WANDERER

You know the taking away of women's rights by making it some type of bad thing to have children and be homemakers is something of a confusion...a perception that it is a bad thing affects both men and women...the bearing of children and the caring and sharing of children is joint responsibility...let's not assign it only to motherhood. Fathers are equally homemakers and also a part of the creative act. Should I think less of men because they don't have a womb any more than men should think less of a woman because they don't have the same biological gear? Not to say that the nine month role of pregnancy isn't a huge one...but the partnership role in supporting women through pregnancy should not be lessened....lessening the role of men in parenthood in any way has huge implications. The role of mothers in parenthood has been historically lessened in the same way....where they have the children but have no influence or lesser influence over what happens to them after birth...and how has this influenced attitudes towards conception ...? Motherhood is not just about conception..some motherhood contributions are venerated above others: homemaking skills over moral and career influences...what is with that? I guess it would also be useful to examine the rights that women have in today's society. Women's rights have arisen in the last few centuries through the pursuit of male rights: racial, slavery/social stratification, homosexuality,education, war/freedom, religion, economic...all men are equal concept. Via that, women have gained 'a better standard of life' through their brothers, husbands and male members of family. This is still true in many ways. Women have the right to vote...but not equal representation. The right to vote for male candidates ..who may have a greater sucess at achieving goals within male power structures and higher heirarchy...is somewhat of an issue...so is tokenism...female representation that does not reflect true partnership. Women have the right to work...but not equal wages. Women have the right to education...but not equal career paths. Women have the rights to a humane standard of life poverty/abuse/exploitation...but it is disproportionate. Women have the freedom to participate in society...but some are still locked away...and certainly we know that participation is not quite all that it should be. It is perceived as more dangerous and unsafe for women to do certain things e.g. driving along a highway alone at night and having your car break down/she was asking for trouble type perceptions abound. In short women's rights are hinged on the least equal treatment that is possible to the male gender and the most favourable possibilities for privaleged women are dependent on the grace of the other gender (it is likely that paid maternity leave for women will need a good deal of male votes to go into law). This pendulum swings throughout history. Certainly powerful and enabled women throughout history were dependant on male authorisation of that power. We still have much of that in our social structure today. Women are granted concessions...rights involve a greater level of self-determination and more active ability to participate and have involvement in determining those rights. Not more rights...more concessions. When peace, social stability and prosperity decline concessions often become unstable. The 'rights' that are going to disappear first...before we decline to not having a vote, slavery, lack of religious freedom, war are often gender based. Violence and abuses of women are symptomatic. When freedom within religious groups the religious freedom of women will often decline foremost..aka the historical witchunts that preceded the inquisition and followed the lessening of practices of the inquisition. Its not really a gender issue of men vs womens rights...its more of an issue how to value personal rights over genderisation. The idea that this will de-feminise or de-masculinise often comes up. Neither dress nor voting has achieved that...obvious biological differences do not become less obvious. Fears of population stagnation and hybridised gender and the disolution of humanity...er...do you really think a female president or equal wages are going to anihlate the world as we know it and why hasn't a skewing towards male power already achieved that if we believe that a female president will? Why is the fate of humanity inextricably tied to the successful segregation and confinement of homemaker and breadwinner or gender based roles?

Add to that...education run by a government...defence run by a government...a legal system run by a government...a government...a constitution...roads built by the government...sewerage, water treatment and garbage collection run by the government...a national bank run by the government...it should all be outsourced to whomever is able to provide the best service for the lowest cost...plenty of countries outsource these things to other nations...you know like electricity....LOL.

Australia: Whatever the tax percentage rate is...I have no idea...since it is deducted before determining taxable income it has it's benefits. 3-5 hours waiting in a public hospital casualty department...no charge. The amount is deducted from your tax return if you choose not to have it automatically deducted. There are rebates for families,location, paying for private health care etc. No money no tax charge. Bulk billing medical centre...no charge for health care holders...to see a general practitioner...depends...no wait, 15 mins, half an hour...depends on number of emergencies, preferences, region etc. Non-bulk billing medical centre...no wait, 15 mins, half and hour...depends on number of emergencies... Approximately $60 charge of which you get back a percentage depending on whether you have a health care card or not...I don't qualify as I work so I get some of it back. I think it's $27. To see a specialist...depends on the availability of specialists, remote or populated area and the type that you are seeking to see and the level of emergency....whether public or private. Some medicine is under the public health care scheme...some is reduced...some is reduced or free if you have a health care card entitling you to reductions. Health care cards are for the unemployed, pensioners etc. I have health coverage and dental that I privately pay for ...$1500 a year with medicare tax rebate I think the amount deducted is reduced. When remote I believe the specialist/dermatologist visited the nearest town hospital once every three months (I have private...no difference with letter of general practitioner referral)...I opted to book an appointment in a capital city...depends on how good they are...two weeks booked ahead to anything is possible. The cost was $120...don't remember what the refund was or if there was one...I had limited time and that wasn't a priority and paying for it was not problematic. Can you exempt yourself from taxes to fund healthcare...no...but it is of course according to criteria how much you pay. The way medical insurance works is that you pay extra in order to receive extra services (private hospital, choices, and to cover costs that are not under the public healthcare scheme...I think income level affects this) but nothing for what is automatic. Dental is provided to children via schools but there is no public dental health care...the Prime Minister would like to see a change to that. Ambulance is deducted from rates or is it electricity...I don't pay much attention. Medical insurance is compulsory as third party insurance for your car registration. The best thing about it...health care. If you're sick, you go see a doctor. You don't worry about having enough money to be able to see a doctor. The worst thing about it...timely level of care...if you are willing to pay private health coverage that may be reduced somewhat...if you can't or choose not to pay private health coverage you can expect treatment. Both public and private options are somewhat hampered by adequate or inadequate services and availability. Some believe that there is no difference to public health care and private health care and refuse to pay medical insurance. Some believe that it is wisdom to do so...you can run up pretty high bills if you don't have a health care card (don't qualify for reduced income status) as not everything is covered though lots of things are. Dental is not included so some just pay for the dental care component. I believe I'd rather be able to go to the doctor if I couldn't afford it so although the public health care system is not perfect the standard should be to get it there not get rid of it. It is as vital as free education. I don't think I could explain the whole entire public health system...it's complex and changing..about as complicated as private health insurance...free and partially free medication is constantly changing and services are constantly changing under the scheme ....but not so complicated that you wouldn't just walk in and see a doctor because you couldn't afford to see one. Because I don't have a health care card doctors will discuss medicine costs...cheaper generic medicine...you take your prescription to a chemist and you can ask for generics there too...it's generally about $20 or thereabouts for antibiotics and antibiotic ointment for me. There are definitely holes are in the public health care system and private health coverage that people face. In support is also...sickness leave available for serious health issues as part of superannuation, workplace health support officers who will help manage needs and modifications that you need for work ...i.e. you may work a half day or whatever arrangement fits your situation and unemployment benefits for those that are too sick to work and disability superannuation for if you no longer can work. Superannuation is mandatory for the employed. Pretty good really. I'm very relaxed about it all. There isn't a whole lot to worry about.

Roland...okay...it may be helpful to do so. All things are possible.

How is anyone's faith going to be sufficiently strong if they do not have the right to it?

Demise: falling into sin...akin to spiritual death. Agreed John Doe that priesthood/relationship with God can make a difference. Command in Jesus' name. In Jesus's authority. Fast and pray if that doesn't work. If not seek help from someone who can claim it. All viable.

Yep Hemi...this is why seeking help from a person is needed. But I don't think a worthy person isn't going to be annoyed or tempted...so commanding in Jesus's name...

Sorry I disagree... That there may be greater authority resting in some people's prayers...okay... Not so much disagreeing on the worthiness issue...but that worthiness is not existent outside of priesthood? If you believe you there is no power in following and calling on Christ...... if you believe you are only going to be given over to another master ...what kind of salvation is that?

In short neither is complete without the other. Well the offspring wouldn't be complete without the other. The last thing I would want anyone to feel is that they are an incomplete person physically because of circumstances where they aren't part of a unit. That is different to a person feeling that there are aspects of their life that may be incomplete.

Hmmm...oh...I'm assuming you say a prayer and it gets answered directly..God of course...(anyone asks in My name kind of authority is apparently just fine) if that doesn't happen or you want someone you trust to pray with you, you might get a group together (where two or three gather) or you might seek someone with spiritual authority to pray with you and over you (priesthood for example). I'm assuming a personal prayer answered is a first port of call...because you're supposed to be on a talking basis. But if it's not sorted or you feel comfort and support in knowing there's a whole lot of prayer powering an outcome, you might choose to seek help from others...even an entire church. In some cases it is customary to seek to pray with others or to ask for a blessing on something...and is a comfort. For support I would say all of the above ...although you'd probably seek someone that was right with God (for the right sort of help...I expect tailing it to the most righteous person you knew if you had a serious problem would be wisdom..and not just any person of the above list) but there doesn't seem to be a box to tick for that.

Might be a bit of an issue if they have soccer and no league.

I find that it is interesting to look at the first few chapters of the New Testament. God sends His Son to the World: there are some provisions for that. roof over the head Joseph is employed have transport (donkey) education/family food...wealth enough for travelling on Holy Days and tithing Humble living ...yes....we're talking a donkey not a ferrari. Abject poverty...no. What was given and provided for? Why? How was it used? What choices were made about wealth by Jesus? Why? How was it used? Was it ever abject poverty and starvation and a serious self-deprivation of food, clothing and resources that threatened death, disease and the possibility of slavery or servitude (quite common then for the indebted or those without a crust to eat)? Apparently myrhh and frankincense were quite acceptable...footwashing luxuries were acceptable..so were dinners with wealthy people and items of clothing...fancy cloak and all. Yep it's kind of demeaning and petty to pick away at these sorts of things from scriptural stories ..do we need a detailed asset list in order to function in the footsteps of righteousness?...it's not my point... ...not the wealth or lack thereof in Jesus's life...principles towards money and all that....but that receiving grace and higher spiritual merit through poverty or wealth is a confusion over what is wanted and required spiritually over tools and materials for our physical state. If materialism over-rides spiritualism you might have problems and issues with it regardless of how much material possessions you own...while we probably all battle the level that our material concerns limit our spiritual concerns...that is a component of life. It's in place for a reason. Wanting stuff is linked in totally with the fall of an angel..an apple, taking on a physical body, atonement etc. Matter and materialism posed a whole lot of uncomfortable situations in return for the rewards. Matter and materialism are not the enemy people make it out to be...but an essential tool. It's what helps us to perceive that resurrection and what follows has a point to it also. Our attitudes and effects thereof related to stuff are more problematic than actually having stuff. That it is such a 'religious' issue is the spiritual component to it rather than the material component. You can own it but not be owned by it. Is it in any way more spiritual to opt for a stone instead of bread; a serpent instead of a fish? Is that good fruit? If that's what you do to yourself is that what you are going to do and expect of other people aka the golden rule? Having wealth or seeking wealth and prosperity and with an attitude of gratitude for them... why wouldn't you value good gifts from God? "Sorry, this might be soul-destroying," sounds like an inappropriate response. Worried about being blessed? You feel that when you are blessed it is a great inequality? Is free will a problem for you....gotta make everyone equally blessed...and what defines that...Worried about others being blessed? You want to give a blessing away...how do you actually do that...do you become not-blessed in the process of doing so? When exactly did blessings and good gifts become so ugly and unbecoming to followers of Christ? Yes, God wants you to prosper...deal with it.

Sure we have electromagnetic energy...created by chemical reactions...aka the nervous system. Anyone who has received an electric shock is very aware of that. Magnetism ...well an understanding of gravity might help...we don't really have all the answers on that one...so a sketchy understanding at best... As far as I know physics is still trying to answer that one. On the magnetic sense level...the realignment of the Earth's magnetic field, homing directions in sea animals.... You know all sorts of energy is biologically sensory: photosynthesis, the use of radar in dolphin communication, the ability of a shark to pick up your heart beat...fascinating stuff. The ability for biological senses to perceive energy forms or forms of matter is limited to the senses...thus always a discrepancy. There are far more forms of sound waves than we will ever hear etc.

Men statistically are larger in size therefore statistically men have larger brains than women. (okay I picked this little gem up from a Harvard debate...that makes it 10x funnier because it was actually given serious acceptance. You might be familiar with the concept of 'bad science'). I love this one because it's so politically viable...who can argue against obvious biological differences A lot of the science on gender differences is now targetted towards medicine and medical intervention....gender trends in alzheimers etc. Nah...male aspirin and female aspirin from the supermarket is bound to be a short lived phenomenon as, no doubt, individual genetically tailored medicine is likely to supercede it. This is because..... We are more genetically different than gender alone. In spite of that, we are more genetically the same than gender alone. For some reason it is easier to define and respond to racial, political or religious ad hominems than gender adhominems ...particularly when they are identified as statements of pride.

In the essence of clarity (feel free to exercise a sense of humour...).... let's get it out there. Feel free to add anything you have ever heard. Exemplar below: Men and women and different because men are the head and women are the neck. women are more verbally proficient and men are more spatially proficient. Boys will turn any toy into a car and girls will turn any toy into a doll.

Hmmm...roles are seen as making someone more sucessfully feminine or more successfully male ...celestialisation of such roles...though you know...gender is unchangeable it neither increases or diminishes through any job or role allocation or enforced or acquired behaviour or practice (surname inheritance, polyandry, polygamy, preference of florals over powertools, who has headship or neckship etc) regardless of perception. How can it remove gender? The concept of enhanced gender roles via greater glory and reproductive incidences might increase the issue of the man involved in polygamy but won't increase the population of heavenly children on the whole...it's pretty much limited by the sum population of women wives existing...and their issue will be much the same not increased by sharing...don't you wonder whether more godunits and more worlds would be more beneficial than less godunits and faster worlds or whether it would make any difference at all in the rate of the universe?

Hmmm.... I confess to being tired of hearing about poverty, blessed are the poor and that its as a good a ticket as any to heaven and being Christlike and such and wealth as a sign of righteousness and abundance and walking in the blessings of God...but nevermind that much harder to be righteous and a high likelihood of going to hell...cause it all sounds like confusion to me. But in the context of the Nephites .... I'm going for the concept that what you do with what you get is the yardstick...faithfulness and effort ....one penny in the poorbox or five talents into ten...the effort is measured in lengths rather than weights.

There are many concepts that have only entered into the last 10%? or so of history: no slavery, the concept of romance and marrying for love, children's rights to an education, democracy and marital equality. Are they compatible with the eternal order of things? Does the continuity of practice througout history lend credence to oposition or suspicion, despite their being merits in such concepts, and highlight them as disorder within the eternal thread of things? IF we are happy with gender differences as leading to separate roles and rights how well does historical precedence rest with our practices today? Are we comfortable with all of the beliefs in the past that were held as eternal truths and seen as fundamental differences? There are fundamental differences between individuals within genders (who don't see it as a gender issue) as well. Genetic inheritance is diverse (even without socialisation and culturalisation). For those that find individuals within genders as confusing perhaps without conditioning and social prejudice they may be able to perceive that those confusing individuals are not in denial of their gender or lacking in it because of whatever differences they have. To make sure it is clear...guys may prefer floral tablecloths and girls may like powertools...this is not disingendering. Many things don't in effect change that you are a woman or a man ; ) . Why must those things be seen as fundamentals if they do not change the order of things?

On a lighter note I think polyandry doesn't work in a partriarchal society in the same way that polygamy would be able to work in a matriarchal society.... Matriarchal: can't imagine hubby doing the ironing for his eight working wives plus the care of all the children or Patriarchal: imagine one overworked and underpaid woman of today wishing to run after 8 husbands with their dinner and laundry and all of the children. nope no glory or power ...just a mess.

I think it's unimportant....currently I find it unlikely that I will end up in a polyandrous or polygamus relationship so my perspective is neutrally curious as to what unanswered questions it poses. That priesthood is patriarchal is also unimportant in the same respect...since I am unlikely to nominate, my perspective is neutrally curious as to what unanswered questions it poses in association to the topic on the question of polyandry in the afterlife. Can polyandry exist under patriarchy? er, beast with many heads hadn't occurred to me Bro Rudrick...is polyandry what the scriptures had in mind do you think?

I'm assuming that genetics can be determined...but I'm not sure they would matter within a family unit of either polyandry or polygamy providing everyone was faithful...LOL on separate worlds where would they find someone to cheat with? Logically then, they wouldn't have a problem with sharing themselves with multiple husbands either. No doubt men would cope as well as women do... I gather that a chaste? monogamous? how do you phrase that? husband and a polyandrous wife with headship is a possibility...if unusual to consider. I'm assuming that the number of women who can be pregnant at any one given time is equal to the number of women...thus some men may have less wives and some more wives but the population potential does not change for the sum total of the god units altogether. Thus altruistically, the overall glory of all the godunits is not a number that can be increased by increasing the number of wives or in fact husbands one has. On the hypothetical level....this may not be the case on all worlds, our future world, or on all future worlds. However the possibility that seven women may want the same man or vice versa is not rare.. usually with a different outcome.

Just how bad do things have to get before people get 'caught up'...Last Days seems a bit of a hint as to what it will be like...well you know, those that are still alive...and things sound like they will be a whole lot worse after that. Coming from a tribulation/Armageddon instilled evangelical church I don't think there's a whole lot of room for doctrinal misinterpretation in Revelations: there's plenty of description of life on Earth before those people are caught up...think days of Noah x 10 and an Earth that cannot be washed clean by flood. Not God's time of wrath...but pretty sure it won't be pleasant all the same. The only reprieve for the chosen is perhaps that this is the time of shortened days. I gather there are easier ways to go than having to last it out until the rapture...not that cup please is not invalid. Probably an awfully good reason why such ones will and can be raptured...they'll have been purified alright. So yeah...I think the whole idea that the rapture is a cushy soft-headed belief that prevents people from looking at the glaringly obvious like the Bible is ?...not quite the whole story.

I think that secularisation is a response to what people find within churches...if they find that there is no spiritual sustenance or God is not there perhaps they will find what they are seeking in their souls elsewhere or establish groups elsewhere...or not. Certainly mass evacuation from churches is not a rare historical occurrence...safe prediction and hardly jaw dropping...and often the prelude to a movement of some sort....greater spirituality for some even. The end of the evangelical movement may be the start of something else...certainly evangelical pentecostal churches have a great deal of flexibility within them to change and grow in shape...perhaps because one church and statement of belief is not the limitation...and there's probably one two streets away from the one you attend if limits to spiritual growth look nigh. I have come across groups of evangelical women who think a head covering and changing the way they dress to simple, uniform and reverent is the way to go....a little out there...but whatever floats their boat. It may not be the evangelical you know that will be oncoming...kind of makes you hanker for the ones you have to deal with already...or not : )

Internet directions anyone?

I'm not LDS. I've read bits and pieces. It's interesting reading...people being people wherever they are on their journey and working things out and going through the processes. I think the general feeling is of helpfulness and reflection. It reaches out to people. It shines a light. It's a little 'out there'...but hey...what rows your boat and doesn't sink it.