Urstadt

Well, there are other ways for me to look at this, which come from my own experiences. There were many beautiful woman my YSA wards before I got married. Some of these women were so attractive in the face, hair, skin tone, height, overal physique that it never mattered to me that they dressed modestly enough. I would be sexually attracted to them in the two coldest months of the year when they were layered in winter clothing. For me: If I desire the things of Heavenly Father, then women walking in His ways (i.e., dressing modestly) will be attractive to me in two of the four dimensions of attraction (physical and spiritual) and can elicit a sexual attraction. Put otherwise, that she desires the things of God makes me attracted to her, sometimes even sexually. Especially if she's gorgeous despite how modestly dressed she is. It's just how I am. What? I have enough confidence in myself to admit it. But, I still agree with what others are saying on here that it then becomes my responsibility to control my thoughts. Especially because what attracts us to others is hardwired into us for the most part. It's ingrained in our personality. Sure we have control over some things, but many of them are hardwired and we have little control over it. Having said that, we can still manage those attractions by letting virtue garnish our thoughts unceasingly.

I am in agreement here. There is a degree--"with reasonable limits"--where we all have a responsibility to each other. One of my favorite quotes about this is in my signature (from the book Persons In Relation). I think it may be worth teaching all children that they have a responsibility to others (don't dig a pit for thy neighbor) while drawing a healthy balance between bearing responsibility towards others and feeling guilt for the thoughts and actions of others. Where that balance is, though, may be a rather personal matter.

This guy ^ deserves a medal!

I'm with bini on this one but it might depend on where you live. In my Concealed Weapons Permit class we were taught that all killing is murder, the question is just whether or not you're justified. In literature I've read on self-defense, the general concensus is the same. One article I read by a self-defense attorney stated that all judges in the Superior Court of the state I reside in, and have my CCW from, consider all killing, justified or not, murder. He explained that that's why even though you may be found justified in the legal courts, "you can still be sued in civil court because you have still committed a murder."

The Ethics of Authenticity by Charles Taylor. Very insightful about our society and our place in it.

I hear you. Cultural diversity really makes things difficult many times. We see it in counseling constantly. For example, Western cultures prize self-contained individualism and assertiveness while non-Western cultures prize communitarianism and submission. So when non-West cultures (which is about 70% of the world's population) comes to counseling and is fed counseling techniques geared to foster individualism and assertiveness, the cultural differences marginalize the therapeutic effort. But, at least you can say you did your best with the best you had. Hold your head high. Bear their burdens and mourn for them as our covenants state, but still hold your head high knowing that you did the best with what you had control over: yourself. :)

I can understand and respect that. I really can. Even deeply. :) I just thought some excellent points were made in that article by a blog that is, by reputation, known to be very pro-LDS and apologetic toward the church. There are also other matters to consider. Kate Kelly, a civil rights attorney (for those who didn't know), made some serious mistakes, as this link points out. From day 1, I have never said she was 100% innocent. But, there is enough blame to go around. In any disagreement, there is always blame on both sides. There is always "your truth, their truth, and then the truth." The 80/20 rule: it may be 80% one person's fault, but there is still 20% fault on the other. Diagreements should not be resolved by one side overpowering the other, but rather through sustained discourse and ongoing compromise and negotiation while earnestly striving to see the other side's point of view. These are sound conflict resolution principles (whether we accept/acknowledge them or not) taught in counseling, conflict management classes, I've even seen them taught in marriage prep classes by the church, and are sometimes taught by the General Authorities. We even see them modeled by the Savior in the scriptures. I'm not trying to cast blame on the church. I am merely saying that some excellent points were made in this article, many of which validated some of my own thoughts and impressions, which were posted on a blog known to be pro-LDS and apologetic toward the church. I am heartbroken that another member of the fold has been lost. Excommunication is hard for any counselor to bear when they are the ones who see the tears and empathize (not sympathize) with the emotional turmoil that these ex-members don't have the skills to cope with. For many of them, by their own self-report, it's like unexpectedly losing a child, or other family member. For me, I get a small glimpse at how the Nephites felt when they were saddened after battle by the fact that they were sending so many of their bretheren out of this world so unprepared to meet their Maker. I accede and concede that the two situations bear only a small resemblence. But, I don't know what else to say. Except that I have a unique perspective from my job, and from the philosophies of human nature (philosophies I believe to be inspired by Heavenly Father; philosophies coming out of BYU, even!) that help me understand where she was coming from and part of what was going on inside her, and that makes me mourn for her. Not excuse her, mourn for her. And, anybody else casted out from the fold. I genuinely believe the Saviour mourns, too. And, I am trying in my humble, imperfect efforts to be like Him. I often wonder if some people, especially those on OWE, would write the things they do if 1) they didn't have the annonymity of a computer screen to sit behind (as has been studied extensively in social psychology, anthropology, and sociology); or 2) if the Savior was sitting right behind them, in the flesh, watching them type. Granted, the folks here at lds.net have been better than those at OWE. But, my heart still mourns with compassion, long-suffering, and charity for Kate Kelly and her family (some of whom have had their recommends revoked).

Our church really isn't "against" it. That's not the right word, from our standpoint at least. We believe Heavenly Father has revealed the Priesthood to ordained to men only. It's a patriarchal order, as revealed by Him. Which is very much on par with the God Head consisting of men: Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit. The God Head is a patriarchal order: the church is a patriarchal order. I know of no such instance in the bible when a woman was an ordained apostle of the Lord, Jesus Christ, with the authority to govern the affairs of the church He established during His earthly ministry. As far as them being deacons, that depends on on the translation. As one user of this site already pointed out: As far as being leaders, women are definitely leaders in our church. We have primary leaders who administer the affairs of children younger than 12. We have young women leaders who administer the affairs of young women ages 12-17. We have relief society leaders who administer the affairs of women age 18 - death. Further, we have general authorities who lead the primary, young women, and relief society globally. They do not hold the priesthood, but they are leaders. Does that help at all? :)

This is a really good article that says what I was really trying to say on others posts. All too often I am humbled by better writers who say so much better what I could never say. We Scotts are not known for our articulacy, that's for sure. http://bycommonconsent.com/2014/06/19/to-the-church-and-to-ordain-women-two-requests/

In counseling, that golden calf is cognitive-behavioral therapy. When I read the OP, I had some ideas of what I wanted to say. But it's all pretty much been well-covered by other posts. :)

Yes, you and I are very much in agreement here. Why endeavour in the first place to find truth at all if we are going to cast some, or any of it, aside? I apologize for misunderstanding you the first time around. I might add that we just shouldn't accept it as the final word on such matters, either. I realize this goes against the principles of objectivity, but at the same time, we don't want to finalize a matter as "We know all there is to know because we have empirical evidence." I know that's not what you've said or are saying. I am just adding a separate thought I had. I debated about whether or not to comment on this. This to me is tricky. If I go strictly by the wording, I am find it difficult to agree with because empirical evidence is man-made. Empiricism hails from two sets of philosophies: 1) first and foremost, Cartesian dualism, 2) philosophy of science. These philosophies serve as the framework for what we humans call empiricism. It's invented from the ideas of men. So to say that Heavenly Father would create empirical evidence, based on that wording alone, is false. He never created it in the first place, man did. But, when I considered the idea that, regardless of what we call it, He wouldn't create stuff on this earth, for us to empirically observe, that would lead to false conclusions, and what could quite possibly be considered lies. This I can agree with. He is a god of order and truth, not chaos and lies. That would be like someone leave behind clues to lead a person some place but then throwing out all the wrong clues. Among "lies" and "choas" we could also consider that unintelligible. I'm very much with you on this, Traveler.

Born and raised in the church.

Since I like to blog and participate on forums, I wanted an avatar of a pen writing... since that's what I do on the forums sites I frequent and my counseling and personal blogs.

Edge of Tomorrow.

I LOLed at this. :) I can understand where you are coming from. I can. That Cartesian Anxiety is strong in all of us at times. Two things came to my mind. If they help, great. If not, then thank you for taking the time to read what I had to say: 1) there is no empirical need for empiricism. Many forms of knowledge, epistemologically speaking, come more than just empirical observation. 2) if we had all the facts, all the empirical evidence, then faith would be negated. We wouldn't need it. However, the scriptures do assert that without faith, Heavenly Father could not reward us (Hebrews 11:6), nor could we even return back to live with Him. Yeah, that stuff is so interesting. Isn't some of that still theoretical at present? I'm asking because I really don't know. Time travel, light, relativity: I consider myself familiar with it enough to want to say that a lot of it is still theoretical. But, I don't know if I am right. And if I am, I don't know how much of it is right. You are very much right that this has been posited. This has been speculated for a long time by many general authorities. If memory serves, Joseph Smith was the first to present it. Can someone clarify this?

Yes. Official church policy is that all these matters are handled at the local level. You can check with your bishop and/or stake president about this polciy if you wish.

Kate Kelly moved to Utah a while back. Her new ward couldn't get her records from VA because some kind of hold had been placed on them. Kate sent a few emails to her bishop asking him to release her records. He never did. According to official policy of the The First Presidency, the mantle of stewardship is determined by geographical locations relative to established ward boundaries. Kate was 2/3 across the country. At least, that is what my bishop relayed to me in church yesterday. And, I consider him a dear friend.

Did she preach it as some form of doctrine from the Lord, Almighty? Or was it merely her opinion? Because I am not Heavenly Father and am unaware of the intentions of the hearts of others. I do know, however, that Elder Orson Pratt shared a lot of his beliefs in The Seer, which was emphatically dismissed as false doctrine. Was his newsletter proselytizing? Because if so, then by your logic, he proselytized false doctrine. Elder Bruce R. McConkie had an entire book edition revised due to Mark E. Peterson placing word to President David O. McKay and informing him that he counted over 700 errors and false doctrines in his book. When general authorities have addressed these issues in the past, they allude to the personal opinions of past general authorities speaking as men and not as prophets; or, they that they were speaking to the cultural influences of the times. My point is this: A person sharing an errant belief may not always be considered false doctrine, as evidenced by the assertions of the general authorities over the decades. I also know that she shared her opinions and personal beliefs in the backdrop of true doctrine. That's important context there. Yes, as I stated with my comment: "Whether or not they were utilized, who knows? I only know that that church warned her to cease and desist, she didn't, more warnings were given, and a consequence transpired." Which I noticed you removed from your quotation of what I said. I can't speak to why you removed that, only you know, but I consider myself misquoted and then told something I already said as if I didn't say it in the first place. No, I don't. Considering that The American Heritage Dictionary defines "proselytize" as: To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.and, that their getting started pamphlet here, http://ordainwomen.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/OW6DiscussionsGettingStartedPacket.pdf, states: "Since OW’s founding, we have already seen this organization serve as an LDS retention effort for women who left, or were considering leaving, the Church due to their feelings on gender inequality. OW’s existence has let them know that they are not alone and has assured them that there is a place for them in Mormonism even though they have these views. OW supporters have carved out a place in their wards and stakes, heeding President Uchtdorf’s counsel: “There is room for you here...Come, join with us.” No, I don't consider them proselytizing. I did that for two years and never once encouraged a person to believe our doctrine while remaining in their prior faith. Futher, almost all the people who joined her website shared those beliefs previously, and you can't proselytize to someone who believes the same as you. If you have a difference of opinion, that's fine; I respect that. How you got that ^ from this: is completely beyond me. I can't even follow your logic here. I never once said that I don't believe the leaders of the church don't sincerely pray, or anything remotely close to it. I was talking about official statements and not the sincere prayers of the general authorities. Your eggregiously erroneous extrapolations of my wording puts the thought in my mind that you might be doing the same thing with what Kate Kelly has said or done. Yes, there is quite a bit of truth to this statement about the Israelites. But, not all of them were sinful, as evidenced by the fact that many of them had the humility to look upon the serpant and were healed. Well, I did notice that you, like another quote above in this post, failed to quote the part about Joseph Smith going to the Lord when he, or others, had questions. That's very similar to how the Word of Wisdom actually came about. _______________________________ TFP, I applaud your "Defender of the Faith" spirit. It's admirable. I would not be surprised if Heavenly Father is very pleased with it, too. However, I don't frequent these forums too much: 21 posts since I joined in November, which amounts to 3 posts per month; and I feel you've really gone after me twice now in one week. I appreciate your intellectual attempts and defenderism, but I find your delivery and tactics crude and contentious, as evidenced by: 1) taking what I say out of context, 2) misquoting me to promote your own point of view, 3) phrasing your questions and comments in ways that I take as sarcastic, condescending, and/or holier than thou, 4) erroneously misinterpreting what I am saying and then debating/arguing (whichever term you prefer) based on your illogical/erroneous interpretations of what I said, 5) admitting to attacking my comments, 6) your own admission of "working on" how you approach to and talk to people. How you conduct yourself on these forums is your business. But, I would appreciate it if you would show me a little more respect on here. I would not be surprised if other members on here feel the way I do about your past posts and comments. But, if that is the case, then that's between you and them. Good day to you, Sir.

I know. :) I was building off of your comment that it seems like false doctrine wasn't so much the issue as her actions. I am in complete agreement with you.

My understanding is that she wasn't preaching any false doctrine. I haven't seen anything on the OW website that was false doctrine. There is a statement about how a person must hold an office in the Priesthood in order to gain salvation, which is clearly false doctrine. But, a statement like that alone is nothing compared to the Adam-God theory, which came from a prophet, seer, and revelator, and has since been rebuked in later times. It is also nothing compared to The Seer, by Orson Pratt, an apostle, which is chalk full of false doctrine. So much so that my mission president didn't let us read it. Neither President Young nor Elder Pratt were ever excommunicated. My point here is not to be contentious, but rather to point out that I think both Suzie and Pam are right: There was little-to-no false doctrine being preached, but this wasn't so much the driving rationale behind excommunicating her. All of what I have said is according to my current udnerstanding, though. I agree with Suzie on this about a dogmatic, end-of-discussion does not lead to meaningful dialogue and proper conflict resolution. What I think of the matter is irrelevant per my lack of ecclesiastical authority. But, I can see plausible alternatives to dealing with this. Whether or not they were utilized, who knows? I only know that that church warned her to cease and desist, she didn't, more warnings were given, and a consequence transpired. (Philadelphia Eagles) As mentioned above, I believe her actions were more the issue. I'm sympathetic to Kate's concerns and even I struggle with her trying to interrupt General Conference... twice. However, from what I can tell from reading numerous profiles on OW, I get the impression that Kate didn't really "proselytize" her beliefs. The men and women who related to her already shared those beliefs, as evidenced by many of them claiming that they had felt that way their whole lives. But, that's just my guess. This is a notion I can't deny or escape in my own private ponderings. To my knowledge, no statement has been made explicitly stating, "We prayed and asked Heavenly Father if women should have the priesthood and He said, 'No.'" Please, don't misunderstand me: I am not saying anything more than just that I am not aware of any such statement and that that fact is inescapable during my private ponderings. Beyond that, I'm trying to KISS. According to some research shown to me by some of my friends in the church, upwards of 90% of the women in the church agree with these sentiments in their entirety and completeness. I agree that we shouldn't be demanding of the Prophet. However, the scriptures are filled with instances of the fold going to prophet and asking him to ask Heavenly Father for an answer. I just taught my 10-11 year old primary class the story of the brass serpant yesterday. The Israelites asked Moses to inquire of the Lord and he did. Many of Joseph Smith's revelations came from questions being asked of him by the members. So, I do believe there is a balance there. And, I really don't think anyone on these forums disagrees with that. I think most people just generally have a very different notion of where that balance is. Which is fine. I think many of us have this thought enter our minds at one time or another, regardless of what we choose to do about it. I have attended psychotherapy conferences in Utah where the presenting psycholgists talk briefly about the many members who have stated in therapy that they feel lost, have more questions than answers, and being told, "Read the scriptures and pray about it," helps them through such moments but doesn't really make the problem go away. I talk to other Mormon therapists who have experienced this many times. My point is not that there is a real problem here. I am not saying that at all. Rather, I am just saying that there is a great many, good and faithful, church-attending members who can relate to this. Many times, I'm one of them.

While I am sympathetic to the Cartesian Anxiety that all our so-called "science" is based off of, I am also post-positive due to seeing first hand how fallible scientists are and how quickly they toss and turn their theories to try explaining what they know they can't. Everything I've read from the past 4,500 years of philosophy tells me this. I have seen the history books in my undergraduate and graduate programs contradict the Encyclopedia Britanica. I also know that many scientists have prejudices (Gadamer's use of the term, not Webster's) against religion that sway their interpretations. Let's remember that all historical inquiry is largely interpretation. We uncover clues, artifacts, cultures, etc, but at the end of the day, what we make of our findings is largely an interpretation. Granted many interpretations of more recent histories have greater momentum behind them, but the further back in history we go, the muckier it gets. A scientist could come to me tomorrow and say, "Urstadt, we found the body of Jesus of Nazareth. DNA evidence has confirmed it along with geneological scrolls found with the body. The evidence is clear, we found the body of Jesus of Nazareth." And I'm going to say to that scientist: "Uh, no you didn't, Sir." Science has definitely done a lot of good. Much has been revealed and invented because of it. That is why I am still sympathetic to post-Cartesianism. But, scientists are not perfect. Don't scientists also belong to the human race? "Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?" - Frederic Bastiat

I can see that. I must admit, I have gone back and forth on the notion myself. I see a logical train of thought that could lead to the speculation that our world is made from older worlds but I completely agree with you that aside from that, there isn't anything remotely concrete to support it. My mission president used to tell us that it very well may have been 2,000,000,000 years that Adam and Eve were in there. I think about him saying that when I read about Laurasia, Pangea, and other supercontinents. It's fun to think about. :)

Thank you for this. I very much agree that our world is created from older worlds. I also very much agree that there is a problem with the translations of many of the words. I kind of agree with finding it pointless and kind of disagree. one the one hand, I see your point; on the other, I find it fun to speculate about the mysteries of the kingdom. But, that's just me. :)

Same here. I really believe Heavenly Father used it to create a literal Adam and Eve: from the dust of the earth. I also find it interesting that the theory of evolution came about after the First Vision and the Restoration. We know from our gospel that ever since the Heavens were opened in 1820, there has been an utter outpouring of knowledge, revelation, invention, scientific advancement, and improved quality of life. Also, Joseph Smith taught that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. How that works I am not entirely sure, but it seems to me that coincides with evolution.

I'm totally with Traveler on a couple of things: 1) there is a possibility that species evolved into organism nearly identical to homo sapiens sapiens. I've told close friends of mine that I would not be surprised if Heavenly Father used evolution of some kind (from the dust of the earth) to create man. Once He deemed it appropriate, He put Adam's spirit in a body and wham-o. 2) that death came by way of the fall of Adam when there is documented death hundreds of thousands of years prior (eg, dinosaurs). Like Travelor, I don't have an answer but a guess that stands out in my mind. Was Heavenly Father referring to spiritual death (separation from the presence of the Father by way of sin) when he said death came by way of Adam? The argument could be made that spiritual and temporal death came by way of Adam, so then I defer to a second alternative: Adam and Ever were, by the power of God, eternal beings once their spirits were made flesh. If so, this would be a wise purpose in the Lord, I would imagine. Just my thoughts up to this point in my life. Regarding empirical evidence, I would like to point out that, epistemologically speaking, empirical observation is not the only source of knowledge. Furthermore, there is no empirical need for empiricism. Man is fallable and can easily misunderstand what he observes. This is because once man observes something, he is only able to make any sense of his observations based on the background understanding he has. This background understanding is both how we understand our empirical investigations and make sense of them, as well as serves as the limitations to how much sense we can make of something and how accurate our understanding can be. Immanuel Kant speaks to this with his concept of Transcedental Idealism, and has been expanded upon by great thinkers like Edmund Husserl. Other modern scientists such as Thomas Kuhn, Brent D. Slife and Richard N. Williams, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Richard Bernstein, and Paul Ricoeur (to name a few) have expressed similar concerns and made additional arguments. Charles Taylor, as far as I'm concerned, has cleaned house on the matter. So while I am very sympathetic to empiricism and the Cartesian Anxiety, I don't consider it the only source of truth and knowledge. But, like other things, that is just where Urstadt is at. And there is no way I could ever fully articulate, in its entirety, my complete stance on the matter in an online forum (I know you all know that, though). :)