IAmTheWork

I'm going to post some questions in the general section soon, and will have a look at the links you've provided, so thanks for those. I hope I don't sound like I'm against anything the church disseminates Livy, but the obvious point a non-member might make is that using church sources is asking to be led up the path the church wants you to follow. There are arguments for and against all kinds of evidence, and many unanswered questions which are bones of contention between church members (at least the most vocal ones) and anti-Mormons. Of course it all comes down to having a testimony given by the spirit. Personally, I have knowledge and evidence of things which the church says wouldn't be available to any but the faithful, but have no cause to dispute anything with others as it's all rather pointless. It does, however, leave me somewhat unconcerned about having to believe in things, as I only know what I know, so don't 'believe' anything unless it's tangible experience. Not sure where I'm going with this, so better to formulate some questions in another thread. :)

Had a good laugh at my assumption on seeing that! And nice post. I don't think the women I've known who felt bad but 'behaved well' were deliberately being false. Maybe, as your post suggests, they were not understanding things in the way you do? It's difficult to tell whether someone 'fakes it to make it' though, and both men and women can have years of buried repression in their subconscious just bubbling away until one day the bubble bursts. Blessings right back to you and yours, too!

@changed, yes, I see what you mean. I'm glad you and your wife have a happy relationship and life together too. More power to those men and women who can fulfil roles in life, family and church and genuinely feel great about it. Sadly, many LDS women who appear to be perfectly happy, intelligent and able to talk about their roles, etc., are more like Stepford wives. When the crunch comes for them, as it sometimes does, years of resentment from feeling subservient comes to the surface. If and when that does happen, it's not a pretty sight. In thirteen years in the church, that wasn't my experience, and I'd say you may be fooling yourself, or that's something common to circles you move in, perhaps? Then again, I can't say for sure as I haven't been to church for a long time. Maybe people nowadays do say, "HM's names are Wisdom, Love Of God" etc., and discuss her a fair bit? No Mormon I ever knew, or met in recent years, ever has. In fact, the usual explanation is that HF doesn't want her name sullied, is very protective of her (like she'd need it!) or something similar. Also (and I'm not hinting about you here as of course I don't know you at all), I think too often we don't realise that others - whether women in church, employees, acquaintances, etc - submit not out of love and willingness, but so they don't rock the boat. I've never much liked the idea of any human submitting to another, to be perfectly honest, as I don't think any human being is up to the task of being the dominant one without ego coming into it in some way. And ego is oh so easily masked as various things like love, compassion, kindness, giving, and so on.

Oh, ok. I found the links interesting, and feel that JS saying women held the priesthood - if the quoted materials are accurate - doesn't have to be a great bone of contention. As I said, I feel that men and women hold equal powers and spirituality, etc., and the priesthood to me is more of a 'you get to officiate in things' role. I do think that due to the changing nature of society, we can't help seeing a patriarchal church (and family organisation) in a different light. I find it funny, too, that there are so many statements in church literature, as in scriptures, saying things will remain constant. Yet the church changes policies to reflect the times. Makes me wonder if a new female priesthood role is just around the corner..? If it were to be, things JS said (as quoted here) seem ample pre-revelation hints for modern changes.

Respectfully, I can't believe you said all that. I may be wide of the mark here, but having been divorced and both of us leaving the church years ago, and knowing other women who left too, words and phrases like 'submit', 'be ruled', and in that context, 'be humble' can be quite hurtful, and not just in the setting of modern days. And by hurtful, I don't mean seeing over-sensitive women acting upset, but strong women too often quietly feeling devalued and relegated to being almost second class citizens. Not trying to be terribly contentious here, but I wonder how we men would feel if women only held the priesthood, everyone worshipped HM and never spoke of HF, etc? I'm thinking that a matriarchal church (if we can picture it) would be quite a different kettle of fish.

Ah, apologies for being British. :) I Googled co-ed, and all the results said college age. Mind you, it occurs to me that I don't know what you folks call 'college'. In the UK, college is after school years, usually from 17 to 18 onward.

Laughing - thanks rameumptom! I wasn't after attention, but it is nice to know I'm welcome here. :)

In co-ed age sleep-overs, well any where youngsters are sexually mature, how would anyone know if two gay guys or girls were quietly 'getting it on'..?

Ah, thanks Wingnut. By 'you' in the wouldn't know sentence, I meant plural, as in 'we'. Maybe I should have said that.

Yep, for co-eds I'd agree, now I know what a co-ed is! For kids though, not at all inappropriate, depending upon their age of course. (I'm thinking well before dating age).

Who is Sandra Tanner? Googled it. Utah Lighthouse Ministry, revised church history, etc?

Good for you! In the ward I was in some years ago, there was an awful lot of prissiness and obvious distaste regarding many moral topics, and sex in particular. Though something hilarious happened with a friend of mine who taught her younger daughter 'the whole deal' after much talk in their home. I think the girl was ten years old, but pretty mature for her age (ten going on twenty-five, as people say). The mother explained carefully what it was all about, and that all couples did it naturally, etc. The girl sat in silence for a moment, and the mother thought she'd embarrassed her. The girl was actually doing a lot of imagining, as she said, "You mean Bro. and Sis. Jones do? And the bishop and his wife..? And - oh no - everyone at church..?!" She was mortified, and barely looked an adult in the eyes for days!

This is part of the reason I don't tend to get involved in many discussions from a 'factual' point of view. There are for and against arguments for everything, with each party involved 'proving' matters with their 'evidence'. I use those words in that way because often concrete evidence turns out to be partially or not at all accurate, rendering the arguments somewhat a waste of time (which is what I meant by 'waste of life' earlier). In terms of the church, I'd say that what's called factual, and then changed later, is often the reason people leave. It's certainly a reason so many argue constantly about what's true or not. But still, I'm finding this thread an interesting read.

Yep, for sure. The tragic thing most people don't realise when they think their own porn viewing habit is 'mild', ie., they're not into really nasty stuff, is that they're conditioning themselves to need it. I mentioned this in another post somewhere, but essentially, any actions you repeat again and again conditions both your mind and your body not only to feel that it's normal, but to want more of the same. Such mental and physical self-programming desensitises the one doing it, so they need more stimulation to get the same effects of arousal. And sadly, the effect doesn't come from the real thing, so someone who's hooked themselves on porn can't become aroused by their naked partner in the normal way, because the brain wants to see pictures of naked people, and usually different ones, over and over. I like that - made me smile. :) It's so true! What's interesting, to me at least, is that commandments are so often give and/or written just 'as is'. Probably because if we had more explanations there'd have to be whole books dedicated to each one. I hope young guys and girls read these forums though, as well as others offering genuine advice which is often gained by experience, and realise that behind the admonitions are very good reasons why we're told, "Don't do that!" Slightly OT I suppose, but do most Mormon parents really talk to their children about sexual matters these days, or does it tend to get brushed under the carpet..?

Eek. I just looked up the definition of 'co-ed', so I guess my previous answer shouldn't apply. I thought we were discussing young teens, and my reference to them sneaking off for sex was in regard to later teens, if they've been constantly mistrusted, etc. (That happened a few times in my past ward). As to the gay question lizzy16; good point. But you probably wouldn't know I guess, as being gay or bisexual isn't something a young person would shout about in the church, is it? Well, not unless they were about to leave.

Good point, and of course I was asking for such, not saying that emotions and spiritual promptings are the same thing. I wouldn't say that all intuitive feelings/promptings are from 'outside' of us though, but rather an innate connection we have with everything. We're brought up to see everything in terms of separation, which is good enough for stopping us walking in front of cars and so on, but a very limited way of seeing things. I must admit, I've never seen that discussion go that way before. But on the subject, I've read various things saying that there IS some archaeological or written evidence of Christ as a person (other than the bible), and other things saying there definitely ISN'T any such evidence. While I don't care to waste too much time on it, and realise that everything I read on the internet and in newspapers MUST be true, I am a bit confused by all that. :)

Sheesh, teens full of hormones and lust? You need anti-hormone injections, lots of rope and chains! :) 'Night folks!

Ah, I may have misunderstood the ages suggested, being in the UK. By 'romp' I meant merely kids cuddling up and having non-sexual fun. It seems these days that they can't even do that without someone screaming, "Inappropriate! Porn! Death and damnation!" What a mess the world is.

Me neither. It implies something impersonal, not a living being. A 'ghost' in terms of a place memory is fine, but as a trapped person, or an annoying presence, I don't care for the term. And I particularly dislike the continuation of Victorian table rapping and 'calling out' for them to perform tasks to prove their presence. Sad. Well, if his experience was anything like those I've had, then no, not a simple 'ghost'. The thing is, when we talk of such things we have a feeling that we might be affected, that by speaking of such things we might become visible to demonic forces (as if we weren't already). There's too much fear of such things in all walks of life, including the church. I may share experiences of mine some time, but not right now as I need to go to sleep.

I don't know. I don't care! A goddess is the equal of a god. :) Although in terms of whether conferring the priesthood as ordinance and authority to women, I can see that it can be an interesting subject.

I like Wingnut's response. You know, we can be such killjoys in church sometimes! Kids want fun, snuggles and a bit of a romp, and instantly church members say, "No! Inappropriate!" Then we wonder why some young lad and girl had sex in a field or behind the chapel one time. Why not say "Yes!" to everything, then add words of moral sense in an easy-going way? For example, "Can we have a slumber party, with boys too?" "Yes!, but let's work it out so you don't slurp Davy, Tammy - I saw that look in your eye!" Instant slightly embarrassed laughs, and an opening for parental guidance and sleeping arrangements. Of course it's dependent upon the age of the youngsters, but I'm sure you get my meaning. Instantly saying, "No - it's inappropriate!" to them just puts up barriers. And you can be sure as day follows dawn that if they want inappropriate touch which leads to sex, they'll work out a way to get it without anyone knowing. Always say,"Yes!" so kids don't have to fight the "No". You can wrangle around the arrangements once they're pleased you said "Yes". Much easier, and you're the hero mum/dad. If things turn out to be too difficult to arrange satisfactorily, at least you tried, and they heard a "Yes" instead of a "No". Kids are sick and tired of No, No, No... While it's good at times, if it's all they hear it makes for a miserable life.

I'm not in a relationship, and I miss him already! (Sob).

Sure Suzie, though I'm not certain I can explain..! One of the biggest issues which faces people these days I think, is that we've lost touch with the truly spiritual. By which I mean that we're brought up with so-called logical thinking, and can't see anything beyond it. In fact, we're taught that rational thinking is the only way which makes sense, the only way which is true. This affects everyone. Non-rational perception is not madness, it's not a 'failing to see correctly'. How do you think a scientist would fare when faced with the lord walking across a lake? Madness? Who's madness? The problem is that the church has to define everything in terms of 'the modern madness'. I don't, so you might have some difficulty, perhaps, in understanding the 'reasoning' behind some things I say. No big deal; I'm not so special or different, I just see things in a perhaps different way. If you're a woman, you have the priesthood. By which I mean all the creative and subtle yet powerful forces required to change reality. Men do. Women do. Neither is more or less powerful than the other. Christ showed us this in the walking on water incident, yes? Did he say to the apostle, "Sheesh, you're pathetic. You can only do this if I say you can"? Nope. He said, "Ohh, don't lack faith! Come on, you can do this too - anyone can!" And we can. People do. So, in an ordinary 'Mormon' sense, do you think that when a woman puts her hands on a sick child and helps heal them in an instant because a priesthood holder isn't there that she did less than the priesthood holder could have done? Do you think that she could only do it because her husband held the priesthood? Do you think that the lord blessed her to do it - but only as a temporary contract for a minute or two - so someone could be healed even though she didn't have the power? Sheesh. (Meant kindly, and only as a generalisation). :)

I'm going to go with the same quote from Suzie, because boy is that a good point. How does anyone know that a prophet can't/won't lead them astray? And if they do make mistakes, does that stop them being a prophet? Your answers on a postcard, please... Well, my feeling is that this whole prophet business has got somewhat out of hand. (And please, take this post in a jokey sense, or it'll make no sense!) I mean, come on. The lord being a super-incarnated being of vast power, has to pass on snippets of useful information in the form of guidelines to help us dumbos see through the mess of life so we can get some idea as to where we could be if we relaxed and chose peace instead of continual mania. What do people do? They take the information and make a whole big deal of it, arguing constantly about what he meant. Now, take prophets. Boy, do they have a problem! They can't be perfect, because if they were they'd have to be gone from this ball of earth. They have to be ordinary people like you and me. But they have this curse; a super-incarnated being tells them what things are about, but only in snippets, and they have to pass it on to everyone else. What's worse is that they don't remember every detail of the information or their brief encounters with the super-incarnated being, because it's simply too much for the human brain to cope with. Now flash forward a few generations, while said prophets have been trying desperately to help each other understand how this all works, and with a huge crowd of followers worshipping them and hanging upon their every word. People write everything down, the prophet coughs and they put signs up, he burps and they throw a party. Does "The Life Of Brian" mean anything here..? ("He's not the messiah, he's a very naughty boy!") My advice? Go back to 'stupid is as stupid does'. Stop worshipping the current or any past prophet. Think of them as blokes who kind of wish they weren't in the position they're in. You probably won't be far wrong. Think of them washing the dishes, or waking up sweaty in the morning, or being annoyed with the kids. Now, if you do that, can you still be so concerned about who said what, and why? Do you really need to compare one guy's talk with another? Do you need to keep notes to pick faults between what one said as opposed to another..? I don't think so. If you do, then please, have a happy life pulling every last detail to bits! If you can. Oh, and as this thread is about women and the priesthood, and I already said that they have it anyway, what are they doing while the prophet guy is holding his head in his hands and wondering how to deal with it all? Simple. She's saying, "For goodness sake dear, eat your breakfast", and rolling her eyes at the thought of getting through another busy day.

Ok, a bit more of an answer now I've watched my film. Well I'd say let's not concern ourselves with the word 'sin', which, let's face it, most people can't define very well but do feel starchy and prissy about. Let's talk about the effects of viewing porn. First, as the viewer, you're looking at something false. False, false, and if that doesn't say it enough; false. Recordings and pictures of men and women who's addiction to physical pleasures makes them easy meat for money makers (because they sure don't make millions) and puts them in harm's way continually. They're meat. They're seen as meat, and they're treated as meat. End of story. Do words and terms such as hepatitis, chlamydia, HIV, gonorrhoea, abortion, infertility, loneliness, abuse and so on mean nothing? So, you ask, where is the sin? Sheesh, you do sound naive. How about the sin of the ones giving themselves up as mere meat for money, the ones treating them as meat for money, you watching them as meat and paying money (or watching people being treated as meat for money - which is worse..?) and so on. How about all involved having parents who are gods, yet not seeing it due to the lives they lead, and all the other low life types who also 'make a living' as hangers-on..? I kind of run out of ideas at this point because I just don't want to go down disgusting avenues in my mind. But as a couple of other thoughts, I read that those involved in adult porn are also into child porn and drug running. Basically, users and abusers of others on every level you can think of. Phew. What was the original question..? Never mind whether it's 'sin'. It sucks and stinks on every level you can name in human terms, and if gods were so affected by us as to feel pain from what we do, they'd sit and sob every moment of their existence. But they aren't, though they advise us about which directions to take because they've been there before us. Edit: Apologies if some of the above sounds overly harsh (esp. the naive bit, @quickquestion). I've known people who were emotionally scarred by involvement in porn and drugs, and even years later they seemed no more recovered from it all.