Backroads

His thoughts on benefits were:
 
No paying to keep a car "alive", just paying to enjoy a car in good condition. 
You don't have the guilt of committing to a car, i.e.. "I have to keep this car about because I still owe one it or I just paid it off and now I have to keep it to make it all worth it, etc."
There's usually a maintenance perk from the company.
You don't have to get bored with your car.
You're not giving much wear-n-tear to a car.
 
 
It's not for everyone, but there are benefits to it.

The hoverboards will be EVERYWHERE by 2015.

In my view, this has nothing to do with the finer points of sex and morality and potential abuse and yadayadayada. 
 
What this does involve is the state stepping into the parental role with rights for no good reason.  This is the State saying "We have more rights to your child than you do."
 
Sure, mention all the instances of family abuse you want.  Guess what?  There are already options in place for those iffy situations.

Never gone this route, but I've always wanted to. I took a couple of car classes in college and the professor was a big believer in leasing for many situations. 
 
Last month, Husband and I said heck with it and paid off our two car loans in one big swoop.  So far it's been a great decision and left us more comfortable for house shopping.

To me this issue is fundamentally about Pride.
 
Can someone truly and faithfully have questions?  Can they have concerns?  Absolutely.  Can people have doubts?  Yes they can.  In fact many ways dealing with those is how we learn and become more faithful.  So I don't see a real problem with those.
 
Were I see the problem is when pride kicks in.  When people say there is only one answer I'll accept, the answer I think is right.  When they might assume that anyone that doesn't have the same questions as them are some sleeping brainwashed sheeple that need to wake up to what is going on around them.
 
When people reach that point then the church does need to step in.  For the two people in question in the OP it appears that the Local leaders think they might have reach such a point and so they are doing what they must.

Even then it's not so bad until you begin preaching your personal theory and staging protests to get the church to adopt your personal theory.

The idea of "supplemental" theories is great. It's when the church teaches what it teaches and personal theories contradict those things that I think there begins to be a problem.

Hey guys! While I haven't logged in for a while, I am really excited about a few things that are coming up. I'm a huge nerd, so bear that in mind:
 
 
www.dwavesys.com
 
This is the worlds' first quantum computer. It's 72000 times faster than the fastest supercomputer around today. It is not a binary computer. It's quinary. How does that work? I -haven't a clue-. But at that speed, it's not only faster than any other computer, it's faster than the combined computing process of every computer that has ever been(That is not also a quantum computer).
 
And NASA is also working on this:
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2655105/Engage-warp-drive-Nasa-reveals-latest-designs-Star-Trek-style-spacecraft-make-interstellar-travel-reality.html
 
So... Currently, it takes 70000 years to get to Alpha Centauri using current technology. With this, they could get there in about 2 weeks.
 
We now live in the future. HOORAY!

As with most things in life, issues boil down to power.  
 
There are two separate aspects about the Priesthood that should be kept in mind.  The first aspect is the ability to provide Priesthood services and by that I mean to in prayer use the Priesthood to bless the lives of others.  I haven't kept up too much on things, but from outward appearances this is what many Ordain Women seem to focus on.  However, one cannot use the Priesthood on himself and in most instances one is in the company of another holder to use the Priesthood.
 
The 2nd aspect is the authority to lead, guide, and direct the Church.  And IMO that is what Ordain Women is really about, it's about the fact that some women want the authority to lead, guide and direct the Church.  They want power.  If women are given the Priesthood, it would mean full access to all of that, women Bishops, women SP, women MP, Patriarchs, etc.  If God commands it, then so be it, but at present I feel that it is an extremely bad road to go down, for multiple reasons.
 
1) Co-mingling of sexes results in very different dynamics in group settings (if anyone disputes this, then why do we have separate RS vs. Elders quorum.)  Now imagine a High Council meeting with mixed genders, I can guarantee the dynamics will change.  Put 10 guys in a room with a good-looking gal or 10 women with a good looking guy and it'll change.
 
2) The entire structure of the church would be changed (RS and Elder's quorum for example) if women were Elders then they would all attend Elder's quorum, now how does RS function.  You won't have just one sister ordained and the rest not, all sisters would be Elders.
 
3) Leadership dynamics change.  I've had men and women bosses and there is a huge difference in how each function.  Women currently hold 4.8% of Fortune 500 CEO positions and 5% of Fortune 1000.  If people think it's b/c these companies are sexists, you don't know a thing about running a business.  Businesses care about one thing and one thing only . . .making money.  If more women were capable of running Fortune 500 companies, there would be more women in Fortune 500 CEO positions.
 
4) For whatever reason, people just don't want to see or understand that not only are there actual physical difference between male and female, but there are chemical differences.  Those chemical difference produce different feelings, different results and ultimately different actions.  
 
Can a father be a stay at home dad and be better at it then his wife? Sure, just like a woman can be stronger than a man.  On average, can a woman be stronger than a man? Heck no!!  On average women will be better caretakers than men.  All one needs to do is take a look at the nursing industry vs. the engineering industry.  The ratio of male-to-female are pretty divergant and it's not because anyone is preventing males or females from entering either field.
 
Women who are very good in leadership roles are used in the church . . .they are called to be RS presidents, Primary presidents, Stake RS, etc.
 
I have never understood this idea that seems to pervade feminists, it appears from my optic that they want to deny their own feminality to be men.  
 
I will never know what it is like to birth a child, to bond that closely with my children.  I will never know what it's like to have that motherly instinct and urge.  But I'm okay with that, I recognize that it is something very special and sacred that only women can have.
 
I don't understand the drive to make men and women the same; we aren't the same we are different that's why we fall in love and get married, have families.  I'm glad for the differences; different doesn't mean better or worse, it just means different.

Not really.
 
 
It doesn't matter what might logically equate from it. It matters what our roles are meant to be. The fact that father's could spend more time with their families if women were to (insert any typical male thing here...were bishops, stake presidents, worked on the ranch, went off to war) has nothing to do with what our roles are meant to be. Men's roles are to administer in the church and to support their families. That means they are in the home less. Arguments that would change this dynamic do not appropriately support why the dynamic should change.
 
Yes, men could be better homemakers if women were more involved in the bread winning.

That's a pretty awful counter argument.  You might want to rethink how you present that concept.
 
 
At the same time, it would create opportunities for men to stay home and be more effective fathers.  There's an equation that can be balanced here, and you're not really representing the full effects of what could be were were to allow women the priesthood.  Is there the potential for problems to arise if a husband and wife both held the priesthood and were both called into prominent positions?  sure.  But my ward council figured out pretty quickly that it was too much to ask of a single family to have a husband and wife on the ward council, and we didn't need women to be ordained to figure out how to avoid that.

Want is irrelevant. What about those who want to be alcoholics, thieves, murderers, whoremongers, idolaters, etc., etc...? What we want has nothing to do with the policies, standards, and organization of the church.
 
As to the other exceptions to the rules -- roles are roles and there is no distinct need for an exception policy that would benefit none but those unwilling or unable to humble themselves and submit to the order God established.
 
The entire argument loses sight of what actually matters in life -- returning to God and gaining our Salvation. Women's ordination is not necessary for this, not even for the exceptions. An overall ordination of women would, certainly, be harmful to this end, as it would take women out of their homes and diminish their capacity to be effective mothers.

Husband and I are house shopping right now.  One thing to consider is checking out the legal minimum down payment required and figure out your payments from there. 

I'm not sure Oaks went that far (though, in fairness, as I recall I think some of LDS PA's statements may have done so).  All he said was "this is the way things are, and we don't have the authority to change them".  Now, his talk of the Church leadership's keys being limited, in the context of his claim that they are not authorized to ordain women, can arguably be read as suggesting by implication that it would take a restoration of additional priesthood keys a la Elijah in the Kirtland Temple before women could be ordained.  But even if that's what Elder Oaks meant, it's very different than saying "the Lord never actually would allow women to hold priesthood office".
 
Oaks' position strikes me as very similar to the Church's position re blacks and the priesthood ever since Brigham Young discoursed on the policy before the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1852--the Lord can change things any time He wishes; but in the absence of a revelation we, the leaders, just don't have the authority to revoke the policy.  What the Church has not done is to follow Young's example of speculating as to what specifically would need to happen before the Lord changed His mind (as I recall Young suggested that blacks, the "seed of Cain", would never be ordained until all of the seed of Adam's more righteous progeny had already had their opportunity to receive or reject the priesthood).  With all due respect, you seem to be insisting that the Church follow Young's lead (not with the racism, naturally; but in coming up with a "why" that may eventually turn out to be spurious); whereas I think they are very wise not to speculate about things of which they have no knowledge.
 
Besides, per their own website--OW wasn't asking for a "why"; they were asking for a "what".
 
 
The Church has addressed the assumptions, to some degree.  For example, Elder Oaks has suggested elsewhere (I'm paraphrasing) that a man and woman can have separate spheres of responsibility (with their appurtenant duties) while still being equal to each other--a teaching that, I believe, harks back to the days of President Kimball; but that flies in the face of post-Brown v. Board of Education secular thinking, academic or otherwise.  There are few, among the intelligentsia, who will entertain the notion, and even fewer who are willing to "experiment on the word" by taking a stab at actually living that principle in a Christlike manner, as intended, as spelled out in the Proclamation on the Family in conjunction with the temple liturgy and other resources of the Church.
 
 
The Church has offered a very clear interpretation of the ultimate issue (female ordination to priesthood office at this time).  But it has left the "intermediate ambiguities" (how to determine doctrine, for example--they've taken stabs at the issue, which aren't wholly satisfactory; or coming out with a definitive compendium listing every time "man" or "men" occurs in the scriptures and specifying whether each usage refers to males specifically, or to humankind) hanging out there; and that tells me that they're OK with some ambiguity as long as someone isn't making a Kelly-esque effort to pervert those ambiguities into advocacy for a course of action that--as far as the Church leadership is concerned--is clearly contrary to the will of the Lord at this point in time. 

*shrug* Maybe. I expect that what would be considered "reasonable" would vary vastly. I think the church has been quite reasonable in their response and dealing with the issue. I find the response entirely sufficient. Those who find it unreasonable and insufficient, I suspect, would generally continue to find it unreasonable and insufficient.

I understand where you're coming from, MoE (liked the gifs too, by the way).  But it seems to me Kelly was going far beyond dialogue--she had openly said nothing short of ordination would suffice; and therefore was at least as entrenched in her position as the Church was in its position.  Dehlin had reached a point where he was openly disavowing belief in the Church's truth claims.  I can do that in my bishop's office, and would feel pretty safe doing so.  I would not feel "safe" doing so before third parties and encouraging them to follow down my road--nor do I believe I have a right to such "safety".  "Help me understand" is very different than "tell me why--and understand I'm going to pick apart anything you say".
 
As for Oaks' talk:  I think the two "new" things I got from it were, a) the strongest attribution yet of the status quo (male-only ordination) to divine decree; and b ) this novel and interesting idea that women who perform their callings in the Church, are already wielding "priesthood" authority and power (a notion that does create a lot of questions; but on the whole, I think it leaves us with more light and knowledge than we had previously).
 
One interesting thing about Mormonism is that I think it has traditionally liked to keep apologetics and "theology" (as academics understand the term) at arm's length.  Mormonism focuses on the "what", not the "why"--perhaps in part because, frankly, the "whys" are wont to change occasionally (exhibit a:  the explanations for the priesthood ban for blacks.  Exhibit b:  a smattering of apologetics arguments--in archaeology, for example--that have turned out to be unsubstantiated as archaeological knowledge progresses).  The Church has chosen--for better or for worse--to maintain that policy with OW. 
 
In your post, you observe:
 
 
Honestly, I think Mormon progressives aren't getting a more articulate answer here because when they did get such an answer re the priesthood ban (I'm thinking specifically of Pres. McKay's experience where he was denied permission to rescind the ban, which is known by academics and occasionally rehashed in the bloggernacle, where it is magnificently ignored), which--on the whole--they refuse to accept.  Each of us has to ask ourselves:  What would you do with a revelation, if you had one?  Kelley and Dehlin have already answered that question in a very public way.
 
Mormon Women Stand may have had some principals make some impolitic/overzealous statements; but the bottom line is:  OrdainWomen has implicitly, and in some cases explicitly, set limits on the sorts of revelation they are willing to accept.  MWS has not done so, which is why they--and not OW--have the ear of the powers that be as they air whatever concerns they have about the status of women in the church.

I have a theory about this whole 'Ordain Women' thing.
 
If you believe that President Monson is guided by God, then pray to God for women to receive the Priesthood. If it's the right thing to do, he'll get the message. If he doesn't, he won't.
 
If you don't believe he's guided by God, then why are you in the church in the first place?
 
It seems to me that the big problem here isn't asking for the Priesthood(That could definitely be a righteous desire. Heck - I wanted the Priesthood. ) or in questioning the Church(We're a diverse people. Nothing wrong with questioning).
 
The problem here is demanding God's will be subservient to yours - Asking a question and only accepting one answer. That way never turns out well.

I found it humourous that the article called the excommunication "very public" when in fact, it was they who publicized it. 
 
Also, excommunication isn't just about kicking people out, but it's about releasing the person from the covenants they are willfully breaking. 

I just had a talk with my daughter because of some sisters, not brothers, but sisters were shoving the "peter priesthood" view of women in the church.  This greatly disturbs me because all my girls tell me that it's usually not the men, it's the women that perpertrate this thinking.  Quite frankly, besides being sealed in the temple and enduring to the end, men need to be ordained to the priesthood to attain the highest level of celestial glory.  Women need only to be born.  I kind-of read something into this.
 
In any case, this whole "exponential" growth in excommunications is just plain silly unless someone can come up with numbers to support that position.  Otherwise, it's two people who have an agenda, who are polarized in their thinking, and have been invited to a disiplinary hearing.  I don't know much about Kate Kelly but I have listened to John Dehlin in interviews and podcasts and he is a wolf in sheeps clothing.
 
But I've been on the excommunicated side and I say from my own and other's experience, if they are excommunicated, they are in for some of the darkest, most challenging days of their lives because they will be buffeted by the advisary in ways they will never expect.  They will have left only two roads to go: setting aside their pride, getting some humility and walk towards the light of Christ, or continue down the path they are on and drown in the darkness.  There is no middle ground. 
 
So before they or anyone begins to blame the church for making their lives difficult, or creating difficulty for them or their families, they ought to take responsibility and accept what is to come because they got into this knowing that the outcome would end up looking like it looks now. 
 
Their crying foul is unimpressive.  Their letting the world know only makes transparent their contempt and proves their agenda and disingenuousness.

I read that same quote, too.
 
I really feel for that person.  I feel for Kate Kelly and for John Dehlin.  The events of the coming weeks (and months?) for these two will be difficult for me emotionally.  I sympathize with many of Kate's ideas, though not her methods.  Or at least, not the methods of Ordain Women.  I don't know enough about John Dehlin to say the same for him.
 
I experience a lot of cognitive dissonance as a Mormon Feminist.  I empathize with those women who have difficulties in the Church, perceived or otherwise.  I don't currently support female ordination, though if current policies (or doctrines) are changed, I definitely won't be sorry to see it happen.  I love the prophet(s) and do my best to follow their teachings.  But I also feel that there is a lot of room for change in policies, practices, and administrative areas within the Church.  I have a strong testimony of the Gospel, but I also have strong personal opinions and feelings.  Sometimes it's hard to reconcile those with each other.  And so I wage war in my head.
I trust the Church to be discreet with regard to disciplinary actions.  They have strict no-comment policies in place for high-profile (and other) cases like this.  John Dehlin and Kate Kelly each contact media outlets, it appears, and they're welcome to do so.  I feel that doing so, to an extent, is digging their own graves, however.

It's not that simple.
 
The chess club is very well funded.  The non-club-members respect the chess club because they play chess, not checkers.  There might be a few cool kids in the chess club who prefer checkers; but the kids who show up consistently and plan the activities and really make the club work, all prefer chess.
 
The checkers kids are simply incapable of building a club with the resources, clout, or devoted membership that the chess club enjoys; and they know it.  Besides--someone already tried to set up a checkers club.  It still exists, and it's sort of hobbling along, but it's not even in the same league as the chess club and everyone knows it.
 
But the checkers kids don't understand that it's their hobby that's the problem.  They think that if they could just get their maws into the chess kids' money, respect, and devoted members; that they could really make the most awesomist checkers club ever.  But they know the chess club kids won't stand for it; so the short term plan is to blur the distinction between checkers and chess. 
 
And the Chessmaster has just spoilt their game.

I'm surprised it took this long.  It's one thing when a person believes women will have the priesthood someday but another when they try to use the media to put pressure on the church to make a decision that is the Lord's decision.  I think the Church was quite kind to Kelly and she was warned.  There are a lot of people fragile in their faith and don't appreciate those who make it even worse with their influence.

Not intentionally advocating apostasy, but advocating nonetheless.
 
Anyhow, I should clarify just in case my comment is read differently than I meant it...as tends to occur sometimes.  I am not saying everyone on there should be ex'd. Just spoken to, made aware that it's a problem, etc. In extreme cases where there is a rebellious and apostate attitude then church discipline might be considered. But no one should be happily tearing down the church unawares as they think "I just want my point of view to be heard."

Luckily we've outlawed burning at the stake. Many of my fellow brothers and sisters are so filled with the light of Christ that they would gladly strike the match if that was an option. Sad really.

I don't think the participants are "advocating apostasy".  I do think they have a point of view that they wanted to be heard.
 
After Elder Dallin H. Oaks gave that brilliant talk in Priesthood Session, the thinking and the position of the Church was made clear.  
 
To continue to assert for such change, after having received instruction on the principle... THAT is apostasy.