The Folk Prophet

Yes. But I would suggest, that theologically, men and women are not equal. Not in the terms the world would like to impose, which is to say, exactly as capable as one another in all regards. The question is, wherein is that a problem? Wherein is equality a desirable attribute. Example: I don't necessarily buy into the "women are superior and that's why they don't need the priesthood" theory. But we can use it as an example of my point. Accepting this as temporarily factual: If this is true, then it is true. Facts are facts. If women do not need the priesthood because they are spiritually superior then that's the way it is. What good will it do me to claim equality in that regard. If we use equality to infers identical value, however, then I would suggest that across the board, men and women are identically valuable, and in that regard we can accept equality as a proper attribute. But this is generally not what is meant when people cry for equality. The call is for an acceptance of shared capabilities across the board. (Though this is an extremely one-sided levy.) Within various characteristics, abilities, roles, etc., etc., there is definite inequality. Why is that bad? Equality in and of itself is not an important plane to share. Theologically, men have their value that is of greater worth than women in specific arenas and women have value that is of greater worth than men in certain arenas. I know it's complicated and becomes significantly more difficult socially speaking. Nor can universal compendium justly be applied to the individual (example: the idea that women are universally more nurturing does not mean that all women are more nurturing) and so how this sort of thing plays out in equality in mortality becomes considerably more convoluted than my ideas here.

My mother had the same thought. Our conclusion on it was that they aren't needed as additions because they are reiterations of doctrine that is already in the scriptures. Dunno for sure though. It is interesting.

I anticipate much less controversy than the last site caused. :)

Yes, agreed. But all that you just said is what I mean by qualifying the word. Where things get muddy is when we introduce the idea of the Priesthood and the patriarchal order of families. Then trying to talk about in terms of strict equality falters. Men and women are equal, as I said, in what matters. But they are not equal in all things.

This is interesting in my life actually. To individuals, I think I am understanding. To the forces en masse, I am not. In battle with the Lamanites, I say, "kill, kill, kill!!!" But to the individual Lamanite I hope to be able to say, "Come unto Christ, I will be your servant, no I don't need to marry your daughter or be given half your kingdom....." Er...I digress... But it is an interesting challenge and perhaps an interesting point of discussion (maybe another thread someday). That is a balance that we are facing in our current world. How do you toe the line and stand strong in principle and remain charitable and tactful without compromising standards or inadvertently condoning behavior? How do you take up your sword against the Lamanite hordes without them feeling like you're being intolerant?

The presumption in this sort of thinking, however, is that it was, actually, overlooked. I have a hard time with that, while admitting it is possible. I tend to not see the First Presidency as that naive in most regards. I believe they are well aware of these issues even before the letter-writing and pants-wearing brigades took up their march. It comes down to a matter of trust. Do we trust our leaders know what they're doing or not? I tend to fall on the side of, explicitly and unconditionally YES! Why? Because I believe that they are led by God. I believe that if and when something is important that God will lead them to change. Even if someone believed the leaders of the church were ultimately doddering old fools, but they had a testimony that God leads His church, it would imply that in spite of the doddering natures that the church would, actually be guided, in all things, according to the will of God and not according to the doddering natures. That being said, and in fairness, I do think that the Lord sometimes works in mysterious ways, and it is a possibility that the rampaging of the masses could be the catalyst for a query to the Lord that then inspired policy or procedural changes. Fair enough. But does that justify me to take it upon myself to be a part of those raging masses? That's a different question entirely. I would answer absolutely not. The Lord may use the most vile scum of creation to His ends, but that does not justify me becoming vile scum. (And so we don't fall into meaningless banter, I am not calling letter-writers vile scum (though some of them may well be...who knows) but simply making a point). :)

Equality is one of those trend-words that has more to to with political correctness than truth, and doesn't really play into eternity accurately without qualification. Talking about these things in terms of equality muddies the waters of reality. Equal how? That needs to be addressed. And it must also be asked, wherein is 100% total equality desirable and valuable. Equality is popular, and a real push-button for some. But why? The fact of the matter is that the church does not, nor will ever, teach equality. So approaching the whole p.o.v. from an understanding that it does is destined to fail. What the church does teach is equality in certain regards. Qualified equality--specifically in things where equality actually matters. How this understanding plays into the reading of Paul is another discussion, perhaps a bit more complicated.

I'm glad someone mentioned ark-steadying, because it sums up my thoughts on this fairly well. I do have a few other thoughts. I know of no direct and specific “covenant” to sustain my leaders. I would call that more of a commandment...and the covenant is to obey the commandments. Regardless, interpretation of how to follow certain commandments is certainly left to the individual. Some are laid out in black and white, others are not. I also think that viewpoints of how one does or does not steady the ark are not black and white. And we should not presume that an individual’s choice to join a campaign, in every case, is ark-steadying behavior. That being said, taken as a whole, I believe it fair to view the practices in question as such. In other words, I know some well meaning and righteous people who have interpreted things similarly as some in these threads and take it as their obligation to join in some of these causes. I know these people's hearts and intents. I think they are dead wrong in the approach, but I do not believe they are actively breaking a covenant. I think they are simply blinded by mortal weakness, the same as all of us. I hope that as they continue to push forward in understanding and spirituality that they will eventually see their actions as ark-steadying, unnecessary, and harmful. But we all do things that are unnecessary and harmful. Heaven knows I have. I would hope that when I make those poor choices that others would be patient with me. I would also hope that I eventually get past my silly, selfish, immature, mortal perspective. I think the logic behind Vort’s thinking is sound. However, people, in general are not logical. And this has to be accounted for in how we view their choices and actions. It doesn’t change the fact that we should speak truth clearly and distinctly, but it does apply to how we temper our views of others. I’m a black-and-white thinker with many points of view similar to Vort’s. But most people don’t think that way. Most people are more Kirk than Spock (inner nerd coming out). This doesn’t change the reality of black-and-white in truth, but it does change how we need to communicate, share, debate, and address each other. This is a challenging thing for me. I think the letter-writing-pants-wearing approach is ridiculous. But I can’t honestly believe that everyone involved are covenant breakers. I do, however, based on the same logic, wonder wherein people can view any sort of rebellious action as valid in a church that they supposedly know to be true. If they do not know the church is true, then either get down on your knees, or go follow something that makes more sense. Logically this is valid. But I think we also need to understand that testimony is not a black-and-white state. In many ways it is a journey. I think it’s valid that someone could believe the church is true--even hope the church is true--but struggle with that at some level, perhaps intellectually. In any person’s journey, their testimony and their understanding of the hierarchy of the church, how it works, how change is and should be effected, etc., etc., is a needle on a scale rather than a simple switch. Not being “ON” in this regard does not necessarily equate to being “OFF”. The initial proposition, while sound, does not allow for this.

Just dropping a quick hello. Been reading on the forum for a long time. Decided it was time to join in some of the conversations. Looking forward to it. Incidentally, my username is a childhood nickname and has no reference whatsoever to religion. :)