and her leaders' versions of the December meeting (as you recite them here) are not explicitly contradictory. Kelly concedes, in her FMH post, that the meeting was held at her leaders' request. She further concedes that her leaders "do not agree with me" in the immediate aftermath of that meeting. Now, they are implicitly contradictory in that Kelly suggested that her leaders had essentially green-lit her activities whereas her leaders maintain that they actually encouraged her to desist. But to accept Kelly's version of events (and her analysis of their meaning) is to believe that a Mormon bishop and stake president would time out of their personal schedules and call a random Church member in for a discussion with the two of them, together (I have never had this happen to me, and have never heard of it happening to anyone else) merely to say "we don't agree with what you're doing--but by all means, keep on doing it and we promise you'll never, ever be disciplined for it no matter what you might do hereafter in furtherance of your goals!" A non-Mormon who believes that bishops and stake presidents are inherently a group of vacillating ogres might buy into that notion; but It's an idea that is completely foreign to most of our experiences as Mormons. And even more bizarre is the suggestion that Kelly's stake leadership--whom she has acknowledged disagreeing with her--would seek a meeting with her in December of 2013, when not a lot was happening with OW; but would not seek another meeting with her in March or April of 2013 right when Conference time was approaching, the Church had publicly asked OW to desist, and things generally were really heating up. Now, we Mormons are happy to believe rather unlikely fact scenarios (God appearing to a fourteen-year-old farm boy. Really!)--if the Holy Spirit confirms to us that we should. But that hasn't happened; and in its absence, I'm going to stick with the old "out of the mouths of two or three witnesses" routine.

We had a dodge grand caravan that lasted 250,000 + miles. We gave our daughter our last one that has 110,000K +. With that we are done with the minivan days. Yeah!!!!!!!!!! Getting rid of the minivan has made me feel like I have reclaimed part of myself. I don't have anything fancy, just a Ford Explorer, but I love it.

I agree with SpiritDragon re the doors. About 3 years ago I was sitting in the back of a 2001 Odyssey when we saw a tractor-trailer ahead of us roll over. We pulled over to give assistance, and I lost a good 10-15 seconds waiting for that dag-blasted door to open. That pretty much killed the charm of the Odyssey for me--IMHO, those power doors are a safety issue in an emergency. (Also, anecdotally, pretty much everyone I can think of who has an Odyssey had to have the transmission re-done at some point). We drive a 2001 Toyota Sienna (with MANUAL doors!) and have had no complaints except for a pitifully small luggage area which I think has been re-designed in later models. Our next minivan will probably also be a Sienna. For gas mileage/efficiency reasons, I wouldn't go with an SUV unless I was planning on regularly using it to pull a boat or other heavy trailer.

My wife and I have absolutely loved our odyssey. We bought it when our car was written off after my wife was broad-sided around five years ago. It does almost as well for gas mileage as our previous cavalier did and we love having the room to throw stuff in and go. Ours is a 1999 model and hasn't had any thing major go wrong (Knocking on wood) in it's 15 year life. As for the power doors they can be as much of a nuisance as a blessing at times. They are real slow which means if you have multiple stops and kids want to jump out quick and return that they won't work so well, and the vehicle needs to be in park for them to open and close so you can't just pull over and open the doors and be on your way. These are generally minor things though as long as you remember them. More annoyingly they can sometimes get the sensors dirty and think they can't close. In a pinch you can switch the doors to manual mode and close them by hand until you can get them cleaned. All in all I think it's a great vehicle.

When reason and empirical evidence stand in opposition to each other there is somewhere a disconnect. That disconnect could be in understanding of the empirical evidence or in the rhetorical logic we rely on for our “reason”. In science we saw this disconnect take place for over 100 years in the study of dinosaurs in thinking them to be exclusively cold blooded creatures. In religion we have seen this occur for over 1000 years as Christians believed the earth to be the center of the universe. I submit that only when reason conform with empirical evidence can there be any comprehension of the truth being witnessed to us.

The Hobby Lobby majority, summarized in (relatively) plain English

I've got to speak my peace on this matter, particularly to those who are members of the Church and are sympathetic to the cause of Ordain Women. Please, be careful. I am not here to tell you how to think. I am not any kind of authority figure to anyone here. I am simply a fellow saint that cares and knows where this road often ends. Ordain Women and Kate Kelly are apostate. I have read a small amount of Kate Kelly's writings, and from the small amount I have read it is exactly what the adversary uses to lead people astray. It is true scripture and carefully placed half-truths mixed with the philosophies of a fallen world. It is some of the best "anti" I have ever seen. Just yesterday, Ordain Women issued a statement that said, "We sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles..."(1), yet their website still says that "God is male and female..."(2), and that "Mormon women must be ordained."(3) Clearly this is repudiating the Brethren, not sustaining them. It also demonstrates hypocrisy and heresy. Satan is very, very smart. He sets traps then waits. He manipulates well-intentioned people with cunning and sophistry to do that which is contrary to the will of God. He knows that the journey of 1000 miles starts with one step and he wants that first step really bad. One of my best friends probably going to be facing excommunication, and it breaks my heart. This person went from stalwart to apostate in just a few short years, and it can happen to any one of us if we're not careful. Jeffery R. Holland said, "It is imperative to note that this mist of darkness descends on all the travelers—the faithful and the determined ones (the elect, we might even say) as well as the weaker and ungrounded ones."(4) The mists of darkness obscure and blind everyone and that's why it is so important to stick with the doctrine and listen to the Prophet. For those that are struggling with the topic of women and priesthood, please hold to the iron rod. -Str8shooter (1)- OW blog, 29 June 2014 (2)- OW mission statement (3)- OW FAQ, 4th Question, 5th para. (4)- "Safety for the Soul", Jeffrey R Holland, Oct 2009

X Y and Z needed

I am a huge fan of government. I'm a huge fan of roads and schools and police departments and militaries. I'm a huge fan of the Church too. That doesn't mean that they don't often times suck. They're run by people. Suckiness is something I expect. So what, exactly, was your point?

Yes, I used an anonymous profile. I thought of that too but the administrator "likes" the comments which means he/she supports such behavior and encourages it. And by the way, I did not call anyone any names. I simply asked questions, quoted one scripture and I asked kindly if out of respect they could remove the page, then they proceed to delete all my comments, blocked me and now criticizing me for asking them to do that. I am sure they think I am part of OW or something, they are so wrong in their assumption. As someone who enjoys debating, I don't have a problem with someone making a blog and going point by point and debate and refute OW. But that's not what has been happening. They are cyber-bullying her.

Perhaps. But it seems fairly obvious that Kate Kelly was not interested in a "proper dialogue." She was not asking a question, she was making a demand. The Church cannot help it if Kate Kelly and her ilk chose not to listen. Furthermore, why should the First Presidency have a dialogue anyway? Dialogue works when there is room to debate, or compromise; the Gospel doesn't work that way. However, if, by dialogue, you mean having matters of doctrine explained that people do not understand, that is what their Bishops and local leaders are for. If the First Presidency has not prayed about the issue, I would guess the reason is that the spirit simply has not compelled them to do so. So, either they felt the answer was already there, and the answer is "No." Or, they have prayed about it and the answer is still "No."

Wow ...the other side is frothing over this Real though provoking stuff... ...Individuals demanding free pills over free will. Not forcing others to provide them what they want is forcing religion and prohibiting their right..to have what they want when they want. .

Applause, laugh, and thanks - What have I been paying you for?!

It most certainly is a factor... Ask your self when was the last time you two when on a date? Then repent and never ever allow it to go so long again

Thank you so much everyone for your comments, they have been very helpful and comforting. Just for some more clarification, I absolutely still want to stay married to my husband. He is a wonderful man and is a great Father to our kids. He is always making me smile and my most favorite thing, he is always making me laugh. With out a doubt he is the love of my life. I definitely do think it is a bisexual thing. I know I am sexually attracted to men, but a little more to women. It was never a fully homosexual thing for me. Even when I was away from the church and was mainly with girls, I also had some relationships with guys. However, my attractions have always been a little stronger towards women. This is one of the reasons why I plan to see a counselor, so I can better understand these feelings and learn how to not let them affect the way I see my husband. I am someone who gets down kind of easily especially when I am stressed. Having 2 year old twins is definitely stressful, but of course worth it. I think during those times when I feel down I subconsciously turn to those feelings I have for women and it makes me miss it. Again I am not sure why, I am hoping seeing a counselor will help me to dig deeper and find out the reasons. I think I just get confused a lot with these feelings. With how busy we are, my husband and I don't spend a lot of quality time together and that could maybe be factor in this. I am just grateful that my husband and I are able to talk about things like this and we plan to see a counselor together as well. We both feel that we need to do all we can to make this marriage work, especially on my part since this is my struggle. After reading some of your guy's comments I have realized that I need to do more things to make sure he is loved and appreciated. Thank you guys for all your advice.

It's actually a bit surprising it went this way. I figured it was all downhill from here on. Good to see there's still some hope remaining.

Doesn't the fact she didn't attend the disciplinary council itself demonstrate a lack of faith and perhaps even contempt for the authority of the Church? Her actions certainly didn't match her claims of faith. If it's Priesthood authority she truly sought it seemed counteractive to simultaneously repudiate it.

That is not the criteria for something being "false doctrine". And people aren't excommunicated for preaching false doctrine. They are excommunicated for continuing to preach false doctrine when they have been corrected and asked to discontinue. I removed the parts that I agreed with and addressed what I saw as questionable. It has nothing to do with misquoting. You said, "end-of-discussion does not lead to meaningful dialogue and proper conflict resolution" and I am questioning that part as valid. Do we know there was an "end-of-discussion" response to Kate Kelly? The only things we know were said to her are what she has published, and there is strong evidence of deception on her part. I'm not sure how my simple response to this is being taken as some sort of contentious attack. The questions I asked clearly fall, in my mind, to fit this definition. The pamphlets, website, profiles, comments, etc., are all meant to "induce" others to espouse the doctrine. If you don't see it that way...okay. Seems fairly obvious to me though. You seem to be under the impression that my comments were entirely and specifically addressed to you and only to you rather than a general response to the ideas being expressed on the forum. That is mistaken. I am addressing the general idea that some seem to believe that if the General Authorities didn't specifically say they prayed about it then they must not have, which is a silly idea to me. I read your post. I read that you said not to read too much into it. I thought you would understand that I was addressing the issue at large accordingly. You are making it personal and thereby reading all my responses as a direct attack against you. Re-read it as expressions of general philosophy instead and maybe you can come away from it with a bit less emotional strife. I addressed this in my response to Funky. Hopefully we'll have an interesting and healthy discussion concerning the matter and learn and grow from it instead of taking everything personally. Time will tell. I'm not going after you. I am responding to comments, thoughts and ideas. The fact that we do not agree on everything doesn't mean I'm out to get you. I meant no offense. If you cannot deal with the dialogue I cannot help it. These are philosophical debates, not personal. Why don't you stick to refuting my ideas, thoughts, interpretations, and logic. Addressing me as "crude" and "contentious" and generating a list of my imperfections is personal. An implication that the fact that I disagree with you means I'm not showing you respect is creating contention where none exists. Pointing out that "other members" feel the same to gang up against me and put me in my place is a low blow.

The obvious implication, to me, is that the false doctrine is that women should be ordained, which Kate Kelly very clearly taught. We have no idea what sort of dialogue, meaningful or otherwise, that was had with Kelly. Really. So the six "discussion" tracts are not for proselytizing? The media coverage is not for proselytizing? The profiles themselves (and the site that hosts them) is not for proselytizing? So wait...let's break this down. We believe that the church is led by revelation. We believe that revelation comes from sincere inquiry through prayer. But we believe our leaders are NOT sincerely praying? To me it is a question so ridiculous that it simply doesn't need to be answered. It is petulant and childish? Did they pray about it? Duh. Of course they did, are, and do. They cannot lead this church without revelation and they KNOW IT. The very idea that they aren't constantly on their knees, daily, hourly, and persistently in their hearts striving to know and do the will of God is so ludicrous that I can hardly believe the question is being asked. The question is very obviously meant as a politicking attack against an answer that is not liked. Did you miss that in most of those instances the "fold" was iniquitous, and the result was death, destruction, famine, plague, reprimand, and extermination? Particularly with the Israelites. Hardly a prime example of a faithful, righteous fold who trusted their prophet and the Lord. (See my post above on Numbers Chapter 16).

My understanding is that she wasn't preaching any false doctrine. I haven't seen anything on the OW website that was false doctrine. There is a statement about how a person must hold an office in the Priesthood in order to gain salvation, which is clearly false doctrine. But, a statement like that alone is nothing compared to the Adam-God theory, which came from a prophet, seer, and revelator, and has since been rebuked in later times. It is also nothing compared to The Seer, by Orson Pratt, an apostle, which is chalk full of false doctrine. So much so that my mission president didn't let us read it. Neither President Young nor Elder Pratt were ever excommunicated. My point here is not to be contentious, but rather to point out that I think both Suzie and Pam are right: There was little-to-no false doctrine being preached, but this wasn't so much the driving rationale behind excommunicating her. All of what I have said is according to my current udnerstanding, though. I agree with Suzie on this about a dogmatic, end-of-discussion does not lead to meaningful dialogue and proper conflict resolution. What I think of the matter is irrelevant per my lack of ecclesiastical authority. But, I can see plausible alternatives to dealing with this. Whether or not they were utilized, who knows? I only know that that church warned her to cease and desist, she didn't, more warnings were given, and a consequence transpired. (Philadelphia Eagles) As mentioned above, I believe her actions were more the issue. I'm sympathetic to Kate's concerns and even I struggle with her trying to interrupt General Conference... twice. However, from what I can tell from reading numerous profiles on OW, I get the impression that Kate didn't really "proselytize" her beliefs. The men and women who related to her already shared those beliefs, as evidenced by many of them claiming that they had felt that way their whole lives. But, that's just my guess. This is a notion I can't deny or escape in my own private ponderings. To my knowledge, no statement has been made explicitly stating, "We prayed and asked Heavenly Father if women should have the priesthood and He said, 'No.'" Please, don't misunderstand me: I am not saying anything more than just that I am not aware of any such statement and that that fact is inescapable during my private ponderings. Beyond that, I'm trying to KISS. According to some research shown to me by some of my friends in the church, upwards of 90% of the women in the church agree with these sentiments in their entirety and completeness. I agree that we shouldn't be demanding of the Prophet. However, the scriptures are filled with instances of the fold going to prophet and asking him to ask Heavenly Father for an answer. I just taught my 10-11 year old primary class the story of the brass serpant yesterday. The Israelites asked Moses to inquire of the Lord and he did. Many of Joseph Smith's revelations came from questions being asked of him by the members. So, I do believe there is a balance there. And, I really don't think anyone on these forums disagrees with that. I think most people just generally have a very different notion of where that balance is. Which is fine. I think many of us have this thought enter our minds at one time or another, regardless of what we choose to do about it. I have attended psychotherapy conferences in Utah where the presenting psycholgists talk briefly about the many members who have stated in therapy that they feel lost, have more questions than answers, and being told, "Read the scriptures and pray about it," helps them through such moments but doesn't really make the problem go away. I talk to other Mormon therapists who have experienced this many times. My point is not that there is a real problem here. I am not saying that at all. Rather, I am just saying that there is a great many, good and faithful, church-attending members who can relate to this. Many times, I'm one of them.

I find this pretty insulting. My faith in Christ is thriving and unchallenged. My faith in temporal organizations is unchanged...they often suck. Welcome to humanity. But please stop assuming that frustration with how public affairs are handled is synonymous with a crisis or trial of faith. That's one of those things I can't stand about mormons.

Did it every strike you that perhaps this is by design of the Lord to try faith in our times?

It's obvious to many of us, but those aren't the answers that many want to hear.

How is this not an answer? https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I would want to see or find out about results from the field experience. If good results I'd probably go with the one that has proven experience and a track record already established. Whether LDS or not.

I don't know that I agree. Which is exactly why I brought it up. So let me explain my thinking. One lost sheep = how many lost souls? One. One ravenous wolf = how many lost souls? Perhaps many. Perhaps innumerable. If Kate Kelly, for example, went about quietly losing her testimony concerning women's ordination then she is astray. When she starts preaching, converting, appealing, protesting, etc., etc. then she becomes the ravenous wolf, and it is no longer best to err on the side of charity, but to err on the side of protecting the other sheep in the fold. When a wolf is coming after the flock you don't say, "but the wolf might be nice. I'm sure we can domesticate it." You get your pitchfork and torch out, the gun if you have one, and you go after the wolf. More to the point, and perhaps you'll expand your thought on this. You imply that we can't tell when someone is a wolf. I'm not so sure about that. Seems pretty easy to tell when principles espoused by someone, particularly publicly, are produced to harm rather than build up the kingdom. It really comes down to this thought: How many sheep are we willing to let be destroyed in order to try and save the wolf?

Except we, unquestionably, preach of and believe in a literal Adam. The amount of material in support of this is so overwhelming that even a suggestion of otherwise is... well...I don't want to insult. Do some research.

The Church also has the option to stop all marriages in the temples and just do sealings... So no I don't see it happening

Theoretically you are right. But...the "gay" thing has a lot of clout right now that may, if someone is of the mind to do so in a country like Denmark, successfully ignore that side of things and force the issue legally. It's gotta be on satan's wishlist.