Back To The Future....

[Guest HEthePrimate]

I would add that there is a major difference between personal beliefs that may differ somewhat from the Church's and publicizing differences. Sonia Johnson promoted the Equal Rights Amendment, contrary to the Church's stance. The Church did not prevent her from doing so, until her public statements spoke out against Church principle: she told people to not allow missionaries into their homes as a form of boycott. Suddenly, she went from disagreeing in an open discussion to a point of rebellion that risked people's salvation.

Although I've heard Sonia Johnson's named whispered about in the Church for decades, I'm not familiar with the particulars of her case. I can understand the Church not being happy when she discouraged people from receiving the missionaries. Did the Church leaders not squawk earlier when she was simply voicing her opinion in public about the ERA? I had never heard that she wanted people to protest by refusing the missionaries, but that makes more sense to me than ex-ing her merely for voicing her opinion. Thanks for the info!

DH

[roytucker]

My experience has been that the President of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles usually give very balanced, thoughtful counsel that stands the test of scripture and the promptings of the Spirit (especially when they release a joint statement). It is the local leadership at the ward and stake level that sometimes counsel inappropriately, as per D&C 121:34-40. In fact, as you read those verses of D&C, you learn that virtually every man in the church is prone to unrighteous dominion, so one must be very careful and stay very close to the Spirit.

[Guest lauracooke78]

My experience has been that the President of the Church and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles usually give very balanced, thoughtful counsel that stands the test of scripture and the promptings of the Spirit (especially when they release a joint statement). It is the local leadership at the ward and stake level that sometimes counsel inappropriately, as per D&C 121:34-40. In fact, as you read those verses of D&C, you learn that virtually every man in the church is prone to unrighteous dominion, so one must be very careful and stay very close to the Spirit.

Roy brings up a very valid point. In that members could take that quote and apply it to councel they have been given by local leaders. Now I am not talking about ALL councel given by local leaders. I am talking about specific councel that may be inappropriate, when leaders are exersising unrighteous domion. When local leaders don't consult what the handbook says, or what the prophets have said on topics. I am sorry that it happens, but none the less it does happen. This is why we are commanded to be baptised, receive the gift of the Holy Ghost and then live worthy of it to govern our own lives and bring blessings into our lives through obedience at the same time listening to our living prophets.

[Elphaba]

I would add that there is a major difference between personal beliefs that may differ somewhat from the Church's and publicizing differences. Sonia Johnson promoted the Equal Rights Amendment, contrary to the Church's stance. The Church did not prevent her from doing so, until her public statements spoke out against Church principle: she told people to not allow missionaries into their homes as a form of boycott.

Johnson did not tell people to boycott missionaries.

She believed the LDS Church had become so vocal against the ERA it had essentially made itself a lobbyist. Therefore, since missionaries were representatives of the Church, she encouraged those who were ERA supporters to tell the missionaries they would listen to their message about the LDS Church, but only if the missionaries would listen to them about their support of the ERA. In other words, Johnson encouraged them to insist that both listen to the other's respective messages.

I am under no illusion she believed this would really happen, and it was a political statement. But it is technically wrong to say she encouraged anyone to "boycott" the missionaries. What she encouraged was they have an exchange.

Who knows? I'm sure there were at least a few baptisms from missionaries who said they'd listen.

Elphaba

[rameumptom]

Johnson did not tell people to boycott missionaries.

She believed the LDS Church had become so vocal against the ERA it had essentially made itself a lobbyist. Therefore, since missionaries were representatives of the Church, she encouraged those who were ERA supporters to tell the missionaries they would listen to their message about the LDS Church, but only if the missionaries would listen to them about their support of the ERA. In other words, Johnson encouraged them to insist that both listen to the other's respective messages.

I am under no illusion she believed this would really happen, and it was a political statement. But it is technically wrong to say she encouraged anyone to "boycott" the missionaries. What she encouraged was they have an exchange.

Who knows? I'm sure there were at least a few baptisms from missionaries who said they'd listen.

Elphaba

I think Johnson went further than to ask for a friendly two-way dialogue. And Church leaders felt so, also. You can read a little on it at Wikipedia. Of course, since Church court records are sealed, there mostly is just one side we can hear about on this.

So, here's Sonia's own words:

In our patriarchal world, we are all taught -- whether we like to think we are or not -- that God, being male, values maleness much more than he values femaleness . . . that in order to propitiate God, women must propitiate men.

[Elphaba]

I think Johnson went further than to ask for a friendly two-way dialogue.

Like I said, I am under no illusions that the "friendly discussion" rarely, if ever, really happened. And I am sure she realized the same.

And while it is a fine line, it is still true that technically she did not advocate a boycott of the Church's missionaries.

Frankly, I understand her point. I was there and remember the Church's extreme efforts to challenge and defeat the ERA, and as long as missionaries were the Church's representatives, I think her request that a two-way conversation occur was not out of line.

In her own words she did not encourage anyone to boycott the missionaries in and of itself. I believe her.

And Church leaders felt so, also.

Well, of course they did. I would not expect them to do otherwise, and I believe they had the right to do so, though I adamantly disagreed with them.

That still does not mean she advocated boycotting missionaries in and of itself.

You can read a little on it at Wikipedia. Of course, since Church court records are sealed, there mostly is just one side we can hear about on this.

She acknowledges she was excommunicated for the reasons in the Wiki reference.

So, here's Sonia's own words: In our patriarchal world, we are all taught -- whether we like to think we are or not -- that God, being male, values maleness much more than he values femaleness . . . that in order to propitiate God, women must propitiate men.

I think, thirty years ago, she was right. Things have changed dramatically since then, and her quote is not as true as it was then, especially for women in developed nations.

Nevertheless, there are still many, many cultures who still are so patriarchal they oppress their women severely. Today in Iraq there are women who are beheaded for walking alone, or not wearing the burqua, or other Muslim extremist barbarities.

Having said that, I am not intimating women were oppressed to that extent in the U.S. Far from it.

However, people were not aware of battered women as they are today; in fact, no one really knew about it until feminists really pushed educating people about them, as well as incest, rape, and other crimes usually committed against women.

Because of this, battered women did not have the shelters to protect them from men who would kill them. Today, these shelters exist because of efforts like Johnson's.

To illustrate, my father was severely abusive and there is no doubt in my mind or hers that he very like would kill her one day. He actually suicided, and therefore she was free.

But during their twenty year marriage, she had nowhere to go that would keep her, and us, safe. The horrors linger with her to this day, as well as her guilt at not understanding she needed to protect us, her children, at the time.

I suggested she volunteer at a battered women's shelter, hoping it might alleviate some of her guilt, as none of her children blame her. The stories she tells, only in generalities as she respects these women's anonymity, are horror stories. She is completely committed to these women, both financially and with her time, and for the first time in her life, she is devoted to a cause that has made her happier than I've ever seen her. I am extremely proud of her.

Sorry for my ramblings. I just wanted to point out that if it weren't for Johnson, and other feminists, this battered women's shelter would not exist. She did made a significant difference in the women's lives who did live in terror, especially those who are in my mother's shoes today.

This is the quote I found appalling:

"Nearly four years after I began my rebellion against relation/sex/slave Ships," she wrote, "experience and my Wise Old Woman are telling me that sex as we know it is a patriarchal construct and has no rightful, natural place in our lives, no authentic function or ways. Synonymous with hierarchy/control, sex is engineered as part of the siege against our wholeness and power."

I wonder if she still believes this today.

I actually met Johnson when she came to speak at my college in So. California around 1977-78. This was before she became such a militant feminist. (I do not give that title out lightly. Too many people here think feminists of that era were militant when they were not. But Johnson obviously was.)

I remember I actually had tears that night, as did most of the women in the audience. She definitely struck a chord, and it wasn't just me who heard it.

I think it is a tragedy, and a waste of a brilliant mind, that she became such an extremist to the point she would actually say sex is engineered.

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

Today in Iraq there are women who are beheaded for walking alone, or not wearing the burqua, or other Muslim extremist barbarities.

Elphaba

Perhaps with the last regime Elphaba but currently, this is not the case. Same as with Afghanistan.

[rameumptom]

Like I said, I am under no illusions that the "friendly discussion" rarely, if ever, really happened. And I am sure she realized the same.

And while it is a fine line, it is still true that technically she did not advocate a boycott of the Church's missionaries.

Frankly, I understand her point. I was there and remember the Church's extreme efforts to challenge and defeat the ERA, and as long as missionaries were the Church's representatives, I think her request that a two-way conversation occur was not out of line.

In her own words she did not encourage anyone to boycott the missionaries in and of itself. I believe her.

Well, of course they did. I would not expect them to do otherwise, and I believe they had the right to do so, though I adamantly disagreed with them.

That still does not mean she advocated boycotting missionaries in and of itself.

She acknowledges she was excommunicated for the reasons in the Wiki reference.

I think, thirty years ago, she was right. Things have changed dramatically since then, and her quote is not as true as it was then, especially for women in developed nations.

Nevertheless, there are still many, many cultures who still are so patriarchal they oppress their women severely. Today in Iraq there are women who are beheaded for walking alone, or not wearing the burqua, or other Muslim extremist barbarities.

Having said that, I am not intimating women were oppressed to that extent in the U.S. Far from it.

However, people were not aware of battered women as they are today; in fact, no one really knew about it until feminists really pushed educating people about them, as well as incest, rape, and other crimes usually committed against women.

Because of this, battered women did not have the shelters to protect them from men who would kill them. Today, these shelters exist because of efforts like Johnson's.

To illustrate, my father was severely abusive and there is no doubt in my mind or hers that he very like would kill her one day. He actually suicided, and therefore she was free.

But during their twenty year marriage, she had nowhere to go that would keep her, and us, safe. The horrors linger with her to this day, as well as her guilt at not understanding she needed to protect us, her children, at the time.

I suggested she volunteer at a battered women's shelter, hoping it might alleviate some of her guilt, as none of her children blame her. The stories she tells, only in generalities as she respects these women's anonymity, are horror stories. She is completely committed to these women, both financially and with her time, and for the first time in her life, she is devoted to a cause that has made her happier than I've ever seen her. I am extremely proud of her.

Sorry for my ramblings. I just wanted to point out that if it weren't for Johnson, and other feminists, this battered women's shelter would not exist. She did made a significant difference in the women's lives who did live in terror, especially those who are in my mother's shoes today.

This is the quote I found appalling:

"Nearly four years after I began my rebellion against relation/sex/slave Ships," she wrote, "experience and my Wise Old Woman are telling me that sex as we know it is a patriarchal construct and has no rightful, natural place in our lives, no authentic function or ways. Synonymous with hierarchy/control, sex is engineered as part of the siege against our wholeness and power."

I wonder if she still believes this today.

I actually met Johnson when she came to speak at my college in So. California around 1977-78. This was before she became such a militant feminist. (I do not give that title out lightly. Too many people here think feminists of that era were militant when they were not. But Johnson obviously was.)

I remember I actually had tears that night, as did most of the women in the audience. She definitely struck a chord, and it wasn't just me who heard it.

I think it is a tragedy, and a waste of a brilliant mind, that she became such an extremist to the point she would actually say sex is engineered.

Elphaba

I'm glad you were able to assist her to perhaps find a way to actually help women. I agree that there are some terrible things done to women. Sadly, while we are more aware of it today than before, I believe it is more prevalent in our society now than before, even with greater rights for women.

While there were many issues then and now that displace many women in society, the ERA was not the program to fix it. Since then, we've seen how poorly or generically written laws can later be twisted to mean almost anything. Had the ERA been written to ensure equal pay and rights under the law for women, I do not think the Church would have had as much of a problem with it. But Pres Kimball warned how it would open the door for sinful lifestyles to obtain legal, and even preferred, preference.

How else do state Supreme Courts make decisions that go against the will of the people (as in the case of same sex marriage in California)? Whether one agrees or not with how far marriage should be allowed, it should be the people and not the courts to determine new laws.

Busing children was a feel good requirement from the Supreme Court. What did it accomplish? It caused whites to move to the suburbs and send their kids to private schools, leaving African Americans to manage with even worse schools and neighborhoods than before. Such meddling by well-intentioned courts have left our inner cities as ghettos, with fatherless families, welfare-minded mothers, drug dealers on every street, and kids having kids.

Roe v Wade has eliminated a generation of people that would have filled more than our largest US city. When our nation is wondering who will support the retirees on Social Security, they can thank such court actions for eliminating a major source of laborers from the work force.

And returning all the children back to the FLDS compound was a serious mistake IMO. This would undoubtedly include teens that were pregnant, would it not? Yet, we have a court that feels that having them back in the compound was of greater import. I would have granted a return with stipulations of the men leaving the compound, or the mother taking them elsewhere approved, and that the kids could not leave the state. I do not think these were agreed to prior to the children's return to potential harm.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. LDS were the first to have women voting in Wyoming and Utah. Many LDS have promoted true rights for women, but also establish a moral compass for the nation. There's two sides of the story, and history has shown that poorly considered laws and edicts have ended up hurting society, rather than moving it forward.

Sonia Johnson could have sought a different vehicle than the ERA to promote women's rights. And she definitely pushed the Church leaders to the limit with her public demands that made the Church seem incorrigible, antiquated, and prejudice - when it was none of the kind. I hope such people as she can find peace in their lives. But few seem to do so, as their radicalism tends to consume them until there is nothing left to reclaim.

[Guest User-Removed]

Johnson did not tell people to boycott missionaries.

She believed the LDS Church had become so vocal against the ERA it had essentially made itself a lobbyist. Therefore, since missionaries were representatives of the Church, she encouraged those who were ERA supporters to tell the missionaries they would listen to their message about the LDS Church, but only if the missionaries would listen to them about their support of the ERA. In other words, Johnson encouraged them to insist that both listen to the other's respective messages.

I am under no illusion she believed this would really happen, and it was a political statement. But it is technically wrong to say she encouraged anyone to "boycott" the missionaries. What she encouraged was they have an exchange.

Who knows? I'm sure there were at least a few baptisms from missionaries who said they'd listen.

Elphaba

Since I was in the trenches of the battle over the socalled ERA...I'm not going to waste my time showing where you're wrong.

You revel in slagging anything and everything LDS...Sonia Johnson did in deed call for a boycott of the Missionary Program...Sonia even believed the time had come for women to receive the Priesthood. I have no idea where Sonia Johnson is today...but I understand that she is now a self professed lesbian....

But ..alas...I know where you're coming from...She's right...SLC is wrong...My Gosh all those mean old men....bwahahahahahahaha:roflmbo:

[Guest User-Removed]

I'm glad you were able to assist her to perhaps find a way to actually help women. I agree that there are some terrible things done to women. Sadly, while we are more aware of it today than before, I believe it is more prevalent in our society now than before, even with greater rights for women.

While there were many issues then and now that displace many women in society, the ERA was not the program to fix it. Since then, we've seen how poorly or generically written laws can later be twisted to mean almost anything. Had the ERA been written to ensure equal pay and rights under the law for women, I do not think the Church would have had as much of a problem with it. But Pres Kimball warned how it would open the door for sinful lifestyles to obtain legal, and even preferred, preference.

How else do state Supreme Courts make decisions that go against the will of the people (as in the case of same sex marriage in California)? Whether one agrees or not with how far marriage should be allowed, it should be the people and not the courts to determine new laws.

Busing children was a feel good requirement from the Supreme Court. What did it accomplish? It caused whites to move to the suburbs and send their kids to private schools, leaving African Americans to manage with even worse schools and neighborhoods than before. Such meddling by well-intentioned courts have left our inner cities as ghettos, with fatherless families, welfare-minded mothers, drug dealers on every street, and kids having kids.

Roe v Wade has eliminated a generation of people that would have filled more than our largest US city. When our nation is wondering who will support the retirees on Social Security, they can thank such court actions for eliminating a major source of laborers from the work force.

And returning all the children back to the FLDS compound was a serious mistake IMO. This would undoubtedly include teens that were pregnant, would it not? Yet, we have a court that feels that having them back in the compound was of greater import. I would have granted a return with stipulations of the men leaving the compound, or the mother taking them elsewhere approved, and that the kids could not leave the state. I do not think these were agreed to prior to the children's return to potential harm.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand. LDS were the first to have women voting in Wyoming and Utah. Many LDS have promoted true rights for women, but also establish a moral compass for the nation. There's two sides of the story, and history has shown that poorly considered laws and edicts have ended up hurting society, rather than moving it forward.

Sonia Johnson could have sought a different vehicle than the ERA to promote women's rights. And she definitely pushed the Church leaders to the limit with her public demands that made the Church seem incorrigible, antiquated, and prejudice - when it was none of the kind. I hope such people as she can find peace in their lives. But few seem to do so, as their radicalism tends to consume them until there is nothing left to reclaim.

The facts are simple, Sonia Johnson...like Doug Wallace and other apostates decided they were just a little bit brighter than the average Apostle and decided to tweak the nose of the collective Church. Sonia is now a Lesbian, Doug Wallace is a self admitted Adulterer and of course we have everyone's favorite Gay Historian D. Michael Quinn. Has anyone noticed the common thread of immorality that seems to course through the veins of these socalled "enlightened" individuals????

Interesting, how those who shed crocodile tears for the Apostates...seemed silent over the passing of Gordon B. Hinckley????

[Hemidakota]

My question is where is she now?

[Guest User-Removed]

My question is where is she now?

Last thing I heard was that she was teaching college courses somewhere...and apparently quite active in Gay and Lesbian issues.

I kind of took an Ira Fuller view of her, early on in the battle over the socalled ERA.

[Elphaba]

I only saw this post today.

Since I was in the trenches of the battle over the socalled ERA...I'm not going to waste my time showing where you're wrong.

That's a relief.

You revel in slagging anything and everything LDS...

Oh wah and nonsense.

Sonia Johnson did in deed call for a boycott of the Missionary Program..

No she didn't, not in the context you are describing. However, I can see why people intrepret it this way.

but I understand that she is now a self professed lesbian....

And?

Activists are not primarily lesbians. Additionally, sexual orientation does not make her, or anyone else, wrong.

But ..alas...I know where you're coming from...She's right...SLC is wrong...My Gosh all those mean old men....

Alas, I never said any such thing.

bwahahahahahahaha:roflmbo:

Ick.

Elphaba

[Vanhin]

The OP made me think of this. I'm simply going to quote from a recent statement from the Church, and then provide a link the whole thing.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted. - LDS Newsroom - Approaching Mormon Doctrine

Regards,

Vanhin

[Elphaba]

Interesting, how those who shed crocodile tears for the Apostates...seemed silent over the passing of Gordon B. Hinckley????

The minute I heard President Hinckley had died I lost it. My affection for him was real as he was such a kind man who recognized everyone has worth whatever their chosen religion.

I realize he probably did not include atheists in his counsel to respect members of other denominations. But that doesn't bother me. I think it is understandable, given his faith. Since I am not religious, I would have nothing to bring in the sense he meant. And that's okay.

Finally, my mother, who is staunch LDS, did not shed a tear, which really means nothing, as she was sad he had passed. But I'm the one who couldn't stop crying.

You assume too much.

Elphaba

[Guest User-Removed]

The minute I heard President Hinckley had died I lost it. My affection for him was real as he was such a kind man who recognized everyone has worth whatever their chosen religion.

I realize he probably did not include atheists in his counsel to respect members of other denominations. But that doesn't bother me. I think it is understandable, given his faith. Since I am not religious, I would have nothing to bring in the sense he meant. And that's okay.

Finally, my mother, who is staunch LDS, did not shed a tear, which really means nothing, as she was sad he had passed. But I'm the one who couldn't stop crying.

You assume too much.

Elphaba

Funny to me...That post wasn't even directed to you...alas...I have no misconceptions about where you and I fit into the scheme of things in terms of the 5W's of the center of the universe. I find it somewhat comical, that post that had nothing to do with you...you took such umbrage to?

Edited June 18, 2008 by MyDogSkip

[Guest User-Removed]

I only saw this post today.

That's a relief.

Oh wah and nonsense.

No she didn't, not in the context you are describing. However, I can see why people intrepret it this way.

And?

Activists are not primarily lesbians. Additionally, sexual orientation does not make her, or anyone else, wrong.

Alas, I never said any such thing.

Ick.

Elphaba

This is America...and everybody has a right...to be wrong...<VBG>...even you!

[Redbeard]

I have nothing of importants to add to this thread. I clicked on it because I thought we were going to be talking about deloreans and flux capaciters

[Elphaba]

Funny to me...That post wasn't even directed to you...alas...I have no misconceptions about where you and I fit into the scheme of things in terms of the 5W's of the center of the universe. I find it somewhat comical, that post that had nothing to do with you...you took such umbrage to?

So what?

It gave me the opportunity to tell how I felt, and I enjoyed writing it.

Elphaba

[Guest User-Removed]

So what?

It gave me the opportunity to tell how I felt, and I enjoyed writing it.

Elphaba

Well...if that's the level of your enjoyment...Glad to be of assistance...

[rayhale]

Has any Prophet said, 'thus saith the Lord'? If so, who? And when?

[pam]

I haven't found a quote from a Prophet yet but I'm searching. But I did find this in a talk given by Ezra Taft Benson.

Sixth: The prophet does not have to say “Thus saith the Lord” to give us scripture.

Sometimes there are those who argue about words. They might say the prophet gave us counsel but that we are not obliged to follow it unless he says it is a commandment. But the Lord says of the Prophet, “Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you.” (D&C 21:4.)

[rayhale]

I was a missionary, and if you think that they had any power to make the church to change or even reevaluate their policies, then you are seriously overestimating their reach in the church. Missionaries are between 19-26 and are repersentives of the Lord and of the church, but, as far as the church is concerned, they are not leaders, they only teach people of the church, but that is really their only ‘power’ within the church hierarchy.