HEthePrimate Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Just saw this over at Feminist Mormon Housewives: Second Class Citizens - Part-Member Family. What I'm caught my attention was not so much the blog post itself, but Comment #8, about the woman who was not allowed to get sealed to her parents because she was supposedly too old!! It seems to me her bishop and stake president were waaaay out of line, considering that the Church teaches that everybody is supposed to be sealed to their parents, as well as to their spouses and children.What's your reaction? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backroads Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think it's ridiculous. People are sealed to each other all the time. Including dead people. What has age got to do with it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tomk Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Either we don't have all the facts ... or this is a pretty isolated incident. Sometimes I think posts like this demonstrate the reason why the Lord does not entrust us with "Greater Things" as promised. We agonize over things that the Lord has promised that through His Atonement will be made right. All will be in it's perfect frame. Everyone will end up where they "earned" to be ... through the gift and grace of God, of course. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Huh. I would have read this story, but FMH is blocked at BYU. Save me, Google Cache! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tomk Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Huh. I would have read this story, but FMH is blocked at BYU. Save me, Google Cache! Blocked!?!?!What about YouTube? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleWyvern Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Blocked!?!?!Yeah, really. Guess I'll have to wait until I'm off campus (darn philosophy essay) to read it.What about YouTube?No, that's thankfully not true anymore. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tomk Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Yeah, really. Guess I'll have to wait until I'm off campus (darn philosophy essay) to read it.No, that's thankfully not true anymore. :)Something about BYU blocking sites, even on campus, does not feel right to me. I think people should govern themselves. Blocking people from websites seems like the other guy's plan. March us through mortality making no mistakes. Like robots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 (edited) Leave it to FMH to dig up another instance of a (male) bishop/stake president going off the reservation and then assigning the blame to the Church-at-large. I happen to think that the idea of women ultimately claiming their place in the patriarchal order via their husband's lineage rather than their father's, is correct; but I also acknowledge that it's not current Church doctrine and I don't think it's a sound basis for keeping an otherwise-faithful woman out of the temple. Edited February 20, 2012 by Just_A_Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Something about BYU blocking sites, even on campus, does not feel right to me. I think people should govern themselves. Blocking people from websites seems like the other guy's plan. March us through mortality making no mistakes. Like robots.Nobody forces anybody to go to BYU. And nobody is looked down upon for choosing to go someplace else to get an education. If you feel you would chafe at BYU's rules and Honor Code, then I suggest you not go there. If a person is currently enrolled there and doesn't like the rules, then I suggest they leave. There are thousands of kids turned away yearly who would gladly take their place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanctitasDeo Posted February 20, 2012 Report Share Posted February 20, 2012 Something about BYU blocking sites, even on campus, does not feel right to me. I think people should govern themselves. Blocking people from websites seems like the other guy's plan. March us through mortality making no mistakes. Like robots.The fact that BYU blocks websites also protects other people from having to see certain kinds of things. A couple of days ago, someone left pornography up on some computers in a lab at BYU. They had managed to get through the filters somehow. My wife and the lab attendant were the next people to use the lab. She was not pleased. Moreover, BYU owns all the computers on campus, and it has a right to decide how they can be used, as well as how the BYU network can be used. Many employers also block certain kinds of sites. This is a pretty routine concept at the enterprise level.It is too bad that FMH is blocked. I do know that, for a while, U of U's website was blocked as a joke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Is this thread about BYU blocking websites or about the link provided in the OP? Let's keep it to the subject. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LDSCubsFan Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 · Hidden Hidden I think it's ridiculous. People are sealed to each other all the time. Including dead people. What has age got to do with it?I think there is more to the story. Link to comment
Vort Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Just saw this over at Feminist Mormon Housewives: Second Class Citizens - Part-Member Family. What I'm caught my attention was not so much the blog post itself, but Comment #8, about the woman who was not allowed to get sealed to her parents because she was supposedly too old!! It seems to me her bishop and stake president were waaaay out of line, considering that the Church teaches that everybody is supposed to be sealed to their parents, as well as to their spouses and children.What's your reaction?More of the typical FMH stuff. While it is difficult not to feel some compassion for the writer of the article, it is equally difficult not to feel frustrated at her agenda. She had the world's best home teacher, so what does she focus on? How unhappy she was that the Primary sang Families Can Be Together Forever.What, just because your family doesn't currently appear to be destined to that end, therefore no other children should be singing about it, either? We are trying to teach our children what to value. Why shouldn't we teach them this? It's the reaction to Daddy's Homecoming all over again.As for the writer of #8, the whole sealing situation is bizarre. I have never heard of any such thing. In fact, I tend to doubt the veracity of the poster. I know it's easy to deny something you don't like, but in this case, what evidence is there that any such thing happened? It's an isolated claim, the likes of which I have never heard. Give me some evidence that such a thing really happened, and I might work up some outrage over it (for all the good it would do). Until then, I remain skeptical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMGuy Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 The fact that BYU blocks websites also protects other people from having to see certain kinds of things. A couple of days ago, someone left pornography up on some computers in a lab at BYU. They had managed to get through the filters somehow. My wife and the lab attendant were the next people to use the lab. She was not pleased. Moreover, BYU owns all the computers on campus, and it has a right to decide how they can be used, as well as how the BYU network can be used. Many employers also block certain kinds of sites. This is a pretty routine concept at the enterprise level.It is too bad that FMH is blocked. I do know that, for a while, U of U's website was blocked as a joke.This probably deserves its own thread, but how can an institute of higher education limit access to information and be considered a legitimate player in the realms of knowledge?-RM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pam Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 And I will state again. Let's keep this to the subject of the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slamjet Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I'm really not comfortable with anecdotal stories. If one really looks, they can find an example of everything in our and every other faith. Some examples of what I've come across: there was one member who said that he would leave the church if there ever was a black GA. Another member was "peter-priesthood" to the extreme. Another member started berating the Elders Quorum for not going to the temple at least twice a week (yes, he is single and borderline fanatical). And that's not including what I contributed to the list. So we have imperfect people. Things are said and things happen. To get wound up because in some ward/branch at one moment in time one or two people said one thing and prevented or did something that is contrary to church procedure just doesn't get me excited. That type of stuff is for those looking for an issue to turn into a mountain. So I say we take this with a grain of salt and call it "meh, one example of something that barely ever happens" and call it a day.And my daughter is in BYU-I and they block sites. Both she and her parents are gratefully so. The ones on campus who scream about it are the ones she chooses to stay away from. Edited February 21, 2012 by slamjet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tomk Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Nobody forces anybody to go to BYU. And nobody is looked down upon for choosing to go someplace else to get an education. If you feel you would chafe at BYU's rules and Honor Code, then I suggest you not go there. If a person is currently enrolled there and doesn't like the rules, then I suggest they leave. There are thousands of kids turned away yearly who would gladly take their place.I can comment on something I think is a bit strange, whether I go to BYU or not.And being turned away from a college is not unique to BYU.Wait, are you the kid that wrote that note? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tomk Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 The fact that BYU blocks websites also protects other people from having to see certain kinds of things. A couple of days ago, someone left pornography up on some computers in a lab at BYU. They had managed to get through the filters somehow. My wife and the lab attendant were the next people to use the lab. She was not pleased. Moreover, BYU owns all the computers on campus, and it has a right to decide how they can be used, as well as how the BYU network can be used. Many employers also block certain kinds of sites. This is a pretty routine concept at the enterprise level.It is too bad that FMH is blocked. I do know that, for a while, U of U's website was blocked as a joke.Sounds reasonable from a "we own these computers" point of view, but it is still a bit concerning. Once you start censoring, where do you stop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 My brain blocks FMH via an instantaneous and severe rolling-eyes reaction. It's totally out of my control. I'm sure they'd find a way to make that my bishop's fault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Nobody forces anybody to go to BYU. And nobody is looked down upon for choosing to go someplace else to get an education. If you feel you would chafe at BYU's rules and Honor Code, then I suggest you not go there. If a person is currently enrolled there and doesn't like the rules, then I suggest they leave. There are thousands of kids turned away yearly who would gladly take their place.Your post is a bit mystifing as no one claimed that anyone was forced to go to BYU. What they said was that they didn't care for a particular practice that limits the flow of information by fiat, which, this being America, is perfectly acceptable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
classylady Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 Just saw this over at Feminist Mormon Housewives: Second Class Citizens - Part-Member Family. What I'm caught my attention was not so much the blog post itself, but Comment #8, about the woman who was not allowed to get sealed to her parents because she was supposedly too old!! It seems to me her bishop and stake president were waaaay out of line, considering that the Church teaches that everybody is supposed to be sealed to their parents, as well as to their spouses and children.What's your reaction?I read the post (#8), and then further down the posts, #42, she replies and gives a little more information. I think there is more going on here, than her being denied being sealed to her parents. I think the issue is that the Bishop and SP aren't sure she is ready to be endowed. At her age, church policy, if I understand it correctly, is that she be endowed first before being sealed to her parents. With her particular circumstance, we don't know all the why's and the wherefore's, so it's impossible to know what is truly happening. If she was an adult endowed member, she would have been allowed to be sealed to her parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I'm thinking the woman was too old to be sealed as a child, without first getting her own endowment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I'm thinking the woman was too old to be sealed as a child, without first getting her own endowment.This part she understood. I think the part that is baffling to her is that she, as a 27 (I think) year old woman isn't being permitted to receive the endowment. This by itself may not seem particularly strange, but I find it curious that (at least according to her account) no reason is given, nor was any plan discussed with her to get her to the temple in any kind of time frame.What bothers me about this? It makes me suspect (and fear) that the reason she wasn't allowed to go to the temple is nothing more than she is a single woman with no immediate prospect of marriage. I know that's a policy that could be debated endlessly, but it seems to me that if the sole reason not to recommend someone receive the endowment is a lack of an immediate marriage prospect, perhaps it is time for that person to receive the endowment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 What bothers me about this? It makes me suspect (and fear) that the reason she wasn't allowed to go to the temple is nothing more than she is a single woman with no immediate prospect of marriage. I know that's a policy that could be debated endlessly, but it seems to me that if the sole reason not to recommend someone receive the endowment is a lack of an immediate marriage prospect, perhaps it is time for that person to receive the endowment.I've never heard of such. Our RS President is a long-time-endowed-never-been-married-single-woman getting closer to 50. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted February 21, 2012 Report Share Posted February 21, 2012 I've never heard of such. Our RS President is a long-time-endowed-never-been-married-single-woman getting closer to 50.The Church has been instructing priesthood leaders for years that young single women* (often read as Young Single Adult Women) without immediate marriage prospects shouldn't be recommended for the endowment (unless, of course, they have a mission call). What they don't talk about as often is the context, however. The instruction was initially given because 19 and 20 year old women were seeking to be endowed because they wanted to attend the sealing of one of their best friends. It was my understanding that the spirit of the instruction was that young single women shouldn't be endowed so that they may participate in social niceties, but should be endowed when they demonstrate the spiritual maturity to take on the sacred covenants.* and men, really, but the problem doesn't show up with men as often since they usually go on missions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.