Urstadt

I think they are trying to teach a valid idea...  But that the idea gets distorted into blame an fault finding.
 
Lets remove clothing as a factor and go generic.  The idea is that we all influence each other by our actions.   The people influenced have a choice on how they respond to that influence though, and they have full responsibility for that choice. 
 
But sometimes we need to ask ourselves some serious questions about the influence we have have on others due to the choices we make.

I strongly dislike that teaching, because it objectifies women. "Your body is a sexual object, you must hide it so as not to insight sexual feelings in others!" seems to be the jist of the message.
 
It's also a moving target. An outfit that doesn't "cause lust" in one man, may "cause lust" in another man. How in the world is a woman supposed to avoid all the various possibilities?
 
And, of course, it also debases men. It teaches them that he can't be in control of his urges, which is a lie. Men are much more than their sexual urges, just as women are much more than their bodies.

I feel like this concept is degrading to both men and women.
Its degrading to women because its like saying that a victim of rape is at fault for the rape because she dressed provocatively. Sure, it probably didn't help things, and it may have made her a target, but she certainly isn't at fault. Likewise, women who don't dress modestly may make themselves the target for inappropriate thoughts, but it certainly doesn't automatically make them responsible or at fault for those thoughts.
Its degrading to men because it teaches them that they have no control over or responsibility for their own thoughts. That is as laughable as it is false. The only one who can control your thoughts is you, meaning that the only one responsible for the things you think is you.

TFP, not quite so.
 
By definition, murder is to kill or slaughter inhumanely or barbarously. So technically, even taking one's life justified, can still be considered murder.

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. :)

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.

well said.
I find it interesting that one of prophet Nephi's prayers to God was for him to fear and quake and tremble at the mere sight of sin.
And ya we're probably in trouble- morality in media that is pervading everywhere isn't far from promoting the kinds of relationship that is mentioned in first corinthians....
Let alone death and murder as a means to solve problems.
I can see why an individual would be thankful that someone else recognises that that is a problem, even if they were vulgar in their expression of it.

The whole purpose for Christ's coming was for the sinner and not the righteous. 
Mark 2:17 (KJV)17 When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Was it Mary or Martha that got Jesus' accolades?

I am confused with this post – I think???  And now I must be careful because of what is judged as being harsh and not caring.  To me the whole religious, “Don’t be judgmental thing” is a sick and wrong religious as well as anti-religious joke.  Why?  Because accusing, thinking or believing someone of being judgmental is being judgmental. 
 
I do not believe that humans evolved enlightenment and intelligence to end up stupid and making stupid decisions.  As we navigate the labyrinth of life we must make decisions and choices – in short we must become judgmental.  The problem is not so much making a choice as it is not learning anything from it.  Being able to learn and modify behavior is the very essence of intelligence.  Thus the problem is not so much is making poor choices but in refusing to learn anything form the choices me make and therefore not adjusting our behavior from intelligently considering what we have done.
 
I have come to understand I was raised quite differently than just about everybody I know.  My parents never once ever praised me for doing anything.  Their mantra was always, “You could have done better.”  For example, when I was in grade 6 the school I attended has an annual fundraiser selling tickets to a grade school talent showcase production.  I broke all records for selling tickets and for the entire history of the school and my record was never even challenged and will not be now because the school does not exist anymore (I almost sold more that the rest of the school).  When I was honored by the school – my parents simply said, “Do not let this go to your head – you know you could have done a lot better.”
 
Now back to this post.  What I believe is meant by not judging is thinking we have figured on a case by case basis who is going to what kingdom of glory.   It seems to me that most religious individuals tend to do exactly that – thinking they have it made or someone else is excluded from blessings.  That is the judgment I believe the scriptures are warning us against.  The problem is that the mighty can and often do fall and the beaten down often arise from the ashes of failure. 
 
We are all given intelligence and we ought to be on a journey to learn and become better.  Part of becoming better individuals is helping others in particular with the lessons we have learned.  I see nothing wrong with telling someone that if they insist in making stupid decisions that we are not going to forever support and that we will part company.  We should be very clear on what it is we support and what it is that we do not support in the vast spectrum of behaviors.  I see nothing wrong with telling a friend that if they insist on walking certain paths – that you will not accompany them.  I see nothing wrong with telling someone that what they are choosing to do is sick and wrong.  I also believe you should be intelligent enough from your own experience to show both by word and by example a better way.
 
One of the great lessons I learned in life is to not go into battle with someone that that will not behave properly in the battle despite how much you love them.  And to make that fact very clear – long before the battle begins.

If there is no empirical evidence there are other means to gain truth.  My point is that when there is empirical evidence – it should not be ignored.  I do not believe a G-d of truth would create empirical evidence that is a lie.  But like scriptures may be misinterpreted by those seeking to prove their selfish and prejudice interests empirical evidence can be misinterpreted incorrectly in order to support selfish and prejudice interests.
 
Yes time dilation as a principle of relativity has been proven to take place.
 
As for things of the past showing on earth being creations of somewhere else – there is empirical evidence.  For example, some of the larger dinosaurs were too massive for current earth gravity and mastodons frozen in Siberia had food being digested inside them also frozen, which would have required temperatures colder than can be found anywhere on earth and the only place where such temperatures currently exist are in outer space.

Agreed. I guess you must have been "CMC" that they're talking about. I know we've had our differences but I agree with you here. Their method is not the way. To be fair, the "idiot" comments and making fun is more the posters, which anyone can be, but if they're going to censor you and not censor the "what an idiot" comments, it pretty clearly shows what they're supporting.
 
You and I don't agree on the OW issues. But Kate Kelly is a child of God and deserves our love and compassion, not belittlement and hate.

Out of curiosity I visited OWE, and despite their preface claiming to expose the false teachings of Ordain Women, I feel it is a page dedicated to slamming Kate Kelly and belittling her supporters. There are plenty of people that don't agree with Kate Kelly and Ordain Women, my parents and most of my family feel this way, but none of them are feeding into this vicious cycle of belittlement. I think the OWE page harbours a lot of hate.

I would love if Monson comes straightforward and says they prayed about it and they got "X" answer but it didn't happen (just yet).
 
I understand your points JAG, and you know I respect you a lot and your views but I disagree in your overall view with how this issue was handled. I believe Kelly's excommunication could have been avoided if the Church engaged in a proper dialogue with her and OW.
 
As a sister in the Gospel, I feel very sad for her and her entirely family and it frustrates me, angers me and saddens me all at the same time that there are groups such as OWE who are using this opportunity to attack Kelly and say horrible things that I believe a Latter-Day Saint should never say to someone going through an excommunication process. And then we wonder where do we get the "holier than thou" perception from. We have a lot of bullies in our midst.
 
 
 

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.

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.

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.

All right. Point by point:
 
1) Murmuring against the prophet is a bad idea. Sure. But asking questions is not. You later go on to point this out. This isn't what you had said - You had said that questioning the prophet is a problem. What you had done prior to this was a red herring. Now you're engaging in moving the goal-posts which is another form of fallacy entirely.
2) There may have been some who thought this was about lifting up the Prophets above them and sought to get the Priesthood for worldly gain as per Numbers 16:3
 
Would you say that is the majority? Because I would suggest it's best to leave that decision to God. To put to you the same kind of argument you put to MOE, If you truly trust the leadership, you don't need to explain why they made the decision they did. You don't know that - Only their Priesthood leaders do, and that's the way it should be.You don't know their hearts, I don't know their hearts. It's a tragedy whenever anyone has to be excommunicated. The only thing we can do is state that they were wrong and that we love them.
 

That's a red herring, Folk. In the bible, MOST of the time the followers of God were stiff-necked.
 
Asking the prophet to pray about something isn't wrong. People asked Joseph Smith all the time for everything from receiving the Priesthood(Which was granted) to Oliver Cowdery(Which was not quite so happy an occasion).
 
There is nothing wrong with wanting the Priesthood. If asked in the right spirit, it's a righteous desire. Otherwise, Joseph Smith would never have been granted it.

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. :)

Just to be clear since my name came up.  I never said that she wasn't teaching false doctrine.

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

Urstadt,
 
 
I understand that this is difficult for you, it has been difficult for me as well.  The last thing anyone wants this to turn into a witch hunt.   No one want Kelly (or anyone else) to quit attending church, quit praying, quit scripture reading, or to loose her testimony.  We all want to heal, we all want to be embraced by the Lord.  What has happened this weekend is a tragedy, even if necessary.  
 
I've thought/prayed about this a lot.  It has caused a serious prolonged study for me on what "Priesthood" is.  I am sympathetic to many of Kelly's points.  But when one has questions, the proper course of action is to pray & knock, not to submit things to the New York Times.  We must follow the Lord's model of behavior, not the American political one.  
 
-Jane