selek

This statement mirrors the position of every Latter-day Saint I've spoken with. Except to those who see this as a vindication of their agitation and an endorsement of their "reform" agenda, it's a non-issue. It is an unprecedented event only to those with a chip on their shoulder or an axe to grind.

Suzie (and any others who feel they were targeted)- In the event that you took my direct responses to your positions as a direct attack upon your person or your integrity, I wish to apologize and to clarify. It is my intent to examine your reasoning, not your integrity. It is my intent to your logic, not your loyalty. If I have given you cause to believe otherwise, please believe that I did not do so intentionally.

Ironically, nor do I. While I vehemently disagree with some of her rationalizations in support of the agitators, I do not consider Suzie herself to be one of them. There are agitators/arksteadiers fit to be declaimed in iambic pentameter, but I don't believe any of them have posted here. I apologize if I came across as lumping her in with them. I, too, shall add my shrill declamation to this call for specifics .

My oldest returned last November from 19 months in the Phillipines, my second oldest moves from the MTC to Fort Lauderdale Fla (Spanish-speaking) later this month. I could not be prouder of them, and am both grateful for and amazed at their service- and that of all the faithful missionaries.

Horse feathers.No one in either thread has objected to the idea of a woman praying in GC in and of itself. We simply object to the agitation and lobbying of Babylon to bring such an "event" to pass, and to the arksteadiers who fancy themselves are more "enlightened" than the Brethren (and than the bulk of Church membership).

Really? Why? According to lib-logic- and the apparatchik's agitating for female ordination and gay "marriage"- men and women are interchangeable. Their roles are identical and their actual physical genders are irrelevant. According to the premises being argued, there is no difference- nor should there be- between men and women, and the two are completely and irreducably interchangable. The supposition is ludicrous on its face: but it's your supposition, and so you should be bound by it. By the standard you and others are attempting to peddle, today's "historic" event boils down to this: A faithful Latter-day Saint (whose gender is utterly irrelevant in the grand scheme of things) offered a heartfelt and sincere prayer- exactly has happened in the previous 182 General Conferences of the Church. There are only two ways in which this Sister's prayer can be considered historical unprecedented: 1) if (contrary to all of your previous arguments) the gender of the person praying has specific, intrinsic value. or 2) you view this as a victory over the Church, at which point you discard any pretense of a "loyal" opposition. You and the other rhetoricians are trying to have your cake and eat it too- and destroying any pretense of intellectual intregity in your arguments in the process.

The Klingon Way: A Warrior's Guide

Except of course, for the tiny, niggling, incovenient little detail that these verses refer to humble, penitent, and patient prayers to the Lord. It doesn't say jack dandy about public agitation, public criticism, or public demands that the Church "reform" itself according to their wishes. Of course, the following seems remarkably salient, as well: Emphasis mine (obviously).The ugly truth about this agitation is that it is NOT content to wait upon the will and wisdom of the Lord. It seeks to move quickly, to "strike while the iron is hot", and make the desired changes NOW. Contrary to the wisdom of the Lord and his servants, those agitating in this movement are deliberately and unnecessarily disturbing and harrowing up the feelings of the people. They are no longer content to preach the gospel in all humility and meekness, but are now demanding that the Church conform to their will, rather than waiting on word from the Lord.Instead of warning sinners to repent and come to Christ, they are turning pointing fingers and accusing voices at the Brethren, stirring up contentions and disputes with little or no regard for the eternal truths involved. This, too, is salient: Not one word in here about outside agitators revealing the will of the Lord because his servants were too stupid, stubbornn, sexist, or old-fashioned to receive it. Go figure.

God grant you are right- but if the timing coincides like that, it will be a cross for many to bear. If such an announcement were made (however coincidental to the agitation movement), I would need the ratification of the Holy Spirit before I could sustain such an announcement. This, too, is how the Lord wants things done.

We are. What we are not- and never have been- is a Church that redefines its doctrines according to the prevailing winds from Mount Babylon. We act at the Lord's direction, not the other way 'round. There are a LOT of historical and contextual inaccuracies in these statements.In point of fact, Joseph prayed to know which of the existing Churches he should join. He did not seek permission to rewrite the religious landscape according to his own whims, fancies, and prejudices, but to know the Lord's will. Also, the fact of the matter is that Joseph was chosen to carry out a word that the Lord had foreordained. It did not suddenly "become the right time" for the Restoration because Joseph had the temerity to ask (in point of fact, he did not ask). Joseph was raised up because it was "the right time" rather than the other way 'round. Contrary to your implication, the servant was appointed to the task, rather than the task appointed to the servant. Had Joseph failed in his calling, another would have been appointed in his stead, because it was the work, not the hubris or presumption of the servant, that was paramount. This statement too, is so full of error as to be almost insensible.The lifting of "the Ban" took place according to the Lord's timetable, not because his servants were pestering him about it. The historical record show that the Saints in general- and the Quorum of the Twelve and First Presidency- had been praying about this for decades beforehand- and in each instance were told "not yet". Contrary to your insinuation, things do not suddenly become "all right" simply because we ask for them. You can pray until you are blue in the face and your knees are bloody that "a horse" will suddenly become "a cat", but it will avail you nothing unless it is already wise in the Lord's sight for it to be so. With "the Priesthood Ban", the Lord had already made it manifest that the time would come when all worthy males would hold the Priesthood. The Brethren were not asking to overturn the Lord's manifest will, but were asking about when his will would be fulfilled. Those agitating for Priesthood Leadership for women have no such assurances or comfort- for the Lord has NEVER specified that women would hold the priesthood in the same fashion or function as men. I dont see why the need for all the judgement when continuing revelations as we are ready for it is what sets our church apart from others. Finally, your characterization of this movement as "asking their leaders to prayfully ask if perhaps women can have the priesthood restored to them" is so spurious a misrepresentation as to border on organic waste of a distinctly equine variety. As numerous other have already pointed out, they will not accept anything other than a "yes" for an answer. According to their lexicon, the only "godly", "acceptable", and "just" answer is full supine acquiesence. They are not "asking" in prayerful humility- they are demanding a specific outcome on their timetable, and are attempting to mold public perception and opinion into a weapon to ensure that the Brethren submit to their demands. That, to continue the analogy, is a horse of an entirely different color. It is one thing for me to politely ask my wife for glass of lemonade. It is another thing entirely for me to enflame the neighbors in condemnation of her failure to deliver a glass into my hand. This usually translates as "I expect you all to pay attention to my opinions, but I don't want you to examine them in any detail."If that was your intention, I suggest that this may be the wrong venue for expressing such opinions. Statements made on these boards (no matter how innocuous) are subject to rigorous and vigorous analysis. Implicit in this statement is the presumption that we who disagree are not so generous.That implication is false. Despite our numerous disagreements, I very much care about the happiness and health of AnneWandering, MarginofError, and Wingnut. They are my brothers and sisters in Christ and I love them as such. That love, however, does not require me to nod vapidly on occasions when they promulgate error or falsehood, nor does it require them to sit idly by on those occasions when I do the same. That I love my diabetic child does not mean I give her a cookie or candy bar every time she demands one. That I love my alcoholic brother does not mean I hand him a bottle whenever he feels the itch. That I love my spendthrift sister-in-law does not mean I give her unfettered access to my bank account. Indeed. And buying that cute pair of radically overpriced pumps is important to my fifteen-year-old daughter- but that doesn't mean I have to reflexively and unthinkingly fork over my credit card in the name of "love". Again, this is a blatant and egregious misrepresentation. It is a flat and unamusing caricature of what's actually going on and of the methods used.Does this description fit some of the sisters who wonder about ordaining women to the Priesthood? Absolutely. Is it a fair representation of the movement at large? Not in the slightest.

I'm not holding my breath. I doubt this agitation merits such a response (and would in itself be a concession to the agitators).Besides, Sister Elaine S. Dalton (Young Women's General Presiden) has already to this manufactured crisis.By the same token, this would be the most logical venue and approach for the Brethren to take. Instead of trying to dissuade the strident from the beatific visions of "what if", they would appeal to the faithful on the grounds of "the wisdom of what the Lord has set forth". Ideologues and zealots are seldom satisfied by having their fantasies doused by the cold bucket of reality, but the faithful can take pride in what the Lord's wisdom has preserved. The LDS Church is still one of the fastest growing in the nation, if not the world. Our people are healthier, longer-lived, and when surveyed, generally happier than the population at large. A Temple marriage has a radically lower failure rate than anything comparable in the Gentile world. Our children tend to have higher religious attendance rates, higher graduation rates, more college degrees, and a better awareness of the world in general than their peers. Do we still have work to do? Are there things we can do better? Absolutely- on both counts. But we will not accomplish them by aping the pride of Babylon and adopting the customs and mores of those who deny God's word, will, and wisdom.

I'm not sure what you're asking herre, Talisyn. As has already been pointed out at least once, this is an apples-and-oranges comparison (at best) because it was always acknowledged that the "Ban" was a temporary thing. Latter-day Saints (as a whole) lived in anticipation of the Ban being lifted. Women agitating for priesthood authority have no such assurance. Moreover, this very line of attack- that the Church is racist because they only gave "blacks" the Priesthood because of social pressure- is used every day of the week. The demagoguing is identical, except that those with an axe to grind substitute the word "sexist" for "racist". Neither understands from whence Priesthood authority is derived, and both wish to use that ignorance as a weapon against the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

We're gonna have to be online at the same time to convince the mods one or the other of us isn't a sockpuppet...I would avoid this as an avatar:

You mean you wouldn't dock him for a paper that used only a single, unsubstantiated, and highly questionable internet source for most of its premises? I'm shocked!

Having "grown up" (as much as I arguably have), I can relate to the struggle. I spent several years (prior to joining the Church) working to perfect my recipe for "Blackgang" (Engineering) coffee.I got pretty good at it, then married a Mormon girl and converted. Before I welcome you to the board, I do have one pressing question to ask: which service branch were you?

So....only those who are willing to play along with your psuedo-scientific and anti-government rants are "rational" and "open-minded"?Those of us who happen to agree with the vast majority of the scientific community (who in turn disagree with your methods and conclusions) are not "rational" and "open-minded"? This is an arrogant, and somewhat bigoted assumption.There is much hubris involved in the notion that you are far more "enlightened" and "open-minded" than the many millions of Latter-day Saints who don't agree with you. In point of fact, there are quite a few (a great many of whom wore the uniform and put themselves in harm's way) who have followed this "controversy" and happen to be very well-versed in the political, scientific, and strategic implications: and simply do not find your cut-and-past assertions credible. Whom then shall I trust? The honorable and integrity-ridden Latter-day Saint who offered to lay down his life in my defense? Or the anonymous fringe borderline paranoiac peddling the notion that "everyone who disagrees with him is either a dupe or part of the conspiracy"? On the contrary, this is a red-herring. No one has argued any such thing.It is not your patriotism we question, it is your credulousness. On the contrary, that is PRECISELY what you are. You are here peddling the long-discredited notion that a government conspiracy was involved in the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and with the attack on the Pentagon, and that every major, credible, scientific, engineering, and media organization conspired with them to keep that truth from the American people.You may not like being exposed as a "conspiracy theorist", but you cannot escape the fact that is, by definition, what you are doing. If the shoe fits... Most of your quotes and links (and all of the salient ones) come from the same website. It took me fifteen seconds on Google (I both type slowly and read what I link to) to find nearly all of your talking points debunked. 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - Debunking the Myths - World Trade Center - Pentagon - Flight 93 - Popular Mechanics Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition Homepage AE911Truth.INFO. Answering the questions of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - World Trade Center 7, Building 7 No. Like so much else you've gotten wrong, in point of fact, it was NOT.Misattributed: 'Dissent Is the Highest Form of Patriotism'

Don't misunderstand me- I welcome your participation on these boards. I simply wonder what you hope to accomplish with this topic (and how it relates to the Mormon Church, Mormon people, a/o Gospel of Jesus Christ).

Aside from the fact that your source is a comedy show rather than a serious journalistic enterprise, the answer is: "Yes, we are aware that the United States has a disproportionately large military budget." We also have disproportionately large military and diplomatic responsibilites. So what? What does that have to do in any way, shape, fashion, or form with LDS culture, thought, belief, or practice? What possible relevance does it have other than to instigate a political catfight? Speaking of which: In other words, you came here, not to discuss LDS culture, thought, belief, or practice, but to tout your conspiracy theories.What possible useful function could that serve except to make the rest of us look bat-guano crazy for entertaining your particular political conceit?

My comment was about the topic, not the poster. If that's not fair game, then why bother posting at all?

Must be. When's the family reunion? I'll bring pie. Why not? It's been thirty years and I still get creepy chills hearing the Banshee*...

This thread brought to you by a grant from the Reynold Wrap Corporation.

Ironically, if we DON'T cave to the social pressure, our "stubborness" will be used as a cause célèbre to ratchet up the attacks on the Church of Christ.For those who wish to see the Church- and with it, the Gospel of Christ- marginalized, discredited, and isolated, this is a win-win. What confounds me is that there are so many self-professing Latter-day Saints aiding and abetting (unwittingly and not) that particular crowd.

I find the "my happiness is the most important thing" meme to be more than a little ideologically convenient. Smokers find their "happiness" in tobacco and nicotine... but no one seems to have a problem telling them that they're wrong. Alcoholics find their "happiness" in a bottle...but they are almost as hen-pecked a group as smokers. So why is it that those who find their happiness is sexual deviance (pornography, homosexuality, adultery, and other forms of fornication) are celebrated for their "courageous" choices?

No, Wingnut. Put down the strawman. I cheerfully acknowledge her claims of what she's "feeling". I simply want her to demonstrate her assertion that said "feelings" are coming from the Holy Spirit. SHE went there, not I. SHE asserted that her position is ratified by the Spirit of God. I would like to see some evidence to support that claim.

This would be a valid argument EXCEPT for the niggling little detail that the "priesthood" was ALWAYS a temporary thing.Even Brigham Young- that shining example of vile Mormon racism*- taught quite plainly that the "Ban" would eventually be lifted. Those agitating for female priests in Mormondom have no such crutch to lean upon. No, but too be perfectly blunt- their opinions are irrelevant.If I choose to give the keys to the family car to my son and not my daughter- it doesn't matter at all if the neighbor approves of the reasons behind my decision. They're my children, it's my car, and I'm paying for the gas and insurance. The Priesthood is no different. It is God's to ordain to whom he will. No one- niether male nor female, rich or poor, has any right or claim to it except that they meet HIS requirements for it. It is not ours to demand, let alone to dispense to others simply because they're stomping their feet, holding their breath, or pouting about how unfair it is. * Haters love to recycle Brigham Young quotes out of context to shock modern sensibilities and earn the sympathy of shrinking violets, but carefully avoid comparing Young to his contemporaries. This is a logical fallacy, mainly one of presentism. It is, however, a classic tactic of demogogues and charlatans.