Windseeker

Yeah..that was my rant. It was just so out of touch for me, though I have no doubt that there are kids that are raised like this especially in the director and writers gilded world. The concern with modesty, dating, computers etc..were depicted as silly outdated concerns by ignorant inept adults.

TRANSFORMERS!!!  Yay!   Big, noisy, funny, thought-provoking (in terms of the canon). I love this kind of action movie.
 
btw-- the daughter, about to graduate from high school, was dating a 20 yr old that the dad didn't know about and running around in cutoffs so short, the pockets hung past the legs.  This prompted an interesting conversation with my son on childraising, modesty, dating, computers in the bedroom (you can't tell me she wasn't doing nekkid Skype with the guy), etc.  This is what comes from lack of control in the home. /rant

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

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.

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.

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.   .

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.

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).

I couldn't afford a lawn mower and my back yard was a jungle. My EQP and his counselor came over and completely, weed whacked and mowed our lawn. It was super awesome of them. 

While I am sympathetic to the Cartesian Anxiety that all our so-called "science" is based off of, I am also post-positive due to seeing first hand how fallible scientists are and how quickly they toss and turn their theories to try explaining what they know they can't. Everything I've read from the past 4,500 years of philosophy tells me this.
 
I have seen the history books in my undergraduate and graduate programs contradict the Encyclopedia Britanica. I also know that many scientists have prejudices (Gadamer's use of the term, not Webster's) against religion that sway their interpretations. Let's remember that all historical inquiry is largely interpretation. We uncover clues, artifacts, cultures, etc, but at the end of the day, what we make of our findings is largely an interpretation. Granted many interpretations of more recent histories have greater momentum behind them, but the further back in history we go, the muckier it gets. A scientist could come to me tomorrow and say, "Urstadt, we found the body of Jesus of Nazareth. DNA evidence has confirmed it along with geneological scrolls found with the body. The evidence is clear, we found the body of Jesus of Nazareth."
 
And I'm going to say to that scientist: "Uh, no you didn't, Sir."
 
Science has definitely done a lot of good. Much has been revealed and invented because of it. That is why I am still sympathetic to post-Cartesianism. But, scientists are not perfect. Don't scientists also belong to the human race? "Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frederic Bastiat

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.

It would seem that if the Church were more interested in appearance, they would have done more dialogue.
 
Now, I would not have been opposed to a more complex dialogue between the OW and the Church.  Could they have given more specific answers to Kelly's questions?  Sure.
 
But it also seems that could possibly end up in a toddler conversation of eternal "Why?"

Don't we have better things to do with our (I use "our" loosely) House majority than to impeach a lame-duck president who holds the Senate in his pocket?  Even if the Senate convicted, the best-case-scenario would involve his succession by a VP who would be more of the same.
 
Besides--impeach him, and you create a martyr for the race-baiters.  Let him finish out his turn, and the left will be forced to confront his political legacy on its own terms.

I'm sure a lot of people would join the church if we changed a lot of things.
 
I say we go through all our policies, doctrines, and views and find out how to change them to attract the greatest number of converts.

I couldn't afford a lawn mower and my back yard was a jungle. My EQP and his counselor came over and completely, weed whacked and mowed our lawn. It was super awesome of them. 

Re-read your letter. Your call is to be a missionary. Your assignment is to serve in Adelaide. Assignments can change.
I would encourage you to start your service ASAP, even if it's not in the area you first thought you'd be going to. If they are offering you a temporary assignment, I would say "take it".

There is so much that goes on in the background (politics, regulation, etc) in order to allow missionaries to serve in other countries. So many missionaries in Florida are being called to Brazil and they are not able to get their visas. Even my wife who served in Brazil was sent for several months to Philadelphia to serve while she waited for her visa. One of the missionaries in our ward is also waiting to go to Brazil and was called to this area (we have a split ward, two simultaneous sacrament meetings one in Portuguese and one in English) to serve while he waited.
 
It's not uncommon to wait for these things. You being the most worthy person on the planet won't force a government and it's employees to submit your visa any faster.
 
Service requires patience and the ability to not take things personally. <-- A fundamental principle and the first lesson most missionaries learn.
 
See...your mission is paying off already.  

I also think it was cultural and if they wouldn't have gone they would have been shamed out of their community.

After being newly divorced and having three young children, I had no finances to purchase anything for my children for Christmas.   The ward took care of that and provided a wonderful Christmas for my children and even a few things for me.
 
They have no idea how grateful I was.  

Alternatively she already understands such quite well but is intentionally being imprecise when sharing the encounter for rhetorical effect.

I think it's important that both sides make absolutely clear that Kelly was not exed for having questions or even for wanting priesthood ordination. Kelly's letter was crystal clear on this point, and other fora--Dialogue, a Sunstone, FMH, and Exponent II, to name a few--routinely tackle these issues with no adverse administrative action against its participants by the Church.
Kelly's request went far beyond "dialogue", though. If one of my questions elicited a twenty-minute sermon from an apostle (especially Elder Oaks, who is flipping AWESOME) at general conference, I would be thrilled and would study that thing for six months looking to squeeze out and apply every tidbit of knowledge I could find. Not so Kate Kelly, who immediately launched a public campaign dedicated to picking the thing apart. "Dialogue" involves give and take, but Kelly went on record early and often to the effect that there would be no "give" from her side. Nothing less than ordination would suffice.
As I pointed out elsewhere earlier today:
I'm sorry Kelly is in the situation she's in. But frankly, she has introduced politicking, mendacity, and the ugliest facets of the electioneering process into what is fundamentally a kingdom, not a democracy. Having created a measure of disunity in the Church, she then pirouettes and blames the disunity on the leadership itself and flat-out lies about the implications of the Church's response for Mormon Feminism as a whole (which are, frankly, minimal for all but the most militant), the better to foster a bunker mentality in the minds of sincere and moderate LDS feminists like you. I wish it were otherwise; but given her antics excommunication is not a disproportionate response.

Heavenly voice: "Brother Such and Such, please report to the Saviors office so that you may give an accounting for your mortal probation."
"So, I see you supported same sex marriage....tell me your thoughts on why you made those choices and how the Holy Spirit guided you to that decision.
" Um, well you see.....it just wasn't fair and they deserved equality and it was more loving to help them by supporting it"
"More loving than.... My love for them?"
"Well...no ..but..."
"And how did this assist them in coming unto me......by supporting that which can never lead to true happiness and peace? Did u perhaps consider the generations that would struggle to understand truth because of this grand deception? Or those that would stray because of the confusion you helped support? "
I cannot fathom the degree of shame I would have if when I give an accounting for my life I had supported something that can only deny our Brothers and sisters a safe journey home to the Father. We no doubt live in the last days and the bridegroom is at the door......as Elder McConkie wrote of future tests and trials in 1982 :
" But the vision of the future is not all sweetness and light and peace. All that is yet to be shall go forward in the midst of greater evils and perils and desolations than have been known on earth at any time.
As the Saints prepare to meet their God, so those who are carnal and sensual and devilish prepare to face their doom.
As the meek among men make their calling and election sure, so those who worship the God of this world sink ever lower and lower into the depths of depravity and despair.
Amid tears of sorrow-our hearts heavy with forebodings-we see evil and crime and carnality covering the earth. Liars and thieves and adulterers and homosexuals and murderers scarcely seek to hide their abominations from our view. Iniquity abounds. There is no peace on earth.
We see evil forces everywhere uniting to destroy the family, to ridicule morality and decency, to glorify all that is lewd and base. We see wars and plagues and pestilence. Nations rise and fall. Blood and carnage and death are everywhere. Gadianton robbers fill the judgment seats in many nations. An evil power seeks to overthrow the freedom of all nations and countries. Satan reigns in the hearts of men; it is the great day of his power."

I really despise it when people say they need to "stay true to one's self" because, just by nature of being mortal, we are all in truth, naturally carnal.  "I need to say true to myself" is the clarion call of the myopic in intellect, thought and deed.  Kind-of kills the notion of personal progress so instead, what they should say is "I refuse to change for the better" and/or "I refuse to allow my knowledge to evolve to a higher state of understanding." 
 
Besides, those seeking martyrdom don't really hold a whole lot of repute, only the need for attention.

Remember this:  Don't try to "rescue" her.  This is primarily HER problem that she admits that she does not want any future contact with him.
 
One of the "Top Ten Things Men Do To Mess Up Their Lives" (by Dr. Laura Schlessinger) is "stupid rescuing".
 
You can't make it better.
 
You can't make it all right.
 
You can't necessarily heal her.
 
Yes, you can marry her and she can leave that environment.  Here's the hard part:  Are you SURE she's choosing to marry you?  Or is she trying to get out of there?  Only you can judge that.  From your posts, it seems she is telling you the right things, but also is set on getting away and staying away from her father.