Suzie

Hi jdcofc, it's interesting because just the other day I was thinking that it would be nice to have a member of the Community of Christ here. Welcome. :)

I think the mistake that a lot of people commit when reading Church history is trying to analyze it based on our present modern-day standards rather than 19th century way of thinking. My current Gospel Doctrine teacher is a convert of four years. I see her struggling every Sunday as she tries her best to present the information she admitted doesn't know but that she is "learning along" with the class. Having said that, a lot of questions from the class go simply unanswered.

What events are you referring to?

Hi EightyEight. I consider myself to be an LDS amateur historian, I truly love researching, studying and writing about Church history. Having said that, it is a lot of work and is extensive. Church classes could never cover everything appropriately and yes CES could do a better job with their curriculum but I also believe it is the responsibility of each member/potential member to find out more about the Church prior to baptism.

Hi Jeff, nope I don't think it is Satan who is deceiving you. It sounds to me like perhaps you might have a social anxiety disorder (a.k.a social phobia). What Is Social Anxiety Disorder? Symptoms, Treatments, & More

Wingnut, after reading your post I must commend you and your husband, you guys are probably the nicest and most patient people I know. I don't think I would have gone through all the things you guys did, heck no! From that first conversation and the words "restraining order" said by them, they would have been automatically out of my house at that very second and out of my life for good but you know, it's crazy Suzie speaking. Be honest, tell her that "R" doesn't seem to know how to play yet and he needs sometime to learn how to do so and for the time being, she won't be playing with him.

I tell those things to my sister. Based on what you wrote in your OP, I don't think she misled you. As a matter of fact, I thought she cared lots about you as a friend and she did not want to hurt your feelings by directly spelling out: "You know what? I am not interested in you in that way". She was hoping you would "get it" but you didn't and that's why you are heartbroken.

Glad to read you want to come to Church. :)

I am not trying to be insensitive (forgive me if I sound like it, I really do not wish to do so) but I don't think she placed a gun on your husband's head and told him to have an affair with her or else she will shoot him. He WILLINGLY participated. Her husband could be saying the same thing about you guys, no?. Why is it that THEY have to move? I know your husband doesn't wish to move, but they also have the same right. In my opinion, the issue here is not with the lady in question, the issue here is not with them. The issue here is ONLY with your husband. Whatever the lady and her husband decide to do is their right.

Is she LDS? If she is, may I recommend the wonderful talk Elder Uchtdorf gave in General Conference called "The Hope of God's Light": Heavenly Father is always willing to help us, if we are willing to help ourselves. If she is obese as you stated, perhaps she should start by taking care of her health since obesity leads to many other health issues.

Understand? Well, in all fairness Leah unless you see yourself as the internet/lds.net police there is nothing really to understand .

Talking about quotes, *not official yet* the words of President Uchtdorf as recorded by Three Notes on President Uchtdorf (and His Wonderful Priesthood Session Sermon) – By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog

Everyone needs love beefche.

Maureen, I apologize in behalf of any LDS member who make remarks that can be perceived as unfriendly towards our wonderful non-members friends. We know better but we are trying. Unfortunately, a lot of people read and watch too many persecution and conspiracy theories.

Hi Jeff, when the Word of Wisdom was first introduced, the publication committee in charge of assembling the D&C added that the instruction was not given "by comandment or constraint". Back then, the Word of Wisdom was preached and followed with very little consistency. Joseph Smith himself was what I would refer to as an example in moderation with regards to what we call now prohibited substances by the Word of Wisdom, Brigham Young himself didn't give up tobacco until 1860. I am not saying this to throw any harsh criticisms against past leaders, this is to show how long it took for members (including prominent leaders) to give up substances they used most of their lives. I know beer is something you enjoy drinking and I also know that it will take time to give it up, so be patient with yourself as you try to adjust to this new change in your life.

Agitation: "The action of arousing public concern about an issue and pressing for action on it." When I read President Hinckley's statement the first time this is what I understood: 1. Yes, that it could happen (even though some folks hate the idea). 2. The Brethren are not considering the issue or bothering the Lord about it because there is no "agitation" for that, in other words women don't seem interested in wanting to be ordained then why would they discuss the issue or pray about it? That's my understanding. However, that statement was given years ago. Personally, I do not see anything wrong with sisters being ordained (but I think everyone knows that by now ).

By the way, I can't see Selek's posts (and a few other people) who posted on this thread. I am not sure if I agree with that JAG, it seems like there is a lot of stereotypes and assumptions there, not saying it doesn't exist at all but generally I don't think that's the sentiment.

Gosh darn it folks , the prayer is being mentioned so much because it made history but you all knew that already.

JAG, you can disagree all you want just like I do . Having said that, let's not put it like it's the feminist "wing" who is the only one being condescending and lack empathy when we are hearing people talking about them ("feminists") having the need of repentance, Church discipline and many other things. I ask, why is it so hard to just disagree without becoming judgmental and Pharisaical? So what if some women in the Church want the Priesthood? If you (not you personally) do not agree then fine, say I do not agree and point taken. Going further than that and throwing judgments to them is causing a lot of contention and pain. And the same principle applies to the other side.

JAG, I find that whole section very problematic because when they printed the section, it contained both the March/April 28th 1835 revelation and the November 11, 1831 revelation together and in the wrong chronological order not to mention that the November 11th revelation was edited number of times. Having said that, what I was trying to say is that it was indeed a process. At that time the lesser priesthood didn't equal Aaaronic Priestood as we know it but the office of priest and the high priesthood didn't equal the Melchizedek Priesthood but the office of high priest. The terminology of Aaronic Priesthood and Melchizedek Priesthood as we know it, happened gradually over a period of time. It's NO. What about if the revelation is YES? So far, it seems to me that a lot of people seem to think that women not holding the Priesthood is God's will and they are fine with that (without questioning), a lot of them also talk about trusting in the Lord's Prophet on this however, how come if God decides to give the Priesthood to women then some people would start questioning and wondering if it was indeed revelation?

I would like to share a few thoughts about the topic. Please keep in mind that I have a few members on my “ignore” list, so if you happen to quote me and you don’t get a response you know why (just saying, so you don’t think I am purposely not answering you). Surely, we can argue that those women who feel they should have the Priesthood misunderstand the gospel, but are we in position to tell them that they don’t feel what they do? I read about them being in need of “repentance” “Church discipline” and so many other things, yet nobody seems to be interested in addressing or perhaps find out the reasons for such feelings. I am not here to state whether these groups are falling into apostasy or not (none of my business). Personally, I find Quinn’s research about women holding the Priesthood since 1843 to be compelling. Like anything else there are flaws, no research is perfect but the fact that these sisters were dressed in Priesthood robes, and they were part of a priesthood quorum was indeed remarkable, just the fact that Joseph Smith brought them to the temple in the first place shows (in my view) a clear vision held by Joseph with regards to women and the Priesthood. Now it is important to emphasize that the term “priesthood” has meant different things at different times. In early Mormonism, the word simply meant that someone was a “priest.” (quite different from our present terminology of “the authority to act in God’s name"). In Joseph Smith’s time, the offices of the Priesthood such as deacons and teachers were not considered to hold the “Aaronic priesthood,” or elders considered to hold the “Melchizedek priesthood.” The concept of higher or lower office did not exist from the start, It was actually a gradual process. Back to the present time, I personally do not seek Priesthood ordination however, I do not see anything wrong with women holding the Priesthood or women who wish to be ordained (again, I am not speaking about this particular group but generally) I also do not understand how asking Church leaders if they could pray to Heavenly Father to receive a revelation about is “apostate”. As a matter of fact, it scares me to read how we shouldn’t question or ask anything because it is not “our place to instruct the Brethren”. Since when asking them something suddenly becomes an instruction? We could argue whether or not the right tone is being used but the point remains the same: Requesting is not instructing. If we carefully study Church history, we will encounter that several of our revelations were not the “sudden” realization of a Prophet who got a revelation out of the blue. The Word of Wisdom is a perfect example. The revelation was given in response to problems while conducting meetings in the Smith family home: Was Emma instructing Joseph of what he should do? What about the ending of the Priesthood ban? Since the 1960’ several church leaders voted to rescind the policy but the vote was not unanimous and we all know Spencer W. Kimball and so many other Church apostles tried many times to receive an answer from the Lord. Were they wrong in keeping asking the Lord? Were they instructing the Lord ? Heck, I am glad they kept “pestering” the Lord and in this way so many Black worthy Priesthood holders were able to receive the same exact blessings than any other Priesthood holder of any other ethnicity. Prayer is a sacred, wonderful communication tool with our Heavenly Father and granted, the Prophet is the only person who can receive Revelation for the WHOLE Church. But prayer… prayer is for everyone and requesting the First Presidency to pray to the Lord and ask Him isn’t rebellion, isn’t apostasy, isn’t instructing, isn’t being irreverent… It simply means we are comfortable enough to trust God’s Prophet on Earth to pray to Him and receive an answer. Will there be a need to pray to the Lord if women were not saying how they feel about it? If Emma didn’t complain about all the cleaning up she had to, would Joseph have prayed about it? Asking President Monson to pray to get a “yes” answer is obviously foolish. Asking President Monson to simply ask to Heavenly Father about it shows HOW we receive revelation in our Church. And I am sure, he is pretty darn good with prayers.

I actually read Adoyle's statement as your first interpretation. I didn't take offense but I understand now how you see it.

JAG, hence I said the claims are weak but I wanted to answer it rather than dismiss it with comments about boogers. Personally, I think addressing the issue, (even if we accept and agree the claim is wild and speculative) is important. I think is one of the tools we can use to defend our Faith or do a rebuttal on inaccurate information. I am not keen about brushing off things, because there may be someone reading who may be truly interested and dismissing it without at least addressing it partially doesn't help (just my opinion).

I don't know if I should laugh or roll eyes.