Vort

Members
  • Posts

    25580
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    559

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Vort reacted to pam in MormonHub Forum Flurry! Puzzle   
    When I first read the title to this thread I thought it said Furry instead of Flurry and I was like...NOOOOOOOOOO
  2. Like
    Vort got a reaction from jerome1232 in Fighting on enemy grounds   
    One of the basic precepts of war, so well-known and obvious that even I know it, is that it is easier to fight a defensive battle than an offensive battle. Put another way, it's easier to fight on one's own ground than on enemy grounds.
    Yet so often, we in the Church insist on taking on our religious critics and defending the Church on enemy grounds. For example, I see that MormonHub has a new article on black (African-American) LDS history. The article itself seems reasonable enough. I suppose this issue must be addressed, and it must be addressed in an accessible way that people understand. Yet the thrust of such articles always boils down to explaining and defending actions that people today think are "bad". We try to justify ourselves in past Church actions in terms of race, prejudice, bigotry, and evolving social mores. Yet these have little, perhaps nothing, to do with the underlying realities that must be addressed, things like divine will and personal agency. Nevertheless, we studiously avoid all mention of such things, and for good reason: We Don't Know What We're Talking About. That's a pretty safe strategy. But then we blow it by engaging on these other ancillary issues and trying to explain the actions of the kingdom of God according to a mortal, carnal, largely irrelevant paradigm.
    Why do we do this? I think the answer is that we are conditioned to approach issues in certain terms ("worldly" terms, I would argue), so therefore both ourselves and our critics consider things from that "carnal" viewpoint. There is probably a better way of approaching these topics -- in fact, probably many better ways -- but we are not conditioned to see them.
    I served a mission to Italy, and found it extremely difficult to learn the language. (Ironic, given that Italian is among the easiest foreign languages for Americans to learn.) It finally sunk in, and what I found when I was actually able to communicate fluently was that Italians think differently about things than Americans do because of their different language. To some, this may seem obvious; yet after my mission, I remember reading an article that argued vociferously against the idea, insisting that people create their language to reflect their ideas, not the other way around. I was stunned at such naivete, which seemed to me to be willful ignorance. Of course the verbal tokens we use to represent ideas shape how we think of them! It's self-evident!
    This is what I believe is going on when we take the fight (so to speak) onto enemy grounds. To do so, we implicitly accept all the unspoken assumptions built into those viewpoints. This puts us at an obvious and dangerous disadvantage. For example, when we accept the common Goodthink that women must be "equal to" (i.e. identical with) men, then we are immediately on the defensive regarding why women don't hold the Priesthood -- a clear inequality. We are forced to come up with explanations that sort of dance around the central issue. Maybe women will get the Priesthood in the next life! Maybe women are too righteous and don't NEED the Priesthood! Maybe women already hold the Priesthood! Maybe the Priesthood itself isn't "real", just a game God gave us to try to help us organize things!
    Of course, there are better ways to approach this issue. The safest and most obvious route is to say, "God gave the Priesthood to men, and those men are to exercise in behalf of all." This approach does not respond to the question of "why" -- and for a good reason: "Why" questions are philosophical and mechanistic in nature. God reveals philosophical truths individually, when a person is ready and able to understand. And from what I can tell, God rarely or never reveals mechanistic questions, e.g. How does Christ atone for our sins?
    Both by commandment and by simple love for others, we must engage with those outside the gospel, and do so using linguistic tokens they understand. Yet it is dangerous and foolish to attempt to establish gospel truths on the short-sighted, constantly shifting sand of current public viewpoints. I am not sure where the balance is found, but until we recognize the disadvantages of fighting on enemy grounds, our effectiveness is sure to be limited.
  3. Like
    Vort reacted to mordorbund in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    Because missionaries tract before they retract, so there's quite a bit of bad publicity that happens otherwise.
  4. Like
    Vort got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    This is not true. Freemasonry is a completely separate thing from LDS temple ordinances. There is no "form" of one in the other. There may be some common forms, but that is an entirely different thing.
    Because it's false. I know little of Freemasonry, but what little I know tells me they're a social and service organization, not that different from the Elks Club. They have nothing to do with "Satanism". They are a sort of "secret" society, in the sense that they have "private knowledge" they don't share openly with others. Some people insist that any such "secret" society must be evil. That's where the supposed Satanism tie comes from.
    That really is not much different from saying that I get uncomfortable with the endowment because they speak in English, which is the exact same language used in Satanic goat-sacrificing ceremonies somewhere. Commonality in some forms, tokens, or representations does not imply a common origin, only a common source for those figurative ideas.
    For what it's worth, I urge you to put such worries out of your mind. Walk them under your feet. If you don't understand why there are commonalities, then simply quit worrying about it. Answers sufficient for you will come when needed.
    As someone who received his endowment well before 1990, I assure you that the overall endowment is substantially identical, and that in specific no important covenants or blessing pronouncements were changed. I confess I have missed some of the parts that were taken out, but 26 years later I can see that the things that were removed were largely misunderstood by the Church population, perhaps including by myself. When symbols start being taken in a completely different context from the intended, it's time to modify the symbols so people can still understand what is being presented.
    From what little I know about Freemasonry, it sounds like an organization I would love to be a part of if only I had a great deal more disposable time than I do now.
    Good for you. As for the age thing, I don't remember ever doing baptisms for the dead in my youth. We lived in eastern Washington state and were part of the Alberta, Canada temple district. I remember having a couple of temple trips when I was old enough to go, but each time I had other commitments that prevented me from going. I was not a proxy for baptisms for the dead until I was a middle-aged man.
  5. Like
    Vort got a reaction from Sunday21 in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    Why do mission rules require sanding them down?
  6. Like
    Vort reacted to askandanswer in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    From what I know, the Masons is basically a service organisation, something like Rotary or the Lions Club (do you have the Lions in the US?). I believe that one of their main activities is doing project that are good and that benefit the community. If that is the case, then Mormon 7:17 makes it highly unlikely that they are in any way satanic.
    (Book of Mormon | Moroni 7:17)
    7 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.
     
    This idea is reinforced by Mosiah 2:17  which makes it clear that when we are serving our fellow men, as I believe the Masons do through their community service, then we are also serving God. Serving God is not something that Satan would ever be involved in in any way.. 
    (Book of Mormon | Mosiah 2:17)
    17  And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.
     
    In light of of these two scriptures, I think its quite plain that Satan is unlikely to have or to have had, any connection with Freemasonry and I don't believe any additional supporting evidence is required, 
     
  7. Like
    Vort got a reaction from NeedleinA in Do essential oils work for anxiety?   
    Good idea. I'll give that a 24-hour test this afternoon.
  8. Like
    Vort got a reaction from Blackmarch in Do essential oils work for anxiety?   
    While I am by no means a fan of overmedication that we see so often today, in the vast majority of cases I think the word "essential" can be replaced by "snake".
  9. Like
    Vort reacted to zil in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    Only the ones born in the covenant.  Converts' kids get them, but not the converts themselves.  (Just clarifying in case someone was confused.)
  10. Like
    Vort got a reaction from zil in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    This is not true. Freemasonry is a completely separate thing from LDS temple ordinances. There is no "form" of one in the other. There may be some common forms, but that is an entirely different thing.
    Because it's false. I know little of Freemasonry, but what little I know tells me they're a social and service organization, not that different from the Elks Club. They have nothing to do with "Satanism". They are a sort of "secret" society, in the sense that they have "private knowledge" they don't share openly with others. Some people insist that any such "secret" society must be evil. That's where the supposed Satanism tie comes from.
    That really is not much different from saying that I get uncomfortable with the endowment because they speak in English, which is the exact same language used in Satanic goat-sacrificing ceremonies somewhere. Commonality in some forms, tokens, or representations does not imply a common origin, only a common source for those figurative ideas.
    For what it's worth, I urge you to put such worries out of your mind. Walk them under your feet. If you don't understand why there are commonalities, then simply quit worrying about it. Answers sufficient for you will come when needed.
    As someone who received his endowment well before 1990, I assure you that the overall endowment is substantially identical, and that in specific no important covenants or blessing pronouncements were changed. I confess I have missed some of the parts that were taken out, but 26 years later I can see that the things that were removed were largely misunderstood by the Church population, perhaps including by myself. When symbols start being taken in a completely different context from the intended, it's time to modify the symbols so people can still understand what is being presented.
    From what little I know about Freemasonry, it sounds like an organization I would love to be a part of if only I had a great deal more disposable time than I do now.
    Good for you. As for the age thing, I don't remember ever doing baptisms for the dead in my youth. We lived in eastern Washington state and were part of the Alberta, Canada temple district. I remember having a couple of temple trips when I was old enough to go, but each time I had other commitments that prevented me from going. I was not a proxy for baptisms for the dead until I was a middle-aged man.
  11. Like
    Vort got a reaction from An Investigator in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    This is not true. Freemasonry is a completely separate thing from LDS temple ordinances. There is no "form" of one in the other. There may be some common forms, but that is an entirely different thing.
    Because it's false. I know little of Freemasonry, but what little I know tells me they're a social and service organization, not that different from the Elks Club. They have nothing to do with "Satanism". They are a sort of "secret" society, in the sense that they have "private knowledge" they don't share openly with others. Some people insist that any such "secret" society must be evil. That's where the supposed Satanism tie comes from.
    That really is not much different from saying that I get uncomfortable with the endowment because they speak in English, which is the exact same language used in Satanic goat-sacrificing ceremonies somewhere. Commonality in some forms, tokens, or representations does not imply a common origin, only a common source for those figurative ideas.
    For what it's worth, I urge you to put such worries out of your mind. Walk them under your feet. If you don't understand why there are commonalities, then simply quit worrying about it. Answers sufficient for you will come when needed.
    As someone who received his endowment well before 1990, I assure you that the overall endowment is substantially identical, and that in specific no important covenants or blessing pronouncements were changed. I confess I have missed some of the parts that were taken out, but 26 years later I can see that the things that were removed were largely misunderstood by the Church population, perhaps including by myself. When symbols start being taken in a completely different context from the intended, it's time to modify the symbols so people can still understand what is being presented.
    From what little I know about Freemasonry, it sounds like an organization I would love to be a part of if only I had a great deal more disposable time than I do now.
    Good for you. As for the age thing, I don't remember ever doing baptisms for the dead in my youth. We lived in eastern Washington state and were part of the Alberta, Canada temple district. I remember having a couple of temple trips when I was old enough to go, but each time I had other commitments that prevented me from going. I was not a proxy for baptisms for the dead until I was a middle-aged man.
  12. Like
    Vort reacted to Jane_Doe in Broke the Law of Chastity.   
    Just adding the choir here--
    Just to make sure you're under no illusions: you would not be the only person to go to the Bishop with this exact situation.  In fact, he's probably seen at least three this month.
    That would be Satan saying that.  No one is "unworthy" to be at church, not even the worse serial killer.
    Correction: you need to repent.  Period.  Not "I need to repent if I want to [anything]".  You just need to repent.
    On a different note: getting married in the temple is a great goal.
    Again, that is Satan.  He wants to keep you from meeting with the Bishop and healing your wounds.
    Excellent!
    The path of healing is highly individualized, so we can't tell you.  It is extremely unlikely your parents will have to be told.
    It makes sense, but it's totally wrong.  
    You are gravely injured by your sins. The bishop is there as a doctor, on assignment from the Great Physician.  They together will help you through the process. Having an Earthly doctor to help you keeps a person accountable and focused, and on the right path.  Too often when people say "just me and Christ will work this out" results in "I'll just do what I want" (people never mean it to, but happens tragically often).  The bishop has seen many people down this path, and quite possibly walked it himself back himself.  Experience is a good thing.
     
     
  13. Like
    Vort reacted to An Investigator in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    A little off the actual discussion as I know nothing about the endowment but Ive been struggling about going to the temple to do baptisms as I have to go with a bunch of people younger then me who I've never met and I was getting very stressed about it all.. then I thought were are all these feelings coming from? I think Satan definitely has ways of stopping us seeing the bigger picture,  especially when it comes to temple work.
  14. Like
    Vort reacted to NeuroTypical in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    Fun things to consider, that are in the public record, researched and talked about by LDS students and scholars:
    Joseph was introduced to Masonry in 1842.  Here's a list of things that happened before 1842:
    1835 - Book of Abraham
    - Key-words of the priesthood
    - The phrase “only to be had in the temple of God”
    1837 - Ceremonial washing and Annointing with oil were practiced at Kirtland temple – 5 years before Joseph Smith was introduced to masonry.
    Jan 19, 1841 - revelation on temple ordinances, now identified as Doctrine and Covenants 124
    - Anointings (39)
    - The keys of the holy priesthood (34, 95, 97)  (Orson Pratt provided a footnoting system for the Doctrine and Covenants that was included with the book up through 1918. In the footnotes of D/C 124 he indicated that “keys” referred to in verses 95 and 97 were “the order of God for receiving revelations” and “the order, ordained of God”  
    - Memorials of Levitical sacrifices (39)
    - Solemn assemblies (39)
    - Oracles, conversations, statutes, and judgments (39)
    - Ordinances that have been kept hidden (40-41)
    - The fullness of the priesthood (28)
    9 March 1841 – Joseph tells the Nauvoo Lyceum that the “great God has a name by which he will be called which is Ahman, also in asking have reference to person like Adam, for God made Adam just in His own image. Now this is a key for you to know how to ask and obtain.”
    May 5 1841 – Visit with William Appleby – While discussing facsimile 2, Joseph explained to Appleby that part of the
    drawing was related to “the Lord revealing the grand key words of the holy priesthood, to Adam in the garden of Eden, as also Seth, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, and to all whom the priesthood was revealed” (William I. Appleby journal,
    5 May 1841, ms 1401 1, LDS church archives)
     
    Yeah, no. There are obvious similarities between various aspects of freemasonry, and various aspects of temple worship.  And yet, folks are often surprised to learn how many of the obvious similarities showed up before Joseph ever got involved with freemasonry.
  15. Like
    Vort reacted to zil in Does freemasonry have roots in Satanism?   
    Another thought: it seems to me that the only person who benefits from this line of logic:
    Freemasons pre-dated Mormons Joseph Smith was familiar / part of Masonry The Mormon temple endowment seems to be copying certain rituals of Masonry Masonry is related to Satanism I, a Mormon, am now uncomfortable with the endowment and therefore don't go and do proxy work ...is Satan, who will mix truth and lies, including the truth of his own evilness, to deceive the righteous.  IMO, the one who benefits is most likely the source.  Therefore, reject the source, do proxy endowments with joy and peace, be blessed, and bless others.
  16. Like
    Vort reacted to Sunday21 in Broke the Law of Chastity.   
    Not to worry! The Bishop has heard it before and he knows how embarassing this discussion is. Trust me he has had this interview many times before. Get up and go to church on Sunday. Pin on a big smile. You can do it! Ignore Satan's attempts to embarrass you. So many people return to the church after a period of inactivity. Do you think that breaking the law of chastity does not feature prominently in many of these stories? You are better than Satan. Ruin Satan's entire day - go to church and talk to the bishop.
  17. Like
    Vort reacted to zil in Broke the Law of Chastity.   
    Satan wants you to be scared.  God wants you to be clean.  Trust God.  Go see the bishop.
  18. Like
    Vort reacted to estradling75 in Broke the Law of Chastity.   
    Around these parts... The question of what "will a bishop do is"  Is a good question to ask your Bishop.
    We can give all kinds of thoughts and opinions but in the end we do not have the keys or the stewardship to receive revelation from God for you or to speak authoritatively to you.  Only your bishop does, that is why you need to speak with him.
    Now consider this... you say you have stopped going to Church because you feel unworthy to go.  You have of your own accord cut yourself off from the Church.  The worse disciplinary action the Bishop can do is to excommunicate you, which cuts you off from the Church... something you are already doing to yourself.  So consider the idea that whatever the Bishop might do, is going to be less painful then what you are facing trying to do this all alone.  And that working with the Bishop points you in the direction of healing and peace, something you will not get as long as you remain stuck with fear and trying to do it on your own.  
  19. Like
    Vort got a reaction from Backroads in Do essential oils work for anxiety?   
    Good idea. I'll give that a 24-hour test this afternoon.
  20. Like
    Vort got a reaction from Sunday21 in MormonHub Forum Flurry! Puzzle   
    Stupid money.
  21. Like
    Vort got a reaction from Jamie123 in Fighting on enemy grounds   
    One of the basic precepts of war, so well-known and obvious that even I know it, is that it is easier to fight a defensive battle than an offensive battle. Put another way, it's easier to fight on one's own ground than on enemy grounds.
    Yet so often, we in the Church insist on taking on our religious critics and defending the Church on enemy grounds. For example, I see that MormonHub has a new article on black (African-American) LDS history. The article itself seems reasonable enough. I suppose this issue must be addressed, and it must be addressed in an accessible way that people understand. Yet the thrust of such articles always boils down to explaining and defending actions that people today think are "bad". We try to justify ourselves in past Church actions in terms of race, prejudice, bigotry, and evolving social mores. Yet these have little, perhaps nothing, to do with the underlying realities that must be addressed, things like divine will and personal agency. Nevertheless, we studiously avoid all mention of such things, and for good reason: We Don't Know What We're Talking About. That's a pretty safe strategy. But then we blow it by engaging on these other ancillary issues and trying to explain the actions of the kingdom of God according to a mortal, carnal, largely irrelevant paradigm.
    Why do we do this? I think the answer is that we are conditioned to approach issues in certain terms ("worldly" terms, I would argue), so therefore both ourselves and our critics consider things from that "carnal" viewpoint. There is probably a better way of approaching these topics -- in fact, probably many better ways -- but we are not conditioned to see them.
    I served a mission to Italy, and found it extremely difficult to learn the language. (Ironic, given that Italian is among the easiest foreign languages for Americans to learn.) It finally sunk in, and what I found when I was actually able to communicate fluently was that Italians think differently about things than Americans do because of their different language. To some, this may seem obvious; yet after my mission, I remember reading an article that argued vociferously against the idea, insisting that people create their language to reflect their ideas, not the other way around. I was stunned at such naivete, which seemed to me to be willful ignorance. Of course the verbal tokens we use to represent ideas shape how we think of them! It's self-evident!
    This is what I believe is going on when we take the fight (so to speak) onto enemy grounds. To do so, we implicitly accept all the unspoken assumptions built into those viewpoints. This puts us at an obvious and dangerous disadvantage. For example, when we accept the common Goodthink that women must be "equal to" (i.e. identical with) men, then we are immediately on the defensive regarding why women don't hold the Priesthood -- a clear inequality. We are forced to come up with explanations that sort of dance around the central issue. Maybe women will get the Priesthood in the next life! Maybe women are too righteous and don't NEED the Priesthood! Maybe women already hold the Priesthood! Maybe the Priesthood itself isn't "real", just a game God gave us to try to help us organize things!
    Of course, there are better ways to approach this issue. The safest and most obvious route is to say, "God gave the Priesthood to men, and those men are to exercise in behalf of all." This approach does not respond to the question of "why" -- and for a good reason: "Why" questions are philosophical and mechanistic in nature. God reveals philosophical truths individually, when a person is ready and able to understand. And from what I can tell, God rarely or never reveals mechanistic questions, e.g. How does Christ atone for our sins?
    Both by commandment and by simple love for others, we must engage with those outside the gospel, and do so using linguistic tokens they understand. Yet it is dangerous and foolish to attempt to establish gospel truths on the short-sighted, constantly shifting sand of current public viewpoints. I am not sure where the balance is found, but until we recognize the disadvantages of fighting on enemy grounds, our effectiveness is sure to be limited.
  22. Like
    Vort got a reaction from Traveler in Fighting on enemy grounds   
    One of the basic precepts of war, so well-known and obvious that even I know it, is that it is easier to fight a defensive battle than an offensive battle. Put another way, it's easier to fight on one's own ground than on enemy grounds.
    Yet so often, we in the Church insist on taking on our religious critics and defending the Church on enemy grounds. For example, I see that MormonHub has a new article on black (African-American) LDS history. The article itself seems reasonable enough. I suppose this issue must be addressed, and it must be addressed in an accessible way that people understand. Yet the thrust of such articles always boils down to explaining and defending actions that people today think are "bad". We try to justify ourselves in past Church actions in terms of race, prejudice, bigotry, and evolving social mores. Yet these have little, perhaps nothing, to do with the underlying realities that must be addressed, things like divine will and personal agency. Nevertheless, we studiously avoid all mention of such things, and for good reason: We Don't Know What We're Talking About. That's a pretty safe strategy. But then we blow it by engaging on these other ancillary issues and trying to explain the actions of the kingdom of God according to a mortal, carnal, largely irrelevant paradigm.
    Why do we do this? I think the answer is that we are conditioned to approach issues in certain terms ("worldly" terms, I would argue), so therefore both ourselves and our critics consider things from that "carnal" viewpoint. There is probably a better way of approaching these topics -- in fact, probably many better ways -- but we are not conditioned to see them.
    I served a mission to Italy, and found it extremely difficult to learn the language. (Ironic, given that Italian is among the easiest foreign languages for Americans to learn.) It finally sunk in, and what I found when I was actually able to communicate fluently was that Italians think differently about things than Americans do because of their different language. To some, this may seem obvious; yet after my mission, I remember reading an article that argued vociferously against the idea, insisting that people create their language to reflect their ideas, not the other way around. I was stunned at such naivete, which seemed to me to be willful ignorance. Of course the verbal tokens we use to represent ideas shape how we think of them! It's self-evident!
    This is what I believe is going on when we take the fight (so to speak) onto enemy grounds. To do so, we implicitly accept all the unspoken assumptions built into those viewpoints. This puts us at an obvious and dangerous disadvantage. For example, when we accept the common Goodthink that women must be "equal to" (i.e. identical with) men, then we are immediately on the defensive regarding why women don't hold the Priesthood -- a clear inequality. We are forced to come up with explanations that sort of dance around the central issue. Maybe women will get the Priesthood in the next life! Maybe women are too righteous and don't NEED the Priesthood! Maybe women already hold the Priesthood! Maybe the Priesthood itself isn't "real", just a game God gave us to try to help us organize things!
    Of course, there are better ways to approach this issue. The safest and most obvious route is to say, "God gave the Priesthood to men, and those men are to exercise in behalf of all." This approach does not respond to the question of "why" -- and for a good reason: "Why" questions are philosophical and mechanistic in nature. God reveals philosophical truths individually, when a person is ready and able to understand. And from what I can tell, God rarely or never reveals mechanistic questions, e.g. How does Christ atone for our sins?
    Both by commandment and by simple love for others, we must engage with those outside the gospel, and do so using linguistic tokens they understand. Yet it is dangerous and foolish to attempt to establish gospel truths on the short-sighted, constantly shifting sand of current public viewpoints. I am not sure where the balance is found, but until we recognize the disadvantages of fighting on enemy grounds, our effectiveness is sure to be limited.
  23. Like
    Vort got a reaction from SilentOne in Do essential oils work for anxiety?   
    Good idea. I'll give that a 24-hour test this afternoon.
  24. Like
    Vort got a reaction from askandanswer in Fighting on enemy grounds   
    Sadly, a funhouse mirror does.
  25. Like
    Vort got a reaction from yjacket in Fighting on enemy grounds   
    One of the basic precepts of war, so well-known and obvious that even I know it, is that it is easier to fight a defensive battle than an offensive battle. Put another way, it's easier to fight on one's own ground than on enemy grounds.
    Yet so often, we in the Church insist on taking on our religious critics and defending the Church on enemy grounds. For example, I see that MormonHub has a new article on black (African-American) LDS history. The article itself seems reasonable enough. I suppose this issue must be addressed, and it must be addressed in an accessible way that people understand. Yet the thrust of such articles always boils down to explaining and defending actions that people today think are "bad". We try to justify ourselves in past Church actions in terms of race, prejudice, bigotry, and evolving social mores. Yet these have little, perhaps nothing, to do with the underlying realities that must be addressed, things like divine will and personal agency. Nevertheless, we studiously avoid all mention of such things, and for good reason: We Don't Know What We're Talking About. That's a pretty safe strategy. But then we blow it by engaging on these other ancillary issues and trying to explain the actions of the kingdom of God according to a mortal, carnal, largely irrelevant paradigm.
    Why do we do this? I think the answer is that we are conditioned to approach issues in certain terms ("worldly" terms, I would argue), so therefore both ourselves and our critics consider things from that "carnal" viewpoint. There is probably a better way of approaching these topics -- in fact, probably many better ways -- but we are not conditioned to see them.
    I served a mission to Italy, and found it extremely difficult to learn the language. (Ironic, given that Italian is among the easiest foreign languages for Americans to learn.) It finally sunk in, and what I found when I was actually able to communicate fluently was that Italians think differently about things than Americans do because of their different language. To some, this may seem obvious; yet after my mission, I remember reading an article that argued vociferously against the idea, insisting that people create their language to reflect their ideas, not the other way around. I was stunned at such naivete, which seemed to me to be willful ignorance. Of course the verbal tokens we use to represent ideas shape how we think of them! It's self-evident!
    This is what I believe is going on when we take the fight (so to speak) onto enemy grounds. To do so, we implicitly accept all the unspoken assumptions built into those viewpoints. This puts us at an obvious and dangerous disadvantage. For example, when we accept the common Goodthink that women must be "equal to" (i.e. identical with) men, then we are immediately on the defensive regarding why women don't hold the Priesthood -- a clear inequality. We are forced to come up with explanations that sort of dance around the central issue. Maybe women will get the Priesthood in the next life! Maybe women are too righteous and don't NEED the Priesthood! Maybe women already hold the Priesthood! Maybe the Priesthood itself isn't "real", just a game God gave us to try to help us organize things!
    Of course, there are better ways to approach this issue. The safest and most obvious route is to say, "God gave the Priesthood to men, and those men are to exercise in behalf of all." This approach does not respond to the question of "why" -- and for a good reason: "Why" questions are philosophical and mechanistic in nature. God reveals philosophical truths individually, when a person is ready and able to understand. And from what I can tell, God rarely or never reveals mechanistic questions, e.g. How does Christ atone for our sins?
    Both by commandment and by simple love for others, we must engage with those outside the gospel, and do so using linguistic tokens they understand. Yet it is dangerous and foolish to attempt to establish gospel truths on the short-sighted, constantly shifting sand of current public viewpoints. I am not sure where the balance is found, but until we recognize the disadvantages of fighting on enemy grounds, our effectiveness is sure to be limited.