Maureen

Banned
  • Posts

    5658
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Maureen reacted to Sunday21 in Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church   
    I am advocating empathy which I think will help put the situation in perspective.
    Volunteer writer needs some experience and needs to put something on their cv. Writes article about women wearing pants at church. Yes the article needs to stir up controversy but...
    1) Writing such an article is a ploy. Newspaper headlines often pose a question to which the answer is generally ‘No’. Eg should you always allow your relatives to stay at your home? The answer is ‘No’. The purpose is to: raise eyebrows, get you thinking, have you explore the possibility of an unusual situation. Eg Grandma is a pyromaniac. Don’t let her stay! These ploys are not intended to be taken entirely seriously. The silliest instance that I have encountered recently was an article that asked if you should break up with your significant other if they are rude to their electronic personal assistant eg Alexa. No one would actually believe that anyone would actually break up with someone for this reason. The article seeks to entertain by being a bit silly. In the article it discusses the importance of habitual politeness so that we don’t become accustomed to rudeness. This last is a good point immersed in a solution of silliness.
    2) The writer is a volunteer, an amateur. She is learning. Of course the article is a bit amateurish. This is job experience and she is desperately trying to meet a deadline while commuting, going to school, working a number of jobs. Have some compassion
    3) It is unlikely that she feels any opinion expressed as strongly as is being interpreted. She is ondeadline and is doing the best that she can.
    4) Pitting one group against another is a cheap ploy like using baby pictures or kittens in ads. Don’t allow yourself to be manipulated. Let it go. These types of articles are a bit tongue in check like Phone ads that ask ‘When was the last time you phoned Mom?’ or Hallmark card commercials that tug at the heart strings. They are exaggerated views of reality. It is expected that you are in on the joke. You are not meant to take the controversy entirely seriously. 
  2. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from carlimac in Conference Rumors   
    Your list is still very superficial because you forgot to include the two greatest commandments.
    Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:36-40)
    M.
  3. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from carlimac in Conference Rumors   
    I think you've described Mary Poppins (practically perfect in every way).
    But seriouly, your list sounds like you are describing a robot. I'm not clear on the Latter-day Saint's definition of elect of God but to me it doesn't seem this elect has a heart or soul. Does this elect cry or laugh or fall ill or even require help or friendship themselves. Your list of do's and don'ts seems superficial, there's no humanity or love behind either.
    M.
  4. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Conference Rumors   
    Your list is still very superficial because you forgot to include the two greatest commandments.
    Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (Matthew 22:36-40)
    M.
  5. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from JohnsonJones in Conference Rumors   
    I think you've described Mary Poppins (practically perfect in every way).
    But seriouly, your list sounds like you are describing a robot. I'm not clear on the Latter-day Saint's definition of elect of God but to me it doesn't seem this elect has a heart or soul. Does this elect cry or laugh or fall ill or even require help or friendship themselves. Your list of do's and don'ts seems superficial, there's no humanity or love behind either.
    M.
  6. Like
    Maureen reacted to Suzie in Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church   
    It is perplexing to think that if you are a Bishop you will be going around checking if women are wearing pants and ask them if they are rebelling. What? It is absolutely absurd.
    And... your ward must be doing really well if as a Bishop you have that kind of time.
  7. Thanks
    Maureen got a reaction from Suzie in Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church   
    The difference is your Church has a prohibition on alcohol, especially when it comes to a temple recommend. Your Church does not have a prohibition on women wearing pants/slacks to Church. What kind of TR question is asked in regards to clothing worn to church?
    M.
  8. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from priesthoodpower in Conference Rumors   
    I think you've described Mary Poppins (practically perfect in every way).
    But seriouly, your list sounds like you are describing a robot. I'm not clear on the Latter-day Saint's definition of elect of God but to me it doesn't seem this elect has a heart or soul. Does this elect cry or laugh or fall ill or even require help or friendship themselves. Your list of do's and don'ts seems superficial, there's no humanity or love behind either.
    M.
  9. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from MrShorty in Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church   
    But the whole point in writing the article is to show that even in the 21st century a lot of Latter-day Saints are still skeptical about a woman's intentions when they see her wearing pants/slacks to Church. They say they don't care but as soon as they see a woman wearing pants they automatically think she's being rebellious.
    M.
  10. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from Traveler in Conference Rumors   
    I think you've described Mary Poppins (practically perfect in every way).
    But seriouly, your list sounds like you are describing a robot. I'm not clear on the Latter-day Saint's definition of elect of God but to me it doesn't seem this elect has a heart or soul. Does this elect cry or laugh or fall ill or even require help or friendship themselves. Your list of do's and don'ts seems superficial, there's no humanity or love behind either.
    M.
  11. Like
    Maureen reacted to JohnsonJones in Conference Rumors   
    Only the LORD judges those who are to go to heaven or not.  I have a hope that many will be there, but I only know that I can try my hardest.
    For those who are the elect of the Lord...I don't think waking early or going to bed early necessarily have anything to do with who gets to go to heaven and who does not.  Nor do I feel that list necessarily has much that describes those that accept the Lord or not.
    I'd say more likely it has to do with two great commandments...
    Those who love the Lord with all their heart, might, mind and strength...
    and
    Those who love their neighbors as themselves.
    With the first, I think it will guide those who strive to follow the commandments to show their love of the Lord...and in this, I think sometimes it WILL be the intents of the heart and what was intended more than what is shown...
    but with the second...
    I think it may be able to be seen in the actions of those who truly care for others and what happens to others that will reflect on what one really thinks and feels and believes.
    Hopefully we will ALL meet together in the Kingdom of Heaven, but I think we will be judged more on how much like the Lord we become and emulate rather than just simply following the instructions of other men or leaders, or simply following along.  I think it deals more with our hearts and minds and deeds, how we think and why we think what we do, than simply just what we do in relation to the church or church callings and such.
    I DO think that we tend to be judgmental in our observations and thoughts on who is the elect and who are not at times.  We may be very surprised at who attains the Celestial rewards in heaven.  Some who may the be greatest among us may be those who we felt were the lowest of us, and some of those the world holds in high regard may not be some of those that are of the highest standing when we reach heaven.  Man seems to have a very different valuation in regards to judging those who are the best and the worst than that of the Lord.  I just hope that I myself will be able to reach heaven and find joy, and that my children will also be able to join me there.
    Hopefully we will also find many of our loved ones and friends, and hopefully all of you will find yourselves in a joyous occasion in heaven as well.
  12. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from Sunday21 in No Guns in Sacrament Meeting—We Mean It This Time!!!   
    https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/05/world-thinks-americas-gun-laws-are-crazy-theyre-right/?outputType=amp
    I would not be surprised if Latter-day Saints of other countries are baffled by American Latter-day Saints obsession with firearms.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mormon-church-no-guns-church-n1046581
    M.
  13. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from lonetree in What happened to church sports and stake dances?   
    I was introduced to your Church because of these dances. And it wasn't because of standards and supervision, it was because they were fun and the kids that attended them were fun. Although I did like that etiquette of the boys asking the girls to dance holding out their arms. And back in the '70s, the music was fun and jiving was still a big thing at Church dances. And then there were the after dance socializing at Boston Pizza or *A&W, or someone would have the brilliant idea to TP someone's house. Good times.
    *Not sure if some are familiar with A&W back in the '70s, but it was a fast food place with Papa, Mama, Teen and Baby burgers and root beer. You order in your car and the food is brought out to you with the tray of food attached to the driver's door window. And the popular beverages at the time were called brown cow (milk and root beer) or swamp water (all the flavours of pop mixed together except for coke or pepsi because they were not allowed 😊). Now a days A&W is no longer set up that way. ☹
    M.
  14. Like
    Maureen reacted to MrShorty in Figurative vs Literal   
    An interesting question. I expect that I am on the path towards something like Moe's viewpoint. Until I get there:
    One of the most contentious issues I see is the issues of a literal Adam and Eve (and no death before the fall and other cosmological questions). I have seen it suggested that a big reason Joseph Fielding Smith adopted young earth creationism and defended it so vigorously was this specific issue -- can you read the Bible as something less than literal history. He seemed to believe that anything less than literal history was an offense against scripture, so he taught young earth creationism. For whatever reason, the Church's response (members and curriculum writers, but not necessarily the official official position) was to adopt creationism as the semi-official position of the Church. We waffled a bit on young versus old, but we were decidedly creationists (but never quite officially).
    Donald Parry, in his Ensign article in the late '90's about Noah's flood, asserts that Mormons are among the few who take the Bible literally -- including a belief in a literal, global flood exactly as the Bible describes, with no room for a "local flood" theory or even an allegorical reading.
    As to the Book of Mormon, we have long adopted a kind of "all or nothing" approach to the Book of Mormon -- and Elder Callister's recent book doubles down on the idea. Either it is all true (including historically accurate) and therefore proof of the restoration, or it is all false and the entirety of our restoration narrative from Joseph Smith to Russel M Nelson is fraudulent.
    All to say that we have a history of insisting on literal readings of scripture -- more literal than I am comfortable with (but I'm just some internet nobody, so who cares what I think, right?). A few years ago, I started this thread asking what parts of ancient scripture must be historical and what can I tolerate as fictional/allegorical/less than history. At the time, I concluded (and mostly still agree) that the only thing I really need to be historical is about Christ and His atonement. I'm not too worried about whether He died on a cross or a pole (as the Jehovah's Witnesses like to argue) or whether he actually spoke to a woman at the well or not, or whether he was born in the spring, fall, or winter, or any of the details described by the evangelists. Something about him allowed him suffer and die to provide a substitiary atonement for me (and the rest of you, I suppose), and be raised from the dead (whether a part of three separate calendar days or 72 hours or some other time after, I don't care) so that I will also be raised to live with God and Christ again. I think I can tolerate a lot of ancient scripture being fictional/allegorical/ahistorical as long as that doesn't change. I think I can even tolerate less than literal historical readings of modern scripture. If I learn that details of Joseph Smith's First vision are not exactly as they are described in the 1838 account as canonized in the PoGP, I think I can be okay with that. If something about the way polygamy was taught and practiced under Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and on to Wilford Woodruff (and after) was not exactly how God intended to reveal it, I think I can accept that, too. If the Book of Mormon proves to be less than a history of actual people in this hemisphere, maybe I can be okay with that without losing all belief in the Restoration.
    Are these important questions? Like MoE, I'd like to say that they are not important. However, it seems to me that we frequently inflate their importance. Because of the theological relationship we usually draw between fall and atonement, many will argue that anything less than a literal, historical, physical interpretation of the accounts of Adam and Eve destroys the entire Christian narrative (more of that all or nothing thinking). Because of the importance of Joseph Smith to our restoration narrative, anything less than perfect, historical accuracy in his accounts of the restoration events and his understanding of what the Book of Mormon is destroys the entire restoration. Any chink in the "all or nothing" armor shatters the entire LDS paradigm. I sometimes think the importance of the literal versus figurative is in how it encourages and/or discourages people to remain as active participants in the Church. Perhaps this puts me in opposition to Fether's argument that figurative/ahistorical readings are a step on the road to apostasy, but I sometimes wonder if some of those who leave the Church would have stayed if there was more open tolerance for these figurative/ahistorical readings of scripture. That might be the real importance, in my opinion, for this discussion. How does the debate over literal vs. figurative figure into whether some accept or reject -- stay or leave -- the Church.
     
  15. Like
    Maureen reacted to MarginOfError in Figurative vs Literal   
    Hmmm....not so sure.  The 1981 introduction to the Book of Mormon stated "the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians."  That has since been scaled back to "are among the ancestors of the American Indians."
    If I had said, "I don't believe the Lamanites are the principal ancestors of the American Indians" in 1982, would you say I had been sowing the seeds of apostasy in my own life?
    I get where you're coming from with the slippery slope argument here.  But realistically speaking, the Church has published and propagated theories and teachings that haven't held up to scrutiny. Having established that such mistakes and misinterpretations are possible, the door is already open to questioning what other mistakes and misinterpretations are waiting to be discovered.
    Some people don't want to explore those questions, and that's fine.  Still, there are people that do want and/or feel compelled to explore those questions. For those people, telling them they shouldn't is counterproductive.  It's a lot better to teach them how to explore those questions in a way that can still build faith in Christ, even if the evidence leads them to conclusions you disagree with.
  16. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from Just_A_Guy in What happened to church sports and stake dances?   
    I was introduced to your Church because of these dances. And it wasn't because of standards and supervision, it was because they were fun and the kids that attended them were fun. Although I did like that etiquette of the boys asking the girls to dance holding out their arms. And back in the '70s, the music was fun and jiving was still a big thing at Church dances. And then there were the after dance socializing at Boston Pizza or *A&W, or someone would have the brilliant idea to TP someone's house. Good times.
    *Not sure if some are familiar with A&W back in the '70s, but it was a fast food place with Papa, Mama, Teen and Baby burgers and root beer. You order in your car and the food is brought out to you with the tray of food attached to the driver's door window. And the popular beverages at the time were called brown cow (milk and root beer) or swamp water (all the flavours of pop mixed together except for coke or pepsi because they were not allowed 😊). Now a days A&W is no longer set up that way. ☹
    M.
  17. Like
    Maureen reacted to clwnuke in What happened to church sports and stake dances?   
    As I was working my night shift I found myself reminiscing about the great times we had playing church basketball, softball, and volleyball, as well as the bi-weekly stake dances (with Farrells ice cream afterwards ). It seems a shame that youth don't seem to get those same socializing and missionary opportunities now.
    I occasionally see a tri-stake dance every three months or so now in my current region, but that could never replace the regular and well organized dances I went to as a teen in the San Francisco Bay Area and in the Seattle region. Non-members were more than glad to dress up and keep the standards. In fact the church dances were more popular and better attended than the school dances - probably because of the standards and supervision.  It's such a shame. I've always wondered what changed or do leaders just not know how to organize sports and dances anymore?
  18. Like
    Maureen reacted to clwnuke in Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church   
    Thank you for sharing this experience. I wholeheartedly agree. When I was 14, my family was planning to move from Fremont, CA to Kent, WA in November. My dad had already been transferred and was living in a small travel trailer and flying home on the weekends or whenever he could. Then, on a Friday night in late August just before High School was to start on Monday my parents made the decision to have me return with my dad and start school in WA instead. I was told to pack and get ready to leave around 6:00AM in the morning (flying standby meant getting to SFO early).
    Just like that, and without any goodbyes to friends, my world turned upside down and I was gone from the place I was born and raised. Saturday was a blur of being introduced to living in the trailer in a small trailer park in a run down industrial area, and of course in the rain. My dad worked nights so I had to stay out of the trailer until he woke up and left for work. On Sunday morning I realized that I hadn't packed any Sunday clothes - and for the first and only time of my life I went alone to church in jeans, a t-shirt, and tennis shoes with holes in them. 
    Embarrassed, unkempt, and unknown I quietly sat down in the back and tried to be as invisible as possible. But to the credit of the Kent 1st Ward, adults and youth approached me after the meeting, introduced themselves, and welcomed me openly. I'll be forever grateful for the kindness and love they showed me when inside I was an angry and emotional mess that compounded the embarrassment that I felt. What a difference from the YW President in your story.
    The lesson?  To paraphrase Paul - though you wear Sunday clothes regularly and obediently and have not charity, you are nothing. I wear Sunday dress, even when I have to work on Sundays, but I don't care what anybody else wears - I only care that they are there.
    _______________________________________
    PS: I'll be forever grateful that my wife never wore panty hose! Good riddance to those horrible things. But there was a day not so long ago when people put guilt trips on women for not wearing them.
    "A collective high-pitched hallelujah likely went up recently among Mormon women when the LDS Church changed its policy to allow female employees in the church's Salt Lake City headquarters to forsake their pantyhose and go barelegged." SL Tribune May 12, 2011
  19. Like
    Maureen reacted to Suzie in Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church   
    When I was a young woman (between 12 and 14), I received a phone call asking me if I could offer the opening prayer in a stake activity (I don't recall if it was a YW activity, seminary or something else). However, I was beyond excited... it was such a big deal to me. I was young, insecure and I remember my innocent self even "planning" for days what I would say in my prayer, I didn't want to mess up. I decided to wear dress pants for this activity (no jeans), I loved those pants because they made me look all grown up so when the day arrived, I remember reaching early because I couldn't contain the excitement. I was asked to sit down near the front, I took a program and my sister and I sat together... you could have seen my smile from miles away!
    Life at home was difficult and Church was for me an oasis where I found solace and acceptance so the fact that the "Church" chose ME (insignificant me in my view at that time) to offer a prayer during a stake activity meant the world to me...  I remember opening the program and seeing my name printed on it and I couldn't believe it. When the meeting started, I heard my name being called to offer the prayer. I remember that it took me forever to reach the podium because I was so nervous... and when I reached and I'm about to offer the prayer, the Stake YW president stopped me and said: "Suzie, you cannot offer the prayer. You are wearing pants."  and then signed for me to leave the podium and choose someone else to offer the prayer. I remember going back to my seat completely embarrassed by the "looks" I was getting from everyone there and deeply sad knowing that God doesn't accept prayers from people like me. I wondered what I did so wrong... because I always did something wrong. I remember the prayer being said but... my eyes were not closed. I was quietly crying and my eyes were looking at my name in that program and wondering about pants...
    I type this and I have to be honest... I have to stop because I'm overcome with the same emotion I felt many years ago. It wasn't just a simple prayer for me... this experience CHANGED everything. Over the years, it became a VERY powerful lesson in my life about acceptance, about looking beyond the exterior...being less preoccupied about shirt colors, beards or tattoos and more concerned about cultivating a kind heart that can make people feel truly loved and accepted in Christ's Church...  I am just HAPPY to see people coming to Church with whatever they have.... partaking of the sacrament and doing the best they can.
    I don't want anyone coming to Church and feel like I did that day...
    I want everyone to feel accepted, knowing that no matter what they are wearing God listens to their prayers. "for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart."
    Even when they are wearing pants...
  20. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from askandanswer in No Guns in Sacrament Meeting—We Mean It This Time!!!   
    https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/08/05/world-thinks-americas-gun-laws-are-crazy-theyre-right/?outputType=amp
    I would not be surprised if Latter-day Saints of other countries are baffled by American Latter-day Saints obsession with firearms.
    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/mormon-church-no-guns-church-n1046581
    M.
  21. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from TheRedHen in Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church   
    Apparently they do not. "Pants" to an English person means "underwear", while "Pants" to an American is synonymous with "slacks".
    M.
  22. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from TheRedHen in Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church   
    I don't need to be a member of your Church to notice cultural views. All I have to do is read this thread to know that many of the men here see the author of this article as being rebellious for just writing the article.
    If you think I have hateful attitudes on this forum, then quote one of my posts that reveal these hateful attitudes.
    M.
  23. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from Fether in So sick of the peeping stone story   
    The person that asked Emma the questions in the interview was her son, Joseph Smith III.
    M.
  24. Like
    Maureen got a reaction from NightSG in Why Women Don’t Wear Pants to Church   
    I don't need to be a member of your Church to notice cultural views. All I have to do is read this thread to know that many of the men here see the author of this article as being rebellious for just writing the article.
    If you think I have hateful attitudes on this forum, then quote one of my posts that reveal these hateful attitudes.
    M.
  25. Like
    Maureen reacted to Traveler in Local policy   
    You are a smart lady and you know how to sing your signature - you sign the medical forms.  Besides you probably know your son's health better than any doctor anyway.
    Little story:  I worked for a large automation company and knew the VP very well.  Not sure why but he had my desk moved to just outside his big old office.  He said it was so he could keep his eye on me.  Ha! he should have known better.  To save money the company came up with a new travel policy that only the VP or P could authorize travel.  Very stupid idea because that is what we did - travel to sell and install systems.  Then one day I was at my desk working (as always) when some guy comes to the VP's office  But no one is there.  The guy gets bent out of shape and begs the VP's secretary for where the VP is.  She responds that he is out of town.  The guy is distraught and says he must travel that afternoon and there is no one to approve his travel.
    This is an easy problem to solve I thought.  So I walk up, "I'll sign your travel papers".  We exchange a little bit because he does not know me but knows enough that I am not the VP or P.  He asks,  "Are you sure you can sign the travel approval?"  Sure - and I take the paper and sign it and send him off the the travel Dep for his tickets and stuff.  The secretary is beside herself and reminds me that I cannot sign for the travel.  I respond with an - of course I can and I did - can't you wait to see what is going to happen?
    The guy traveled that day and I never heard a thing about it from anyone - but about a week later the policy was changed.
     
    The Traveler