Backroads

While my wife and I were raising our family we took to white water rafting as an activity and for what is now 20 years we have annually taken a week long camping rafting trip.  As our children grew older friends were invited to join us and as our children became involved in courtships future partners join us.   It is interesting what a week camping without a shower or bath does to one's appearance.  Not to create stereotypes but the individuals that are much to do about "looks" are usually so wrapped up in maintaining themselves that they are not much help with the communal chores needed to keep the rigorous activities going.  In short the purity little girls that keep their makeup perfect are a pain and a bother.  Plus; until the make is fixed just right they are not so stunning.  Some popular boys also become a pain.  It is interesting that many "good looking" individuals expect to be treated for their looks rather than their general contributions.
 
It was often interesting to watch the plain ladies that during the week became much more popular with the guys and how that affected the dynamics of the social pecking order.  More than once an engagement was broken.  It became kind of a litmus test for our children and their friends to bring prospective partners on the river.
 
One of my sons is involved in the Hollywood seen and a number of Hollywood types have joined us on the river with mixed results.  One Hollywood lady had never been camping and without makeup fell in love with the adventure  - and changed her whole outlook on life.  One fellow after the adventure commented with amazement how some people after the week are not so fun and how some - even their looks start to grow on you.
 
As a side note - my wife and daughters all look stunning with or without makeup and my daughters are to this day the best river guides.  Both daughters married alpha males but on the river there is no doubt who is in charge.   But the biggest joke is how it is that my wife - so obviously hot - ended up with such a nerd that is 1/4 inch shorter than her.

Ugly is in the eye of the beholder. One would hope one's spouse doesn't think they're ugly. If one's spouse does think they are ugly, I daresay that does suck.

I don't seeing how a wife desiring to be sexually appealing to her husband is anymore, of necessity, rooted in vanity than a wife desiring to be a good mother to he husband's children is rooted in vanity.Or a husband desiring to be a good provider or spiritual leader to his wife*. Could these things be sourced in vanity if they're being desired so one can suffuse themselves with pride over them? Sure, but of a necessity being rooted in excessive pride or admiration of one's achievements? No.
 
*Even more so being these things.

To be hot, a desire to be hot, a desire to be seen as hot, etc., is rooted in vanity. Modesty is rooted in humility. They are, at their core meaning, opposites.

It would be more accurate to say, "Modest is more desirable to men with LDS (or similar) values towards modesty." but it'd be a horrible soundbite, and thus accuracy falls prey to being catchy (as happens with a lot of nice little snappy phrases). 

There are too many unknowns when trying to validate Genesis prior to the flood.  In part because, according to tradition, Genesis was not written until, at least and for a minimum, of over 2000 years after the epoch of man in Genesis begins.  According to the ancient tradition the Genesis story comes from oral traditions as much as revelation.  Ancient oral traditions are heavily involved with metaphor and symbolism so we are not just dealing with languages and translations but also cultures and interpretations of things we do not know much if anything about.
 
The biggest problem is that science and religion are asking different questions and searching for different answers.  It is amazing to me how much overlap there actually is.  At the same time as a scientist and a devout LDS theologian I am often astonished with ridiculous scientific claims coming from factions of the religious community as well as completely silly religious claims coming from various factions within the scientific community.  Without doubt there is plenty of fuel to fire the flames of disagreement between science and religion and very little cross-over thinking between the two.   It has been my experience that the main disagreements come from "experts" of one side of the separation that is mostly ignorant of the other.  However, with the same breath it appears to me that the scientist are more open to variant ideas and that religious thinkers are most instant that their understanding of things is unquestionably correct - despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.   In general it is my personal belief that religious individuals that cannot get right things in science for which there is overwhelming evidence - that it is also likely that their religious study is also flawed.  The same with scientist that cannot seem to connect to religious evidence.  Not that religious experts should be right about everything scientific but for scientific principles to which there is a preponderance of evidence - to refuse to consider possibilities under such evidence tells me that they are not interested in truth - only arguing and accepting evidence that supports their point of view.
 
I understand that there are some in religion that are not interested in science and vicea versa.   It is just my opinion that such thinkers have nothing if anything to add to the discussion of how to deal with the differences between the two.

While I share your concerns to the extent that they apply to "blind obedience", I'm not sure that's really what MWS is advocating here.  If someone has a testimony of something, why should they only "hesitatingly" bear that testimony?  Does "unequivocally sustaining/supporting" a person mean you agree with them 100% of the time?  Does--or should--a person "unequivocally support" his or her spouse? 
 
I'm not inclined to jump all over the author of the LDS Women of God post you indirectly cite, without knowing more about the conversation.  Was she referring to all types of Mormon feminists, or just the same brand to which her interlocutor was referring?  And is the source of that statement (LDS Women of God) an effective corporate alter ego of MWS the same way that--for example--OW was basically an alter ego of All Enlisted?
 
 
As I indicate above, I think your view of MWS is a bit of a caricature.  But even if it isn't--and I can't speak for you personally, but as a general proposition--it strikes me that progressives and self-proclaimed centrists can't spend sixty percent of their online existence either alluding to or outright complaining about the dominance of "TBM"s within the Church, and then parse Otterson's statement and argue that those same scorned TBMs are also (from, as TFP points out, a social standpoint) merely a tail trying ineffectually to wag the dog of Mormon culture.
 
 
It seems to me that the Church has been making some changes--sister missionary ages and leadership positions, breaking down the cultural taboos about women praying in conference/giving opening prayers or closing talks in Sacrament meeting, reinforcing the role of women in the ward council, and the like.  Otterson's statement is also very clear that dialogue/focus grouping continues with LDS women across an ideological spectrum.  That said, most of the anecdotal stuff you hear from OW--other than lack of actual priesthood ordination--does boil down to local issues.  That certainly seems to be the crux of the complaints brought up in this thread, at any rate.

The bloggernacle, with few exceptions, isn't much more welcoming to conservative/orthodox Mormons than MWS has been to OW. Millennial Star has had some thought-provoking posts recently on the "you attack, we defend--for a while" paradigm that seems to permeate the 'nacle and tends to lead to conservative burn-out.And it's worth noting that MWS doesn't exist merely to provide another forum for kvetching-- er, open discussion; and as far as I know, never claimed such a purpose. OW started a Facebook group for that--and after two years, it has garnered a little over one tenth of the "likes" that MWS got in two months. I can certainly understand why OW so desperately wants to turn the MWS Facebook page into its own mouthpiece to parrot its tales of woe and historical half-truths to a captive audience of actual believing, practicing Mormons that is tenfold as wide as anything it has managed to reach to date--but MWS' organizers are by no means "extreme" for their refusal to allow their resources to be thus hijacked.
I'll take a look, thanks. You may be right, but my initial observation would be "if you don't want people to develop a bunker mentality against your ideas, don't try to assault/publicly humiliate them and don't pal around with people who do."It strikes me that the root of the problems bijulie cites are (unrighteousness use of) hierarchy, not patriarchy. I believe she even mentions an unpleasant run-in with an RS president. Ordaining women won't end that--unless you buy into the "females-are-inherently-more-righteous" argument that OW supporters are only to happy to mock when it is made by defenders of the status quo. The subtext I see in Otterson's letter is "this abuse-of-authority issue may well be a discussion worth having; but we won't be having it with them" (which should come as no surprise to OW, one of whose founders (Margaret Toscano, I believe) was excommunicated for trying to shame the church into "having a dialogue" on that issue).

I used to teach sexual harrassment classes to the military.  For a male boss to comment on a pretty blouse or a dress to a female is actually not against the law.  Unless he puts it in a way like "wow the style of that dress really brings out those curves and makes you sexy."  If he is simply complimenting her on her dress or blouse is another thing.  Or if she has been losing weight and he makes mention of it and congratulates her on her accomplishment is not against the law.  It becomes a sexual harrassment issue if that female employee tells her boss that she is uncomfortable with those types of comments and he continues to do so after being told.
 
Should he do it?  That's the fine line.  A sincere compliment that is nothing more than a compliment can be taken in so many different ways.   

I don't understand how you see MWS as an extreme group.  Their mission statement reads:
 
Mormon Women Stand is a collaborative online effort to join like-minded female members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who share a desire to make a public stand as witnesses of Jesus Christ and in support of 'The Family: A Proclamation to the World'. We believe standing together will reflect the divine nature and power that LDS women are endowed with to influence others for good. We unequivocally sustain the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles—commissioned by God and sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. We support how the Lord has delegated priesthood authority to organize and administer the gospel among all of His children.
 
What is wrong with a group that is standing together for the beliefs that many women in the church hold and that is supporting our leaders, supporting the Proclamation to the World regarding families and supporting the Priesthood as was organized here on earth under the direction of Jesus Christ himself?

+1.
 
While I know there are things like this that do happen (I've been mistreated myself by ward leadership, and I'm not a female or a feminist) I find that when there is a consistent pattern of supposed problems like this (assuming it isn't all fabricated to get a rise out of everyone) then there's something amiss with the offended more than the accused offenders.
 
For example, we have a family in our ward that has gone inactive because of "abuse". I have been personally involved in much of the effort around them and there has been nothing but love, invitation, kindness, help, service, etc., etc. shown towards them. But according to them they are constantly abused, belittled, judged, mistreated, berated, hated, and marginalized.
 
It's easy to throw one-sided accusations at church leadership. I wonder what the local leaders would say were they willing to accuse back. I wonder what would really come out in an honest, fair, both sides, legitimate assessment.
 
These are easy, safe attacks on the church. The best the church can do to defend themselves is with content like in this letter, because the bishops and stake president don't publish the issues, tell their side of the story, etc., because it would break confidences and offend even worse.
 
The church is, and has been, working to solve legitimate issues. The letter makes that clear for anyone who didn't already believe it (not that those who didn't believe it before will believe the letter). Frankly, the church is, and has been, working to solve non-legitimate, irrational issues too.
 
It will never be enough. The efforts of Satan to tear down the church can never be satiated. No matter how many policy changes, doctrinal alterations, and management re-orgs occurred (even up to and including replacing the entire leadership of the church with women) it will NEVER be good enough for those unwilling to humble themselves and look past human imperfection to God's will, ways and means.
 
We live a spoiled-brat existence in these latter-days. The current cultural climate breeds entitlement.  Entitlement is not God's way.

Bjjulie, I'm sorry for your experiences.  I'm sorry they've been so seemingly universal as well.  That's not only unfortunate, it's also unusual.  I've only had one bishop I can think of that I had personal problems with, and they were -- I think -- issues less misogynistic and more, quite simply, thoughtless and insensitive on his part.  I've never in my life, until that bishop, hard a hard time sustaining any of my leaders.  I tried to separate the personal man from the bishop man, and that helped a little, but not much.  I also worked with a branch president on my mission who was, to a T, exactly one of the descriptions you listed above (though I won't say which).
 
This is why I was somewhat concerned with the second bullet point in the letter from public affairs (full text here: http://www.millennialstar.org/the-lds-church-responds-to-criticism-and-details-efforts-to-reach-out-to-women/).  That is, "Criticism 2: There is nowhere for women who don’t feel safe in their wards to have a conversation about some of their negative experiences that isn’t seen as subversive."  I feel, unfortunately, that the point was completely missed here.  When a woman doesn't feel safe in her ward, and it's because of a feminist-related issue, it's usually that she doesn't feel safe in regards to ward leadership, and in particular, those of the male gender.  When she doesn't feel safe in that context, she certainly won't go to said leadership to discuss her concerns.  Going to a RS president (as suggested in the letter) could help, emotionally, but I still see several potential issues with that:
 
(1) a man who is in a leadership position where he tends to demean women beneath him (whether intentional or not) is likely to call a RS president who is more of a puppet or conformist than someone who will challenge him.
(2) women can often be worse to each other (emotionally) than men can be toward women.
(3) while it might help emotionally, talking to the RS president isn't likely to actually accomplish anything.
 
I know what it's like to not feel safe, sheperded, or wanted at church, though for issues aside of feminist ones.  It's not a good feeling.  It made me not want to come back.  I really struggled for a few months about whether or not to continue coming to church.  I knew I could feel the Spirit and learn and be uplifted in other faiths, as well as be accepted as I am.  In the end, the same as bjjulie, I decided to stay because of my testimony, and because I wanted to honor the covenants I'd made.
 
I can't quite tell from bjjulie's post, based on one negative experience after another and another, if she feels that all local LDS leadership are like this (anti-feminist, misogynistic, etc.), of if she just isn't going to take a chance again.  I certainly don't feel that it's a blanket condition, though I know that it does, unfortunately, exist.  I saw this shared by a friend this morning on Facebook, and I felt it was appropriate.  In case you can't click through to see the image, it's a meme that says, It's not about "not all men harass women." It's about "all women have been harassed by men."
 
I'm still not sure it's accurate to make that blanket statement either, but consider this:
If you're a woman who's ever been cat-called, you've been harassed. If you're a woman whose boss has ever make a remark about your physical appearance, particularly if it made you uncomfortable, you've been harassed. If you're a woman who's been told that you need to keep your arms covered, your necklines high, and your skirts long to prevent men from having lustful thoughts, you've been harassed. I could go on.  And it's not just about harassment, but also about belittling, dismissing, and ignoring.  It's real, and it happens, even in the LDS Church.  It's regrettable and it needs to change.  This letter, generally, is a step in the right direction, but I feel that in some areas, it misses the mark, widely.

This is why I believe that True Religion and True Science are complimentary.
 
However, you have to understand that what they hear these days about Pegasus and Noah's Ark and all that is subject to our (tending toward literal) observations and interpretations, record keeping at the time, and scientific knowledge at the time.

I'll confess to being somewhat guilty.  When Christians I discriminated against I am quicker to notice.  However, I have enough confidence in myself to say that, at the end of the day, I come down on the side of individual freedom of association.  That is, the government should not prohibit gay or Christian lawyers from practice.  However, individuals would, in my world, be able to choose who they serve, who rents from them, and who they do business with.  For example, it was not so long ago that many landlords (especially amongst those who owned one or two rentals) would refuse to rent out to couples who were obviously "living in sin."  They lose a customer, but why shouldn't they have that discretion.  Likewise, a homosexual should be able to choose a homosexual attorney, if they believed that such a lawyer would be more understanding.
 
Obviously, it is not my world.  Those days are gone.  Still, I side with individual freedom--even the freedom to be foolishly prejudiced.  Governments, on the other hand, should remain strictly neutral.

To expand on this a bit--in the US, lawyers are free to cease or decline representation of a client where (quoting Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.16, and most states have similar binding provisions): "the client insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement".
It's bad business to turn down any client you don't agree with 100%, but the right to refuse to aid and abet conduct one finds repugnant is preserved in the American legal profession.

What about . . . Oh, say, a wedding photographer?
Let 'em all work, I say; and let ''em be open and honest about their prejudices. The free market will sort out 90% of the rest of it.

No, there's a difference between simple belief and bigotry.
Just because someone doesn't believe in same sex marriage doesn't mean they're gonna be all "god hates gays" thing.
If these people were dedicated to pracitising the law fairly for all, then by all means they should.
It is only if they do not should they be punished.

I have a basic question--especially for those who believe that we religionists have gotten the whole LBGT thing wrong:  Do you believe that our views about marriage are so damning that we should not be allowed to practice law?  In other words, are the barristers right in this action?

I know specifically some people like to give the catholic church a bad rep in this regard. It seems to me that despite everything, the vast amount of history and scientific discoveries from those periods are from monks and priests. Even in more recent times the father of the big bang theory was a catholic priest.

Many perceive a gap between more recent scientific discoveries and theology that I don't believe exists. Often those who say these things interpret our theology in the worst possible way to make it contradict discoveries and maintain that our theology can not be interpreted another way.

So are we to assume that anyone intending to obey the law should not be allowed to practice law because they are prejudice against criminals?
 
I would point out that traditional Christians would not protect by law those that disagreed with their interpretation of religion.  The history of mankind has been to take political power and force those that disagree with you to suffer consequences of the law.  Sometime I think that Jesus will be more disappointed from error of his followers in the law than in the mess the rest of humanity has made of the law.

How can you truly repent if you continue to lie? How can you truly repent while trying to avoid the consequences of your actions?

I look at it differently.....Yes. I wouldn't be happy about not getting it back....however.....I would want to forgive them so the sin if any is on their head and not mine....there could always be a time in your life when your all in the Temple and the same time and in the same session and you wouldn't want this to detract from your growth..

Sure, but that philosophy allows you to not end the relationship.  
 
Here's my way of lending things:  Can I afford to lend this?  If I lend it and never get it back, is it worth losing this relationship?  Am I willing to not be resentful or angry if this person(s) never gives/pays it back?
 
If I can answer those questions, then I can choose to either lend it or not based on my answers.  And if I never get it back, I've already decided to not lose the relationship over it, so I don't have to worry about it.

I don't really know anything about Parkour, but the 45 seconds of reading I just did tell me that Parkour's foundations are in safety.  It's not just "jumping around rooftops" -- it's trained jumping around rooftops.  Doesn't mean that he won't get hurt, but that if he does, it's likely because he's not following his training correctly.  But you know what?  He'll get hurt in any sport he does.

I think so. Trust is to be earned.  Sounds like any trust was broken.  I can't have a relationship with someone I have lost trust with.