Suzie

Hi Eowyn, I think we can find claims of any kind in Church history. The thing is that most of the sources with regards to this particular topic are dubious but for those interested they can search a bit about May Anderson and Louie B. Felt as an example (I can provide other names as well). But AGAIN, there is NO factual evidence but just pure speculation and personal interpretation of these relationships. Personally, I do not believe in these claims, they are very weak.

Was that necessary?

Old at 33? 33 is the new 23 BrianD come on man, get with the times... so you are just starting life.

As most of you know, J. Golden Kimball was known as the "Swearing Apostle". Every time I read a story about him I laugh, he was witty with a great sense of humor. One of my favorite stories:

Congratulations!

We have conservatives in lds.net? Really?

JAG, I read a lot of sample letters regarding the issue and I am sure you did as well. None of the ones I read condemned or told the Brethren they were "wrong" for not allowing sisters to pray in Conference. By the contrary, the letters were phrased very carefully, respectfully, and tactfully, simply requesting if a sister could pray in Conference. If anyone is "reading" more than that, they are making their own interpretation, let's stick to what the sample letters actually stated in words rather than what we think they meant.

I agree. Having said that, the changes that members are discussing aren't doctrinal, but merely cultural/tradition. The problem is when both (doctrine and tradition) are seen as the same.

I just wanted to thank everyone for allowing me to participate on this thread. I don't think I have anything else to say. Thank you. :)

Does it really matter the context in your quote when he says "The First Presidency and Council of the Twelve have determined that there is no scriptural prohibition against sisters offering prayers in sacrament meetings. It was therefore decided that it is permissible for sisters to offer prayers in any meetings they attend, including sacrament meetings..."

What exact actions are despicable and what makes them despicable? Again, I am really trying to understand this position. Vort, I suppose my definition of policy doesn't seem to be as casual as the one you give. The Church has never stated that women not praying in Conference is a policy, as a matter of fact they have stated that women can pray in "all" church meetings. I must be really tired and sleepy because I really don't get what you are talking about, it isn't addressing the issue of assuming. Vort, honestly is it asking for consideration and empathy a whole lot? Again, I am not saying we have to agree but why is it so hard to accept that for some sisters this is important? Well, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on this and I am not sure if we can carry the discussion further because we seem to be looking at this issue from a completely different standpoint. I am trying to see the issue through "innocent until proven guilty", but you and others seem to go by "guilty until proven innocent" and I just don't see it that way. Let me share something very personal with you if you don't mind. As I shared a few times on this board, I am raising children with long life disabilities. It is a very hard life. They all look perfectly normal but they have serious challenges. If I take one of them to the grocery store and something doesn't go as planned and my son has a huge meltdown in the middle of the place, I get people looking at me like if I am the worst mother in the world and they look at him like he is just a "brat in need of serious discipline". The thing is, they don't know and they don't know me, and they don't know his condition. I don't blame them. Before having my children, I was like that. I would look at some people and quickly assume things about them, including intentions and pass judgment that way. But it seems like God had other plans for me and my family and I see things a little differently now. I am not asking for people to agree with this, I would just like for people to give the benefit of the doubt and to understand and accept that for some people this IS important. That's all.

Bu that's the point. Why the assumption that they are valuing it above Church and the Gospel? Unless we know the specific situations of each one of these sisters, and know their hearts and intentions, what we are actually doing (perhaps unintentionally) is judging them unrighteously.

In what spirit do you think they do it? Have they said they are on a path to protest until women have the priesthood? How did you reach such conclusion?. These are honest questions. I am not defending the group, I don't even know them well enough but I do want to know how people feel about this. What is coming to them and why? Vort, women not praying in Conference is Church policy? If so, I would love to read where is that stated. Selected Church PoliciesÂ* This link doesn't say anything about being a Church policy. A policy is a decision taken in this case by the Church,with a long-term purpose. The Church as an organization is presently quite clear about its policies (free and available for all to read). Women not praying in Conference has never been a Church policy. Tradition by the other hand, is "a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on in this way". . All this sound quite familiar to me (as someone who studied the topic of the Priesthood ban), I could replace perfectly the word "women" with "African American" because prior to the 1978 revelation, many members of the Church felt that African American brothers AND sisters (since they were also directly affected by the ban) should be quite satisfied with justbeing baptized and quite a good number of them didn't want them to ask for "more". The comparison may seem an exaggeration, but the point I am trying to make is that unless we put ourselves in other people's shoes we would never really and fully understand. My issue isn't who is right or who is wrong, my issue is why so many people assume intentions (although I must admit that perhaps it seems to be an LDS hobby). Why can't we just accept (which isn't the same as agree) that for some sisters this IS important? Why does it seem like we are in a rush to be first at the rameumptom by trying to proclaim loudly our faithfulness and obedience to our leaders and attempt to call others out on our perceived failure in their part to do so?

When I read your post, I felt sad. We have some some wonderful members in the Church, willing to make a lot of sacrifices to serve faithfully and do the best they can HOWEVER, the vision should never be lost or confused. Church callings are NOT our first and most important responsibly Our families ARE our biggest and most important responsibility. It worries me when well-intentioned statements such as the one you described by the Mission President are shared in Church meetings.

It doesn't really bother me when General Authorities attempt to make a few jokes, I just don't get sometimes why people laugh when the joke isn't even funny, maybe worth of a smile but a laugh? Nah. I suppose laugh sometimes just serves as a social function, you know...everyone is laughing and you don't wanna be the only one who looks like didn't get the joke so you laugh. Another theory of mine is that people laugh because the speaker is trying to be funny and even though the joke perhaps isn't, you don't wanna disappoint him/her.... Perhaps it is also like how people see celebrities. Before they hit fame and they were average Joe's they looked normal and they weren't funny but suddenly now, because they are famous...people see them as "Oh sooooo good looking and soooooo funny"

Bini, I think the problem is that sometimes the terms Ex-Mormon and Anti-Mormon are used interchangeably. An Ex-Mormon iisn't necessarily an Anti-Mormon (some are, some aren't) so using the terms interchangeably IMHO, could be problematic.

Who is talking about this thread? I didn't know I was lecturing.I thought I was sharing my view just as you are. But please unless you are my dad I don't think you should say that. However, if you do not wish to read my thoughts because you feel I am lecturing you, you are free to explore other threads. :)

If they wish to be described that way, it's their prerogative. Having said that, doesn't mean we should go around labeling people as such. This is not US Vs. Them. It is that kind of sentiment that brings the negative connotation.

Those are very good examples. The ones I associate more with Pharisaic way of thinking within our midst (and as I said in an older thread) are those who see/gossip/murmur about others who look different or think differently than what is perceived to be the norm, or their circumstances are just different than the rest. For example those who do not wear a white shirt to go to Church or have a beard and are seen/labeled as "rebels" "unworthy" or they "lack spirituality", perhaps those whose children are not active in the Church or those members coming without their spouses because they are less active. Is it that sometimes we somewhat feel good about ourselves when we see them and think inside ourselves "how lucky I am NOT like Sister X or Brother Y?"? Is it that sometimes we do not realize how judgmental we are towards others instead of stretching our hand and heart towards them? Is it that their unfortunate situation or their differences makes US feel superior to our brethren and more righteous and more spiritual? Jesus never had an issue with what the Pharisees were teaching but with their behavior. We can have the truth yes but if our behavior doesn't match the teachings we profess to have it doesn't benefit us or anyone else but we are here to learn, hopefully we will learn the lesson.

I love reading the many different perspectives from the same story. :) Thanks for sharing.

I read this wonderful story today and I was touched. Hope you all enjoy it as well. How One NY Couple Found Their Son in the Subway: A Family Made by Fate | Parenting - Yahoo! Shine

My favorite addition to Declaration 2:

My children. Despite any doctrinal or cultural issues I might have I still believe the Church is a nice place to help you raise a family.

Overreacting? No. It seems like he took the hobby on purpose. It doesn't seem also like he is a professional photographer. A true professional will not act this way, I know generally speaking people have a hard time understanding that photographers, doctors, actors DO have the ability to perform their duties without letting their emotions interfering.

My opinion on this thread is the same as the other one. On a light note, I LOVE doing household chores when I come home from work, specially cleaning and vacuuming. No, I am not mental. I really do, it is therapeutic for me HOWEVER ladies no...I won't be de-stressing at your home anytime soon.