The Folk Prophet

That doesn't make any sense. The rule is to keep your passions within the bounds the Lord sets. Those bounds are legal and lawful marriage, not only if you're expressing love. There is nothing wrong with engaging in proper and "lawful" behavior to fulfill desire. My wife can ask me to give her a back rub "for her" because she really wants a back rub and it feels good and not because she's expressing love. Likewise a husband can desire marital relations.

Yeah...this thought makes me want to clarify mine a bit. I absolutely agree. Questions, concerns, doubts. I've had them. Everyone does. But I have always given the benefit of that doubt to the teachings of the church even if I do not understand or agree. Because I know the church is true and is led by God. This has particularly come into play with me in the last few years as the church has addressed certain hot-button issues. My personal feeling is that some of the approach is mistaken...but I do not allow my personal feeling to translate to a determination that the church is wrong. I translate it to my weaknesses and inability to understand, and I trust the Lord will help me understand as I remain faithful. I'm also smart enough to know that the church, may, actually be mistaken in some things. But I also believe that I will be more blessed eternally by following the church even when it is mistaken than by rebelling against it, even in my own thoughts. So I sustain and support even when and if I don't agree.

If by not so bad you mean not "as" bad, relatively, I agree. If by "not so bad" you mean not a big deal, I don't think I do agree. I have a hard time thinking secret, personal anti-church thoughts are going to put us in a comfortable state on judgment day. Moreover, my understanding of the following Joseph Smith quote includes thinking this way even if it's kept private: Secretly thinking the church is wrong is dangerous, prideful, and puts one on the road to apostasy, even if one hasn't actually apostatized yet. But, relatively, yes, not so bad. edit: Here's Heber C. Kimball too

It's just the young-girls-shouldn't-be-alone-with-their-perv-bishops-asking-them-sex-questions thing. It really comes across as agenda driven to have such a specific problem example. Like -- "See, this really is a problem. This proves the male leadership thing is messed up. If women were involved then there wouldn't be a problem. Etc., etc." This particularly comes out with comments in the OP like: edit: Upon re-reading my post and this ^ quote I feel even stronger. Obvious, blatant, agenda driven drivel!

Tablets are the future!!

The thing that doesn't sit right isn't that the story is unbelievable. It's more about how the story was told, the "hot button" issue right in line with feminist issues pushing the same sort of ideology, etc... The story is perfectly believable. But I agree, right from the start, something didn't sit right with me either.

I may be more orthodox than most around here (I guess that makes me "peter priesthood". That's okay. I'll own it.) but it's hard to beat anatess for bluntness. :)

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.

President Kimball agrees with you: "Finally, my dear sisters, may I suggest to you something that has not been said before or at least in quite this way. Much of the major growth that is coming to the Church in the last days will come because many of the good women of the world (in whom there is often such an inner sense of spirituality) will be drawn to the Church in large numbers. This will happen to the degree that the women of the Church reflect righteousness and articulateness in their lives and to the degree that the women of the Church are seen as distinct and different—in happy ways—from the women of the world. Among the real heroines in the world who will come into the Church are women who are more concerned with being righteous than with being selfish. These real heroines have true humility, which places a higher value on integrity than on visibility. Remember, it is as wrong to do things just to be seen of women as it is to do things to be seen of men. Great women and men are always more anxious to serve than to have dominion. Thus it will be that female exemplars of the Church will be a significant force in both the numerical and the spiritual growth of the Church in the last days. No wonder the adversary strives, even now, to prevent this from happening! Regardless of who is getting the adversary’s special attention at any given time, he seeks to make all people “miserable like unto himself” (2 Ne. 2:27). Indeed, he seeks “the misery of all mankind” (2 Ne. 2:18). He is undeviating in his purposes and is clever and relentless in his pursuit of them."

Methinks there is a re-defining of the meaning of the word "faithful" in the mind's eyes of many. As in statements such as:

I'm not sure I see descent as required before ascent. But this is some great information put together. Very interesting.

I wonder if the message really was to make them priority (as in higher priority) or whether it was to make the equal priority. Interesting.

I suppose I must be content being viewed as a jerk when, in fact, I have not been. I cannot help it if others purposefully misreading my points and take offense where there was clearly none intended. I'm not answering a "Why don't women have the priesthood?" question with the answer, "Because women don't have the priesthood." If anything I would answer that question with, "Because God said so. Deal with it." I offer no reasoning behind why women are given the roles to be mothers instead of administrators in the church. I am simply affirming that this is so. I am also saying that the two do not co-mingle so well and to give both roles to either sex would be harmful to the other role. Trying to help me what?

Yeah...I think if this is being claimed as an official policy that it best be sourced as such. Unquestionably we need to be visiting the inactive sisters (and brethren) and investigators. That in no way diminishes the need to visit active folk as well. I would contend that writing off active people as less in need of succor is blatantly mistaken. How many active people are suffering in some manner or another and need these visits?

Sure it does. That's obviously what I meant. Women who want the priesthood are as bad as murderers. Give me a break. I cannot make any sense of what you're trying to say here. If the conclusion of the premise is based on the premise then the conclusion must be based of the effects of the premise. Huh? Edit: I understand the sentence. Just not the point.

As pseudo-mothers? Yes. As fathers, no...because part of a father being "effective" is to fulfill his responsibilities to administer in the priesthood. Hmmm. Let's see. I do seem to recall, now that you mention it, that God said something along the lines of, keep my commandments unless you have no desire to do so. Of course I believe we should do as God commands. He has commanded us to multiply and replenish the earth. You're question is built on a false premise though, as if we either desire good or we do not. Not true. If one has no desire to be a parent, one had best get to work on that attitude, overcome, humble themselves, and learn to desire as the Lord would have them desire. Now you're throwing a bunch of non-sequitur thinking at me to try and force your point. My comment about humility has nothing to do with life being one-sized fits all or not. It has to do with a willingness to be content without the priesthood even if one's life does not seem to fit the mold. It has to do with being content with what the Lord has given us in His goodness. love, and mercy, and trusting in him, rather than determining that we know better and therefore cannot be content without something He has chosen not to give.

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.

Well...okay.

...sometimes... ...sometimes... ...sometimes. Point being, sometimes callings are, definitely, related to these reasons.

I can personally attest to this.

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.

*nod* My thinking on why women don't hold the priesthood is fairly straight forward. Their role is to be mothers and that is the priority. Their role is not to administer in the church. It's pretty simple.

True. I generally choose to go with interpretations that support the paths taken by our leaders and exert trust in their knowledge, wills, efforts, humility, and submission to He who truly leads this church.

*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.

Or, as I believe,...option 3, they appropriately for the time gave blessings of healing by the power of faith and it wasn't a priesthood ordinance at all. Per policy, and to keep things clear and dissuade confusion, the policy changed so that women are now to heal by prayer and faith alone, rather than by the use of anointing and the laying on of hands. Technically, except for the directives of those who guide the church, a woman could anoint and bless the sick. They do not need to be given the priesthood to do this. Per current policy, they should not do this. Either way, it just doesn't play into ordination to priesthood offices.