Why people want to believe there is a god.

quote:

---

Originally posted by blitz77:
Not quite-the OT complements the NT, and points to it.

---

Some Christians, including Episcopalian Bishop John Shelby Spong, believe that the NT was written with the OT open next to the author in order for the prophecies to correctly be fulfilled.Of course, there are several references to OT prophecies in the NT that Jesus supposedly fulfilled, except that no such prophecies exist in the first place, with the most memorable one for me being that the Messiah would be a Nazerene.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[QUOTE][B]The early Christians did not believe in Hell in the same way that many Christians today believe in Hell.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Yes, that is exactly what Nos said.

​

That may be but I'm waiting for supporting information and a rebuttal to the passages I quoted.

​

quote:

---

Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

---

​

[This message has been edited by gene90, 09-10-2002]

---

Here is a listing of source books and articles of scholars and authors who claim that the early Christians did not think of hell in the way that hell is thought of by many Christians today. Here is a snippet:Bible Translations That Do Not Teach Eternal Torment"Of the many English Bible translations we searched, the King James Bible had the most number of cases where we found the word "hell" in the Old Testament. It translated the Hebrew word "Sheol" as "grave" 31 times, "hell" 31 times, and "pit" 3 times. Almost without exception, all the other leading Protestant Bibles didn't have the nerve to do what the King's translators did, that is, take the Hebrew word "Sheol" where everyone went, according to the Old Testament teachings, and divide it into "hell," a place for the unrighteous, and "grave" or "pit," presumably the place for the righteous. They translated this word according to their theology, and not according to the Hebrew. Most of the translations did not have the word "hell" in any part of the Old Testament. The ones that did, have mentioned it only a handfull of times, always from the Hebrew word "Sheol" which they translated the vast majority of times "grave, underworld, etc.." Those translations that use the word "hell" are so inconsistent with it, that it is impossible to determine which Scriptures clearly refers to "hell" and which refers to "grave." Where one translation had "hell," another had "grave." In other words, those translations that tried to put "hell" into the Old Testament couldn't agree with each other as to which verses spoke of "hell" and which spoke of the "grave."BTW, Gene, don't you think it is a little rich of you to quote the forum rules at me when you have ignored several points and questions of mine on another topic?http://what-the-hell-is-hell.com/HellScholars.htm

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Hey Schrafinator,

​

As a non-Protestant with an unusual (by Christian standards) view of Hell that's an interesting page. But perhaps you could clear something up. The author quotes Young's Literal Translation:

​

[QUOTE][B]and the Devil, who is leading them astray, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are the beast and the false prophet, and they shall be tormented day and night-to the ages of the ages.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Then the author uses this passage to conclude:

​

[QUOTE][B]There is no "hell" or "eternal punishment" in entire Bible.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

So basically we have a pit of fire and brimstone where the "torment" never ends, as opposed to a place with the name "Hell" where we have "eternal punishment"?

​

Still smells like sulfur.[/QUOTE]

​

Sure, I'll clear it up for you.

​

The passage makes no mention of the lake of brimstone as a place for sinners. It mentions the Devil, and it mentions the false prophet, but not sinners.

​

[QUOTE]Ignored your points? I've always ignored points from the first debate I had with a YEC. Too many small issues that don't interest me. Nobody has called me on it before.

​

John: thanks for the link. [/B]

---

I'm sorry that you think that the misogyny in LDS culture is a small, irrelevant point that isn't interesting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]The passage makes no mention of the lake of brimstone as a place for sinners. It mentions the Devil, and it mentions the false prophet, but not sinners.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Does it *have* to mention that sinners go there too?[/QUOTE]

​

I don't know. Does it?

​

quote:

---

It certainly implies it now, don't you think?

---

​

Well, no, not particularly. There is nothing in that phrase which leads me to the conclusion that all sinners are going to be sent there for eternity. It doesn't imply that at all, actually. The only reason one might think that is if you were inclined to already believe that when you read it. It would be different if this description of hell was specifically mentioned as a place for sinners a great many times in the Bible, but it isn't.

​

quote:

---

I believe the pronoun used is "they" and there is a certain amount of ambiguity.

---

​

Well, that's the whole point, isn't it? Interpretation is everything when it comes to the Bible. Particulary of things in the Bible like Satan and Hell which are mythical, non-physical concepts. Why is your interpretation right and everyone else's wrong? Revelation? If so, then why bother arguing if it's all just a sermon in the end.

​

quote:

---

By the way, will you concede that the claim of the author, that "there is no 'hell' or eternal punishment in (sic) entire Bible" is false? Because in the quote directly above the obviously false claim is the refutation of that very claim.

---

​

If you mean that there is no eternal punnishment concept of sinners in the bible, rather than eternal punishment of Satan, etc., then I am not sure it has been refuted.

​

quote:

---

I'm sorry that you think that the misogyny in LDS culture is a small, irrelevant point that isn't interesting.

---

​

---

I wonder why non-members who are not affected by LDS practice, are concerned about it at all.[/QUOTE]That's kind of like asking why women in America should be concerned with women in Africa who are subjected to female genital mutilation, since they are not affected by the practice.I am a human being. Any institution that encourages and promotes putting limits on what a person can do solely on the basis of gender, as LDS does, is an affront to me as a human being.I would not be living up to my values and morality if I remained silent.In addition, don't you think it is cruel and hypocritical, given that LDS markets itself as being all about "family", that they do not allow non LDS family and loved ones to witness the weddings of their LDS children/friends? Don't you think that this is a way of pulling the LDS convert away from their families and friends and telling them that only LDS people are "worthy" and "right"?<< Especially since I certainly haven't seen any of the alleged 'domination' or whatever it is you claim is going on and I wouldn't stand for it if there were.>>The misogyny is there in the hearts and minds of the women, as well. That is how it is propagated.The women are told that they shouldn't want to be in the preisthood (you could substitute "boardroom" or "workplace" in the general culture). Good women support their families and run the houshold because it is there place to do so; God (the natural order of things) says so.I am not talking about blatant brutalization. I am talking about a culture which relegates ALL women and ALL men in the LDS church to certain roles. This is oppression.

quote:

---

I find it somewhat offensive that you are accusing my culture of a hatred of women. More offensive is that, since I am a male, and a part of LDS culture, the (heretofore unmentioned and undoubtedly unintended) implication is that I'm either one of those 'oppressors' or am being conditioned to become one.

---

Well, is it not an undeniable fact that a little LDS boy could potentially think "I could be a Bishop or even the Prophet someday" and that it could actually happen?However, if a little LDS girl thought about being a Bishop or a Prophet, it just isn't gonna happen, or at least is EXTREMELY unlikely, and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure? What about a little LDS girl not wanting to get married and have kids right away, or at all? What kind of pressure to conform is she going to get from an early age? What about gay people?Is it or is it not true that no women ever has any authority over any man in the administrative hierarchy of the LDS church?

quote:

---

Remember that any categorical claims regarding LDS cultural practices are also claims that involve me.

---

I am aware.

quote:

---

You also called my perspective 'insider thinking'. Well to me it is no different than the blatant insider thinking sometimes used when we tell a YEC with little science background that he lacks the credentials and/or information to argue with people who have degrees or a background in science.

---

It is different, Gene, because I could learn every little doctrinal detail about LDS and memorize the Book of Mormon, and I could interview every current and former Mormon church member alive, but you would still tell me that I don't "really understand" because I am not a believer.You believe what you do because you claim that the holy spirit came over you and told you it was true. I have not had that experience, so you can always trump me whenever you feel like it by saying that the holy spirit spoke to you and told you whatever.You are using the insider thinking fallacy, and that is why.

quote:

---

That is also insider thinking, and its friend the argument from authority, is it not? And is it not a practical issue? I think it was Larry Handlin who once asked an opponent (paraphrasing), "If I were seriously ill, would I seek advice from a doctor or a janitor?" I would tend to go after advice from somebody who would likely know.

---

If I am going to seek a critical and objective view of a religion, I am not going to ask people who are proponents of that religion. This, by definition, would not get me a critical, relatively unbiased analysis.

quote:

---

Another point that needs to be made regarding LDS treatment of women is the Spotlight Fallacy.

---

To be fair to LDS, most religions, and many stripes of Christianity, not just LDS, do not treat women very well.OTOH, there are many sites on the internet containing long, long lists of stories from ex-Mormons who have been abused and intitutionally marginalized by the misogyny of the church.Here is just one;Recovery from Mormonism - the Mormon ChurchAlso, here is some info regarding the LDS church's effort to suppress a scientific paper from being published. As someone who seems to have as much love of science as you do, this might disturb you:Page not found - American Atheists------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

By the way, I seem to have overlooked the part where you conceded that an author you quoted was obviously wrong, contradicted by his own quote.

​

[QUOTE][B]If you mean that there is no eternal punnishment concept of sinners in the bible, rather than eternal punishment of Satan, etc., then I am not sure it has been refuted. [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

The author did not specify sinners, he said that 'there was no eternal punishment in the Bible'.

---

If you are going to be this strict with what the author says, then you are correct.Therefore, do you also concede that one can also take a strict meaning of who the lake of fire and brimstone is for, and it is for the false prophet and Satan? It makes no mention of sinners, so why not be strict in the interpretation? Or is it arbitrary depending upon how you are inclined to believe before you read the passage?I do think that when one reads the entire essay that the author is clearly talking about no eternal punishment for people, because this is what would affect us. [QUOTE][B]In addition, don't you think it is cruel and hypocritical, given that LDS markets itself as being all about "family", that they do not allow non LDS family and loved ones to witness the weddings of their LDS children/friends? Don't you think that this is a way of pulling the LDS convert away from their families and friends and telling them that only LDS people are "worthy" and "right"?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

No, it is protecting the spiritual worthiness of the temple. And it isn't just non-LDS people, it is people that do not live righteously, as defined by the church.

---

So, what is the frequency, really, of LDS members being excluded from a wedding if they were invited?

quote:

---

Also, the couple can have a ring-exchanging ceremony outside the temple first if they would prefer, it is a common practice. However the temple ordinance is required.

​

Of course as a lot of couples aren't ready for the temple when they wed, quite a few have a civil marriage outside of church workings and get sealed later.

---

OK, let me get this straight. The LDS church promotes itself as being very concerned with "family". However, they exclude all non-mormon family members from wedding ceremonies of LDS members, not caring in the least how much this hurts non members. There is a BIG difference between witnessing an actual ceremony and a ring-exchange. It's like being present at the birth of a child or watching a reenactment. To deny parents the opportunity to witness their children's marriages is cruel and unfeeling and divisive.You may say that the reason they do this is to protect the sanctity of the temple, but I am talking about the real effects on real people who aren't Mormon. This practice serves to cause conflict and pain in families, except all-Mormon families. [QUOTE][B]The misogyny is there in the hearts and minds of the women, as well.[/QUOTE][/B]What you mean is, most LDS women don't want the priesthood, just like I don't want the bishopric.[/QUOTE]Why do you think that is? How did they learn that they didn't want that?We are taught by our cultures what we should want, and what is an appropriate occupation or role for us.Strict gender roles and expectations are not healthy. It is the exact same justification for the "separate but equal" racial segregation attitude, which is, of course, never really equal.

quote:

---

What you mean is, that this issue is being forced at the church from the outside, and is being trumped almost exclusively by those that watch from the sidelines, and those who are, quite simply, enemies of the church.

---

Not true. There have been Mormon feminists who have been excommunicated for speaking out for women's rights. Other Mormon scholars who say things critical of LDS or contradictory to current doctrine are also excommunicated. This is not pressure from the outside. This is pressure from the inside which is not being tolerated and is being dealt with in the most severe fashion.The LDS (Mormon) September Six – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)It seems that the thought police are alive and well inside LDS.Look, if Mormons want their way of life to never change or be influenced by the greater culture, then they will probably have to start living more like the Amish and cut themselves off from modern society. If they want to portray themselves as a mainstream religious organization, with all of their people out in the wider world, getting educated in various universities and coming into contact with all sorts of "ideas", then they should expect that the greater culture is going to have an effect.According to some things that I have read, a lot of the Temple ceremony was completely changed by the leaders in 1990, and what was taken out was pretty much all of the misogynyst, anti-protestant, and somewhat gruesome Masonic symbolism. If the Temple rites were so sacrosanct, God-given and perfect for 150 years, why were they changed to reflect change in modern society? [QUOTE][B]Good women support their families and run the houshold because it is there place to do so; God (the natural order of things) says so.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

Yeah, I would expect a woman ("good" or not) to help support the family and do her part running the household.

---

So would I.

quote:

---

If this is a typo and you are implying that I think that women should all be stay-at-home-moms that is not what I think, I think mothers should be equals with men as far as holding down professional careers, etc.

---

But not equals in other ways? What ways?

quote:

---

However I also hold to the position that men and women do have their own roles to play. Just as the sexes are biologically different they are different spiritually. Left to our own devices we are not equal: We have the priesthood because it is our lot and I believe that it helps make up the difference.

---

Left to our own devices we are not equal?? What are you talking about? I am not talking about men and women being the same. I am talking about men and women being able to express their fullest human potential, unfettered by strict gender roles and the threat of the loss of their souls if they falter from a path that they did not choose for themselves, but was decided for them on the basis of their gender. [QUOTE][B]However, if a little LDS girl thought about being a Bishop or a Prophet, it just isn't gonna happen, or at least is EXTREMELY unlikely, and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

You make it sound like we males all have ambitions to be bishops or prophets, as if we can file a job application with God and have an interview.

---

This is not what I mean. What I meant to say is that if a little LDS boy sees men, and only men, in "big" descision-making positions and in the most important role (Prophet) in his church, then he will automatically consider that it is possible that he might be there one day. i.e. males are important because they have important jobs, like revealing God's will!If a little girl sees that women only are allowed to progress so far in leadership and descision making and importance (they don't ever get to reveal god's will), this tells her that women can't do these things because they are less able or less important. Institutionally, most of the world tells women, subtly or not so subtly, that the highest, most important offices and positions are not appropriate for women simply because they are women.I do not believe this to actually be true, but much of the world operates as if it is true, including many sects of Christianity, including the LDS church.

quote:

---

Doesn't work that way. Bishops and prophets are chosen by prophecy.

---

Men are the interpreters and deliverers of prophecy, right?

quote:

---

If I were to ever be a bishop it would not be by my own choice; I could decline the offer but there is absolutely nothing I could ever do to set about *trying to become* a bishop, except of course living a good life.

---

Except that you are a male, so you have this choice offered to you at all.Also, what reprocussions, formal or social, are there to someone who declines the bishopric?Come, on, Gene, you can't really think that human preference doesn't have anything at all to do with becoming "promoted" inside the church higherarchy, do you?

quote:

---

Your view of the church seems to be similar to that of a competitive marketplace and power-jostling. If you can find a ward that acts like that I'll show you a ward that's fallen from grace in a huge way.

---

Power struggle is inherent in all human relationships, and with an organization as wealthy and large and strict as the LDS church, and with it's emphasis upon obedience, there is no way power isn't a part of the fabric. It may not be blatant, and it may not even be visible to most, but all LDS people are human, and therefore deal in power by nature.That is why they think it is OK to excommunicate people for being Mormon and feminist and writing about it publically. You don't do that unless you want to show other Mormon feminists what will happen to them if they dare to do the same. [QUOTE][B]I am not talking about blatant brutalization. I am talking about a culture which relegates ALL women and ALL men in the LDS church to certain roles. This is oppression.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

How is it oppression to have a division of labor?

---

Division of labor by itself is perfectly fine. However, when someone else is deciding the division of labor for you, and you have little to no say in the matter, and cannot change who does what very easily or at all without adverse consequences, it is oppressive.

quote:

---

If you see life in that way then you have been oppressed by birth, simply by being relegated to a gender. By virtue of your very biology you are oppressed.

---

No, I am oppressed when people consider my biology to be indicative of what I can or should do in all or many areas of my life.

quote:

---

It seems to me that if you have sort of dismal view of the world then you need to work things out with God Himself rather than with a church because there are more fundamental issues than in human society, the workplace, or the church.

---

No, I don't have a dismal view of the world! I think the world is getting better with regards to the treatment of women, except that certain religious sects, among numerous institutions, are resisting this.Surely you aren't going to say that the Taliban, for instance, instituted a simple "division of labor" between women and men? I am not equating LDS and the Taliban by any means, but many of the issues, though different in severity, are the same.

quote:

---

By the way, if you aren't talking about 'blatant brutalization' why did you compare LDS culture to female genital mutilation?

---

It was an extreme example provided for clarity. You asked why I should care about something that doesn't affect me directly, and I gave an example of something even more distant from me directly that I still am emotionally and morally affected by. [QUOTE][B] What about a little LDS girl not wanting to get married and have kids right away, or at all?[/QUOTE][/B][QUOTE]I don't know about little girls that don't want to have kids right away but if I can think of a few LDS women about my age who are more interested in education so that they can have careers and also missions rather than having marrying and having kids.I can also think of clear messages from the church leadership telling the young adults that they need a college education to survive and imploring them to go out and get one. [QUOTE][B]What kind of pressure to conform is she going to get from an early age? [/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

She's going to have pressure to live a good life and be worthy of a temple marriage and possibly serve a mission. That's exactly the same pressure (or perhaps I should say, 'encouragement') the young men receive.

---

So, everybody is pressured to get married? Why? What about pressure to have large families? [QUOTE][B]and that it would take a huge upheaval in the LDS power structure?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

We don't have 'huge upheavals' in the 'power structure'. Look at LDS history. We sometimes lose people but that's all there is to it.

---

That's my point! The status quo is protected vigorously, so a LDS scholar's idea of, and evidence in scripture for, a Heavenly Mother is grounds for excommunication. [QUOTE][B]It is different, Gene, because I could learn every little doctrinal detail about LDS and memorize the Book of Mormon, and I could interview every current and former Mormon church member alive, but you would still tell me that I don't "really understand" because I am not a believer.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

You can read material on carbon dating all day long but I wouldn't take you as seriously as I would somebody who does the test.

---

But anybody could learn to do the carbon date test. They don't have to "believe" anything or have a special feeling or have God or the Holy Spirit come into them to get accurate results on the test.You, Gene, do not dismiss people just because they haven't done carbon dating tests themselves, so why dismiss anyone's opinion of LDS just because they are non-members? Could it be that I disagree with you, so you feel OK with dismissing me?

quote:

---

Interviewing members would be an excellent thing for you to do, however. I heartily recommend it.

---

I have stayed in the house of one for a week, and have been her close friend since several years before she converted, does that count?I'll interview an LDS member if you will interview an ex-member who feels that the church was damaging to them.

quote:

---

Yes I can trump you any time I like by bring up the spirit but I'm working around that.

---

I don't see how you are working around that, since you have told me several times that, "it's a Mormon thing, you wouldn't understand." [QUOTE][B]If I am going to seek a critical and objective view of a religion, I am not going to ask people who are proponents of that religion.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

So, instead, you are going to get a 'critical and objective view' from people who are openly opposed to the religion?

---

Certainly more critical, yes. Less objective, but a believer would provide the complete opposite of objective, so it is likely to be a more realistic view.

quote:

---

Look, the site you mentioned about my church allegedly interfering with a publication (more likely some misguided official at BYU acting at his own discretion than the church itself) also is pushing this:
Page not found - American Atheists

​

Apparently we can't recognize lands that are a vital part of our history. These guys are atheists. They sit around from nine to five thinking about waging holy war against religion in every way, shape, and form. Hardly an unbiased source.

​

Another source you used was a site that specializes in opposing church progress. They are like the atheists only LDS are their particular specialty. You should look for unbiased sources but good luck in finding any. We have what Nos calls a 'persecution complex'. A look at history will show why.

---

Um, Gene? How about discussing the CONTENT and FACTS of the links I posted?Gene says, in effect:"Most sources of information on LDS are biased, so you can't really believe any of them, so I won't address the issues and instead attack the source of the information because it is critical of my position."I have heard this line of bull before many, many times, but from YEC. Are you really stooping to this level, Gene?

quote:

---

One more thing, are you actually after a 'fair and uncritical view' of LDS culture and religion, or are you just debating the point?

​

If it is the former then you are breaking a tenet of sociology.
http://www.sociology.org.uk/p2d4.html

---

I don?t really care about sociological tennets. I am debating. [QUOTE][B] What about gay people? [/QUOTE][/B]What about them?
http://www.mormon.org/...y/answer/0,9777,1601-1-60-1,00.htmlIt sounds to me that one cannot be LDS and gay unless one wants to live their life without a close loving relationship which is also a sexual one, since gay sex is forbidden. It sounds to me like your church doesn't even really accept that gay people are actually really gay and that being gay is to be likened to a transient "strong urge" that all people have "from time to time". What a joke! Gene, you don't really think that this is a realistic or anywhere close to accurate view of homosexuality, do you?

quote:

---

My point about the Spotlight Fallacy was not that LDS should be compared to other sects but that I know there are going to be chauvinists in the church just as there will be in any other large organization. There are also going to be people out that lose the spirit and cannot properly execute their duties. It is inevitable that there will be some abuse somewhere in the organization, as I have been told, by many different people, that members are not 'perfect' and I don't expect anyone to be. I just don't think the abuse is the norm, I think that the Spotlight Fallacy is at work here.

---

Well, it certainly seems as though you are not willing to consider that any source critical of LDS practices might actually be accurate.I am not really talking about individual members. I am talking about institutionalized sexism and misogyny which is promoted and protected by the higherarchy. [QUOTE][B]Is it or is it not true that no women ever has any authority over any man in the administrative hierarchy of the LDS church?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

Conditionally true. First of all we are required to serve others regardless of rank in the hierarchy. Secondly I'd take orders from the LDSSA President (who happens to be female), the Relief Society brass, the administrator of any department of the church, etc. Then there's that lady who assigned me my role in the conference this weekend and is basically running the show.

​

No, I'm not exactly immune to female leadership.

​

But the argument you used is disingenuis because females have a place in the Relief Society hierarchy and males have a place in the Priesthood. Some males get to be bishops and stake presidents, some females get to be Relief Society presidents and hold similar offices. (Since I'm male I'm more familiar with the priesthood than with RS, but I'll be sure and let you know if I ever find anything that the women are missing out on).

---

Don't women miss out on delivering the word of God to the Church, or interpreting prophecy, or being prophets, or making institution-wide changes? In other words, running the whole show is not an option for women simply because they are women, correct?------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gene90:
[B][QUOTE][B]It makes no mention of sinners, so why not be strict in the interpretation?[/QUOTE][/B]Sure. I can live with that one passage not mentioning sinners. However I still interpret the Bible-wide implication being that sinners suffer some kind of punishment.Why does the author of that site depend on a strict interpretation of a passage and then immediately switch to a liberal interpretation of the same whenever it suits him? Is that not selective thinking?[/QUOTE]Sure, it's selective thinking, just like any other interpretation of the Bible! You are choosing to interpret the passage less strictly so it fits your preferred worldview of sinners being punished in the afterlife, and the author chooses to interpret the passage more strictly because he does not hold the same worldview as you.That's the problem with religious interpretation. Everybody is right and everybody is wrong. That was my whaole point in the first place. [QUOTE][B]So, what is the frequency, really, of LDS members being excluded from a wedding if they were invited?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

I'm not aware of such studies and I lack the experience to venture an honest guess. But how is this more important than the non-member families being excluded? Your argument was good enough to begin with. However, my opinion on the matter still stands, and the civil ceremony option is still there.

---

It is an important point because you contend that the LDS policy isn't really there to exclude non-mormons, but to exclude "all unworthies", including the non-member parents and family of the LDS member, is to put them into the "unworthy" category. You tried to soften this idea by including the notion that even members could be excluded if it was commanded by the upper-ups. I was just wondering if this was just lip service and that invited members who were members were pretty much always let in, while non-members, were never let in. [QUOTE][B]. The LDS church promotes itself as being very concerned with "family". However, they exclude all non-mormon family members from wedding ceremonies of LDS members[/QUOTE][/B]Temple wedding ("sealing") ceremonies, not whatever other ceremonies the couple chooses to have.

quote:

---

Remember, however, that the couple is electing to have the temple ceremony. They do this of their free will. They can have a civil ceremony if they choose or they can elope to Las Vegas as easily as anyone else.

​

The LDS church teaches that a temple sealing, at some point, is necessary for the marriage to be eternal. It is the legal right of the church, under the US Constitution's Freedom of Religion, to do this.

​

It is the moral right of the couple to practice their religion as their conscience dictates.

​

Where is the problem here?

---

I don't have a problem with individuals. I have a problem with the policy of the LDS church which is hurtful and divisive to non-members in this regard. The church policy is contributing to division and pain within the "unworthy" family.If the policy was different and family members were allowed to witness and share this important life moment with their loved-one, don't you think that all of the parents would be there? And don't you think that all of the children would be glad to have their parents there? [QUOTE][B]not caring in the least how much this hurts non members. [/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

Non-members have their own rights to worship as they choose, or not worship as they choose. To be non-LDS is not something they are by birth it is what they are by choice.

​

You may say that the reason they do this is to protect the sanctity of the temple, but I am talking about the real effects on real people who aren't Mormon.

​

​

I'm talking about the right of a religion to worship as they please.

---

Ah, but herein lies the hypocracy of the LDS church marketing itself as being concerned with the "family". I really wouldn't be objecting so hard to this policy if the church didn't pound the drum of "family is the most important thing" all of the time. If they want to be secretive and divisive, and stipulate that the only important and "worthy" family is the LDS family, then fine, but at least be honest about it. The LDS church isn't honest about it.And wait, are you saying that everyone is LDS by birth? How very...strange....and arrogant.

quote:

---

Now, there is something in your argument I don't quite follow.

​

The assumption is that non-members want to be present in the temple for the sealing. This is because it's the wedding of someone important to them. However, the non-member, by definition, does not accept LDS doctrine or accept that the sealing ordinance is even necessary. Their concern is the legal aspect of the marriage.

​

Therefore, how is the temple session any different to that non-member from a civil service or a public ring-exchanging ceremony? Would a person who believed LDS doctrine was incorrect and did not participate in the temple session but did attend the ring-exchaning consider that public ceremony to be the "true" wedding?

​

Or is this objection to the ceremony simply the meaningless psychological implication of feeling 'excluded', even though the person believes the session is, at best, of no value, or at worse, heretical?

---

I have attended many religious weddings. As I am an Agnostic, I did not share the personal religious beliefs of the people being married. I did, however, feel very honored to have been considered important enough to one or both of the couple to have been invited to share in their special day and to be witness to what was an important spiritual event to them. My feelings about the "validity" of the mysical nature of the ceremony; it's spiritual "truth", so to speak, is irrelevant. It is important that one's loved ones and close family be around them in times like this. Weddings are important.I know it hurt my friend deeply that her father, in particular, wasn't allowed to be at her wedding, as she is very close to him. [QUOTE][B]Why do you think that is? How did they learn that they didn't want that?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

They understand (and believe, and have a testimony of the fact) that men and women have equal roles but that there is a division of spiritual labor.

​

Now, those women in LDS chapels on Sunday mornings are there by their own choice, on their own free will. They are not required to be there by an edict of law, they are there willingly as an expression of their own beliefs. If they did not believe the the current situation was correct then don't you think that would imply to them that the church was wrong, and therefore, they would not be there?

​

And don't you think those women have the right to worship as they please, even if it contradicts your own opinion?

---

Of course they are free to worship as they please. My argument is not with any individual. If one is taught from birth or convinced later in life that doing certain things will get them into heaven or turn them into gods or what have you, they will do it as long as nothing horrible comes of it.People do all sorts of things of their "own free will", or what looks like free will. Women (and men) have stayed in abusive relationships for years when they could have left of their own free will. They believed what their abuser was telling them; that there would be dire consequences if they left.I am not saying that every LDS woman or man is being abused in the way an abusive spouse abuses. But strict gender roles are all about power, Gene, and always have been. [QUOTE][B]Not true. There have been Mormon feminists who have been excommunicated for speaking out for women's rights. Other Mormon scholars who say things critical of LDS or contradictory to current doctrine are also excommunicated.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

And how many people, in both cases, were BYU faculty? Look, it works like this. We own BYU. We teach our religion there. One who teaches incorrect doctrine at BYU is like a public school teacher teaching Creationism in science class, it is completely inappropriate because the profs at BYU are representing the church in what they say and do.

​

Also it seems to me that if members are critical of doctrine, then
they have already left the church, the excommunication hearings being just a formality. (Not even excommunications are permanent however, they can repent and be let back in.) By the way, I see these as just because they all represent incorrect doctrine being taught.

​

Now...if you don't believe the doctrines of the church are true, and you must not if you publish the kinds of things these people did, why are you afraid of excommunication? This is my point, they already left, all that remained was to ensure that they could not be sanctioned by the church itself.

---

Wow, I didn't realize that nobody inside the LDS church was allowed to ever question anything or criticize doctrine or risk sanction.That's scary.

quote:

---

By the way the site you used is terribly biased. I thought you said you wanted unbiased information?

---

I wanted something other than the party line.Why don't you go find me a site that is critical of LDS in any way that you also consider unbiased? In particular, how about a LDS feminist site or a gay LDS site. I'll bet you can't. [QUOTE][B]It sounds to me that one cannot be LDS and gay unless one wants to live their life without a close loving relationship which is also a sexual one, since gay sex is forbidden.[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

If a gay person joins the church that person will have to live a straight life, and they will if they know that the church is true. End of story.

---

You didn't answer my question, Gene. Do you actually believe what your church says about gay people?? Do you believe that gay people aren't really gay, and they are experiencing "strong urges" like everybody has "from time to time"??You know enough about Biology to know that the notion of every single human being 100% heterosexual is a silly one. Please don't turn your back on science.What's next? The declaration of the church that everyone is right-handed, and any "so-called" left-handers, if they believe hard enough, will live their lives as right handers? [QUOTE][B]According to some things that I have read, a lot of the Temple ceremony was completely changed by the leaders in 1990, [/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

According to some things I have read, the world is flat and the Moon landings were faked by the government. I wouldn't be surprised at anything you read about the church.

---

Well, am I wrong? I have read account after account, most with references to church letters and documents, but some anecdotal, which say the same thing; that the temple ceremony has changed over the years to reflect the greater social climate. Many racist, anti-protestant, and misogynist items have been taken out.I know that you aren't supposed to know about these things ahead of time, and that it isn't supposed to be revealed by anyone, but it is all out there on the internet for anyone to read. It's true that I don't have an ex-Mormon next to me here to tell me what is true, but consistency of story from different sources has to count for something. The people who criticize mormonism are not unified.Here is a list of examples of discrimination against women at BYU:BYU AAUP: Women’s Concerns at BYU – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)An excerpt:"**There is only one university lecture named after a woman, the Alice Louise Reynolds lecture. Money was raised to endow this lecture by Helen Stark, a strong feminist and well-known member of the Mormon community. She herself contributed approximately $15,000 to the endowment fund. Stark died two years ago at the age of 89. In 1995 the committee selected Elouise Bell, a prominent woman full professor to deliver that lecture. The administration not only rejected the woman as the speaker; it informed the committee that Roger R. Keller, a male associate professor from the Department of Religion, would be the speaker. In 1996 the Alice Louise Reynolds lecture was not held.**For several years women candidates for faculty employment at Brigham Young University have been asked this question by the academic vice president: "If a general authority [general leader of the Mormon Church] asked you not to publish your research, what would you do?" It has been suggested to the candidates that they must agree not to publish in such a case. This condition of employment undermines the position of new women faculty members at Brigham Young University. To be hired, they apparently must agree to let male ecclesiastical leaders who are not trained in their disciplines have final authority over the publication of their scholarship. They are offered no review process to determine the fairness or accuracy of the authority's request. Again, women are instructed that they must suppress their own perspectives on their own experience or research if a male authority so directs them.**In its entire seventy-five year history, a woman faculty member has never been chosen to present BYU's distinguished faculty lecture.The BYU AAUP Chapter will provide documentation of all of the above claims upon request. We will obtain statements from or provide the Accreditation Committee with the addresses and telephone numbers of the individuals named in this document."Do you really think that this is OK?Also, did you know that women in the LDS church from 1830 to 1850 used to be able to confer blessings, healing and prophecy, and other acts reserved just for men now?Women in the Mormon Church – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon) [QUOTE][B]Could it be that I disagree with you, so you feel OK with dismissing me?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

Schrafinator, in your posts, I see all the signs of a vendetta.

​

I see you recounting how your college roommates, who were obviously good friends of yours, were 'hurt' by the church; establishing a motive. I've seen you taking potshots at JS in this forum before you found out my own religious inclination. Then when I defended my beliefs against your attacks you responded in shock that I actually had the spine to do so. Had I defended the Baptists down the street I doubt it would have caused any such trouble. No, I chose the one church that, for you, represents everything 'bad' in a religion. And anything that sounds bad about my church, you will post, probably with little consideration.

---

I have been "considering" LDS and other fundamentalist, strict religious sects for a long time. If you had defended the Baptists I would have called into question the recent edict of that sect that "Women must be obedient to their men".You are the one who wondered why I should care about things in the LDS church which "don't affect me directly". They affect me because they affect women, and they affect me because they affect certain people in my life whom I love.It isn't everything bad in a religion. It is a sect of christianity which is particularly limiting and oppressive to women, though, and I will always speak out against that.BTW, what do you have to say about my rejection of your claim that "separate but equal" can and does work?

quote:

---

Surely you realize that typing the right keywords into Google will bring up some 'information' that supports one side in a debate. Heck, the YECs are doing this all the time. You're just doing what the Creationists do but on a different subject.

---

But Gene, you haven't ONCE countered anything any of these websites have provided other than by saying "It's all biased". I repeat; show me a websit critical of LDS which you do not consider biased. I'll bet you can't, because being critical at all of LDS is, by your definition, biased. [QUOTE][B]Don't women miss out on delivering the word of God to the Church, or interpreting prophecy, or being prophets, or making institution-wide changes?[/QUOTE][/B]

quote:

---

In the same way that men 'miss out' on pregnancy.

---

Men can adopt children, and men contribute to the creation of children.Women have been observed in many other sects of Christianity to deliver the word of God, to have authority over men, to interpret prophecy, etc."Seperate but equal" has never worked. The power is always unequal.

quote:

---

Now, I'm adding this by edit two days after I originally posted this. I want to point out that it's difficult for me to be emotionally detached from this discussion because it hits me close to home. I've debated evolution v creationism for a long time and nothing there ever bothers me but this is very different. I'm easy to offend on this topic. Given the choice I wouldn't be participating in this issue.

---

I understand.You do, of course, always have a choice on whether or not to participate.

quote:

---

Also I'm going to add that I haven't forgotten that we're usually on the same side in a debate and you do a good job, so I still respect your opinions and perspectives, only this time I disagree with you.

---

I am glad that you haven't forgotten, and thanks for the compliment.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-25-2002]

This is a really interesting quote and comment:Elder Thomas S. Monson on science – About The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon)How the youth of today are to deal with doubts (February 2001 Ensign) . . ."By President Monson in the "First Presidency Message":
"Remember that faith and doubt cannot exist in the same mind at the same time, for one will dispel the other.Should doubt knock at your doorway, just say to those skeptical, disturbing, rebellious thoughts: 'I propose to stay with my faith, with the faith of my people. I know that happiness and contentment are there, and I forbid you , agnostic, doubting thoughts, to destroy the house of my faith. I acknowledge that I do not understand the processes of creation, but I accept the fact of it. I grant that I cannot explain the miracles of the Bible, and I do not attempt to do so, but I accept God's word. I wasn't with Joseph, but I believe him. My faith did not come to me through science, and I will not permit so-called science to destroy it'."This BOTHERS me. I've always really liked Pres. Monson, but he's telling people to just turn off their brains. Don't ask questions, and pretend they don't exist. Shut your eyes, plug your ears and just keep saying "I know the church is true" no matter what.And isn't he just partially admitting that if you pursue those thoughts, if you think it through critically, that your faith will fail? If faith was well-founded, how could it be harmed by additional information, study, open discussion, and rational thought?And if testimonies were built SOLELY on the witness of the spirit and NOT at all on personal opinions, couldn't the Holy Ghost STILL give someone a witness of the truth AFTER studying science and asking the hard questions?The church seems to think that studying and questioning is a sin, (at the very least it's dangerous) because it causes you to lose the spirit. And it does seem that those who question and study DO tend to leave the church. But I have a different explanation. I think the spirit is your own feelings. And your feelings change when you have more information. It's hard to feel the spirit when your brain is telling you it's BS.So much for "The Glory of God is Intelligence", and seeking after truth.Monson is imploring people to ignore the best route to intelligence: scientific inquiry. Instead he advocates faith, which is superstitious hope, no matter what other words people use to describe it.Notice when they fear science is leading people away, they call it "so called science." How preposterous to presume the only real science is that which agrees with their myths.Why doesn't he just use his faith instead of science to get to his next overseas testimony-fest? Because faith isn't going to get him there. Science will.His message clearly pleads with people to live in a box, and slap themselves if they start to want a glimpse outside. If they fear investigation and questioning will shake faith, it is an admission that the basis of faith was groundless.He should feel safe. It is difficult to disrupt the lives of people who live in faith-bubbles. How do you uproot something with no roots?"------------------
"We will still have perfect freedom to hold contrary views of our own, but to simply
close our minds to the knowledge painstakingly accumulated by hundreds of thousands
of scientists over long centuries is to deliberately decide to be ignorant and narrow-
minded."-Steve Allen, from "Dumbth"

quote:

---

Originally posted by minnemooseus:

quote:

---

Gene: Now, I'm adding this by edit two days after I originally posted this. I want to point out that it's difficult for me to be emotionally detached from this discussion because it hits me close to home. I've debated evolution v creationism for a long time and nothing there ever bothers me but this is very different. I'm easy to offend on this topic. Given the choice I wouldn't be participating in this issue.

---

​

quote:

---

Schraf: I understand.

​

You do, of course, always have a choice on whether or not to participate.

---

​

I certainly don't find fault with either side in this Gene/Schraf discussion. Personally (non-admin mode), I would absolutely support Gene if he were to say "Enough has been said. I don't wish to any further discuss LDS theology."

​

Moose

​

---

I have always thought that too.

Well, I found this site:http://www.lds.npl.com/It includes a Mormon "Bible Code" type link which is called "Alphabetics". That is pretty interesting, but of course, not interesting from a statistical viewpoint.I also looked around and found several pro-LDS sites which stated emphatically that LDS had always preached the idea that everyone was equal and blacks were not discriminated against or hated by the LDS church.I also found a bunch of quotes by Brigham Young and other LDS church leaders from back at the turn of the last century which are horribly racist."(1831 - 1844) JOSEPH SMITH Discoverer of the Golden plates
First Prophet and President and Founder of the Mormon Church:"Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.''
[This is The Place](1848 - 1877) BRIGHAM YOUNG 2nd Prophet and President"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind."Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so."Of course, just about everybody who was white was horribly racist towards dark-skinned people back then, so it's not like they were acting much differently that the rest of society.However, when they changed their policy in 1978, there was no doctrinal change, because, as the website puts it, "It would mean that the war in the 'pre-existence', on Kolob might, after all, not have caused the devil to mix his blood with that of Cain. Then, Cain could not have fathered all black skinned children...A doctrinal statement to gloss over this racist mormon business is therefore not possible. Mormonism could not survive it.To correct the bigotry now would mean that Joseph Smith could not have translated the golden plates."To be honest, Gene, I looked around at several pro-LDS sites and they are mostly a lot of apologetics and glossing-overs.There are no pro-LDS sites that I have found which criticize ANYTHING that the LDS church does.The truth is, no matter if you think that it's true or not, is that the LDS church has changed many times in response to change in the greater culture. This implies that the Church is much more a function of the thoughts and opinions and values of the men who operate it than it is of divine guidence.After all, if the above prophecy or interpretation of scripture was correct, then you would be required to believe that all black people are the offspring of the damned Cain. But if it isn't correct, then this either means that revelation was wrong in the past, or that revelation isn't really inpired by the Holy Spirit.Of course, you apparently are required to belive that gay people aren't really gay, so I suppose that there isn't much of a problem with the illogic of a past prophecy being wrong.I really did try to find a pro-LDS site which was critical of any part of LDS, but they don't exist. I would still like you to find me a site which you would accept as unbiased which is also critical of LDS.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
[B]Schraf, not even our prophets are perfect (JS actually lost his gift on a few occasions for his sins. Young was known for his occasional hot temper. Harris would have been Smith's successor except he left the church for a time over an interpersonal dispute.) Also remember that we have continuing revelation, policies in the church change. That means that if Brigham Young or Joseph Smith said something contradicted by a modern prophet we can follow the modern prophet instead.

​

You remember I said that there may come a day when women are granted the Priesthood? It happened with African Americans already. Before the Civil War (1830s), in Mississippi, of all places, specifically the Mormon Springs settlement (extinct, the whole community left for the Salt Lake Valley as an advanced front of the primary migration west), as soon as the town was converted the slaves were freed and then granted the priesthood. I don't see anything in history books that mention that happening anywhere else in the South. Unfortunately it (universal male priesthood) didn't last. Although the LDS church had a very liberal policy toward persons of African descent (compared to the rest of the US in those days, you will find this in the Doctrine and Covenants) in the end it took an act of the First Presidency (1978 I think it was) to extend the priesthood to all worthy males. I'm sure most members in, say, 1850, would have been offended but it was well received (unanimously supported by the council) in the 20th century.

​

The issue here is that none of our canonized doctrine said that the priesthood was limited to male caucasians. It was simply the opinion of people in high places. Now our doctrine has been amended - a prophet took the issue up with the Lord. A similar situation may one day occur with women and the priesthood, and I pointed that out in the beginning. However I see no theological necessity for it as I accept the current interpretations of doctrine.

​

By the way, this isn't a great secret. We discussed it several weeks ago in Institute as an example of continuing revelation and the decision to grant the priesthood regardless of race is included in our canon as an amendment to current editions of D&C. Further I want to add that LDS, from my observation, is one of the most desegregated churches in the US. Sunday morning is the most segregated day in America, but our church doesn't play part in it nearly to the extent that everyone else seems to. While we are primarily WASMs there are representatives of several races in our local congregations and at least one biracial family who is very active in the Church. I've never seen anything like it amongst the Protestants, though I suspect that Catholics would obviously have more ethnic diversity, given their longer history and global reach. So perhaps you will be a little more hesitant to play the racism card.

​

I also have some church study materials on the universal male priesthood if you want to fight this out.[/QUOTE]

​

My reasons for "playing the race card", as you put it, is not really to portray current LDS people or even the Church as a whole as racist. I think that racism in the LDS church has followed the general trend of the greater culture, just like many religious sects and other institutions.

​

The reasons were to point out that, contrary to your previous implication that the LDS church shouldn't or doesn't bow to the greater culture when it changes, it seems to onlychange in response to the greater culture in reality. At least, the changes coincide with the changing greater culture remarkably frequently.

​

You also contend above that your prophets aren't perfect.

​

All of this, to me, indicates that "people in high places" are calling the shots, regardless of what your canon or writings say, and the members have to emulate or model or be obedient to what the prophet/president does or says or else they are perhaps considered bad Mormons.

​

quote:

---

Something I am curious about Schraf, and I mean this question with honest intent (ie, I expect an answer). What is your opinion on gender segregation in public restrooms? Public dressing rooms? Public showers?

---

​

I am not sure what having privacy while one disrobes has to do with, for instance, the issue of mormon women professors at BYU being censured or fired for talking about the Heavenly Mother, or about Mormon women being always subject to men's authority over them.

​

However, I will answer. I wouldn't have a problem with the idea of mixed gender restrooms as long as they were clean. I have seen some public men's rooms and they tend to stink and be pretty nasty.

​

I also have no problem with mixed gender public dressing rooms as long as I have my own little booth like all dressing rooms have.

​

I also do not mind mixed gender showers, either. I used one, in fact, at a youth hostel in Italy when I was traveling years ago. Also, I was on a women's voleyball team in college, and we all showered and changed clothes together. Some of the women were gay, so it was a little like showering with the opposite sex, but it was no big deal to the rest of us who weren't. Everyone treated each other with respect.

​

The same was true of several of the co-ed dorm at Oberlin College where my husband attended. All of the facilities in those halls were co-ed.

​

All of this "not minding" is predicated on the idea that everyone knows how to behave and not make others feel gawked at or unsafe.

​

I mean, nudists walk around naked all the time, mixed gender everything, and there is nothing sexual or shameful about it. We are taught in our culture that nude=sex, and that the only people that are OK to be seen naked or mostly naked are very young, very nubile people. In addition, the media has gone to great lengths to sexualize and "adultify" younger and younger children; those Gap Kids ads make them look like little grownups.

​

It would be difficult at first, but I think it would be great to have nudity as something seperate from sexuality in our culture.

​

And it would also cut WAY down on those stupid long lines at the women's room because we could just make one huge room for everybody.

​

[QUOTE]I'm going to try to get back to some other messages of yours that I haven't responded to yet, as time allows.

​

Ah yes, and I want tot close with something interesting I learned yesterday. It seems that one of the bills pushed through Congress attempting to abolish "Mormonism" in the 1890s also contained legislation to prevent women's suffrage. How appropriate really, I suppose religious bigotry and true misogyny run together. [/B]

---

That is interesting that two oppressed groups got oppressed in the same bill, but I wouldn't read too much into that.Lots of unrelated things get tacked on at the ends of bills.

Thanks, Gene, for your thoughtful reply. I still disagree with most of it, but I want you to know I appreciate your efforts. [QUOTE][B]At least, the changes coincide with the changing greater culture remarkably frequently.[/QUOTE][/B]I concede that. There are multiple possible reasons why. First is the one you mentioned, that maybe the church only responds to societal pressures. Or maybe God changes the structure of the church to fit the culture better to the outside, in order to keep the doctrines from being completely rejected. I have tried to suggest this before but it wasn't well received and I couldn't find a very clear way to express it. My suggestion was that there were no (or almost no females, absolute terms are bad to use) in the old Jewish priesthood because Jewish society was chauvinist. What point is there in having servants that nobody will listen because of something stupid like chauvinism? After all, 90% of the time they won't listen anyway. I don't know how to support my position other than to suggest that, were I in God's office, I would probably do the same thing.[/QUOTE]Or, one could interpret it as nobody listening to God, who wanted women to be equals with men in power and authority, for a very long time.

quote:

---

However, let me reiterate, that I have no problem with women not holding the priesthood. Although I would accept the revelation that would change things without hesitation, it isn't something that troubles me at all because our current interpretation of doctrine supports the concept. However, I know of no explicit Scripture that says women cannot hold the priesthood, it is an interpretation based upon our theology. The closest (that I know of) we come to blocking out women based upon Scripture is verse in the NT that says that if "a man" is to be a bishop "he must be the husband of one wife". However, I don't take the Bible literally enough to be personally bound by that, I think it could just as easily be "if a woman....she must be the wife of one husband", but that is just the personal opinion of Gene90. Actually most everything here is my personal opinion so don't assume your friends in the church would agree with me. It is very important that we distinguish doctrine from opinion.

​

However I want to point out that they issue goes deeper than the church just appearing to conform to societal pressure. I was reading yesterday and learned that President Woodruff banned plural marriages in temples and held it a secret from the rest of the country for six years before the Official Declaration. It turns out that there was an outcry amongst members of the church who were aware of the ban, they wanted the Presidency to announce it to the world so maybe the threats from the Federal government would cease and the "Mormons" would be left in peace. Instead, the prophet just banned the practice and allowed persecution to continue for six more years. Why, if he was only trying to escape persecution? (These *were* dark times even in the comparative safety of Utah, his predecessor had died in hiding. I admit freely that the church was in peril over the issue.)

---

There are many other possible reasons for Woodruff to do what he did. He might have understood that persecution brings groups together and he had a long view of the future. He might have also kept it secret because he was afraid that others inside the Church would punish him for making the decision. He also might have kept the secret out of stubborn pride, not wanting to show weakness to the government or his group.I am sorry, Gene, but I really don't trust the history lessons of the Mormon Church as taught by Mormons all that much. I don't trust most of what I was taught about American history I learned in school, or the history of the Catholic church I learned in CCD, either. It wasn't until I got much older and began reading on my own that I realized that I had been taught a greatly sanitized version of what really happened, and that there were a great many not-so-savory things left out of my education. There was also a great deal about important women and people of color left out of the history books, too.So forgive me if I don't take what you say about LDS history word for word.

quote:

---

Then there were the Saints who left the US for Mexico where there were no legal bans on polygamy. They thought the Church would allow polygamy to continue outside the US but they were wrong, the ban was worldwide.

​

[QUOTE][B]You also contend above that your prophets aren't perfect.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

That's right. Nobody in the church is perfect. That's why bigots and chauvinists don't surprise me.

​

[QUOTE][B]All of this, to me, indicates that "people in high places" are calling the shots, regardless of what your canon or writings say, and the members have to emulate or model or be obedient to what the prophet/president does or says or else they are perhaps considered bad Mormons.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

It sounds a lot better when you consider our position, that God is calling the shots through the prophets. Canon is vital but canon is being produced even today. Canon can even change (though I don't know of it happening, except for additions as recently as 1918).

​

Yes, it is important to follow the prophet. I thought that was an assumption so obvious it didn't need to be mentioned. There is a distinction between the prophet's opinion as a person and his opinion as a prophet but aside from that, yeah. You're right about that. But I don't know how to argue this aside from, "I'm right, you're wrong".

​

[QUOTE][B]I am not sure what having privacy while one disrobes has to do with, for instance, the issue of mormon women professors at BYU being censured or fired for talking about the Heavenly Mother [/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

I'm afraid we don't know dideley squat about Heavenly Mother therefore it is inappropriate to write books about her. Even President Hinckly wrote each congregation a letter recently reminding us of that, though it much softer words.

​

I'll tell you what we know about Heavenly Mother. A *woman* in a very high place (I think it was Relief Society presidency) wrote a hymn that mentioned that we have a heavenly father *and* a mother. The prophet approved the hymn. Therefore this lady gave us a very important revelation but we have no more information. Not even the current prophet appears to have information, but that's my opinion.

​

Because we have no information it was inappropriate for a professor at BYU to take it upon herself to essentially create doctrine, or worse, teach her opinion in a doctrine class. IMO, ff any excommunication was ever necessary it was that one.

quote:

---

OK, so now I am confused. One of the pro-mormon apologetics sites I visited talked quite a lot about the Heavenly Mother and said that it was part of the whole thing of LDS.

​

BTW, how do you know that the woman who was teaching about the Heavenly Mother wasn't telling the truth. How do you know she isn't a prophet? How do you know that your doctrine of denying the preisthood to women is against God's will? How do you know that this sexism isn't damaging your religion's relationship with your God? How do you know?

​

[QUOTE][B]or about Mormon women being always subject to men's authority over them.[/QUOTE]

​

[/B]

​

Men with the priesthood have authority to administrate in the church. They do not have the authority to administrate over women's (or men's) lives. They can suggest things but that's it.

---

​

OK, now this is pretty contradictory. For LDS people, the church takes up a great deal of their lives! Obedience is stressed. Men are the ones who decide who is being disobedient and they tell other people (women) what to do to get back in God's good graces.

​

For goodness sake, we are talking about a person who has pledged their life and eternal soul to this church and it's authority over them. If telling them how to live so they can save their soul isn't "authority over their lives", I don't know what is.

​

quote:

---

As for the segregated bathrooms I bring it up because you claim that "seperate but equal" never works. It does work for gender, we practice it in the secular world every day (bathrooms).

---

​

LOLOLOLOL!!!! Women's and men's bathrooms equal????

​

You really are a man, aren't you? Women's bathrooms are ALWAYS inadequate! I have stood in long lines at concerts or athletic events for well over 30 minutes waiting to use the facilities, all the while watching the men walk in and out of the men's room in under 5 minutes.

​

Do you know why the facilities are always inadequate for women? What gender do you think the architects of those concert halls and stadiums were? What gender of customer do you think they had in mind. Women architects are getting more common, so modern facilities tend to have better-designed facilities, but they are far from ideal.

​

This is separate but decidedly NOT equal in most cases.
Also, I was recently in a co-ed dressing room in an Old Navy store. As everyone had their own cubicle, I was actually not really aware of the co-ed nature of the room until I was leaving and a young man walked by me. Works great, and is more efficent for the store.

​

quote:

---

Women and men are not the same.

---

​

Never said or implied they were the same.

​

quote:

---

They have different biological and spiritual roles. I can never give birth and in that sense grow a life but I can baptise a child and in that way bring to pass it's *spiritual* rebirth. I can bless a child too. That's my place, and it is a necessary add on to the minimal biological role my gender plays. I can contribute to the biological side but I will never fill the place in the family that women are intended to play, so what particular reason is there that women should be able to do all that I do as well? What would that make us?

---

​

So, what about women who are sterile? They can't give birth, either, so are they left lacking, spiritually?

​

What about all the people born every year who are of indeterminate gender? Was God just not able to make up his/her mind what physical and spiritual role these individuals were meant to play? What happens if they have surgery to make them "appear" female or male? They aren't made that way by God, so who is to say what their role should be? The appearance of their sexual organs determines their spiritual path and "role", it would seem.

​

quote:

---

I feel like you are thinking in terms of men v. women in the workplace, where you work from 9 till 5 and sex makes absolutely no difference. I'm thinking in terms of the familial structure, in which men and women have very strictly defined biological roles and (I argue) spiritual roles, though our cultural roles are merging.

---

​

Does this mean that women who do not particularly enjoy or are good at raising small children, but do enjoy and are good at working outside the home, are considered bad mormon women? Does it also mean that men who do enjoy and are good at running a household and raising kids, but do do not enjoy and are not good at working outside the home, are bad mormon men?

​

The converted friend I have mentioned is a very well-educated woman who has a Masters degree. She has a great earning potential and is very skilled at what she does. The nice Mormon boy she married (he really is very nice) holds no college degree and doesn't have any specialized skills. He has worked in factories and plants, never staying more than a year. They have two kids and my friend stays home with their two daughters. They are living hand to mouth every day, and have done for years. My friend started several direct marketing businesses (selling quack homeopathic crap, but that's another story) to try to make ends meet.

​

My point here is that the reason she feels so much pressure to be a stay at home Mom is because she is told that this is what she should do, although she could be doing much better for the future of the family if she took her greater earning power out into the workplace. Her husband is just not going to be able to earn what she does, although he feels that he is the one who has to go provide for the family. He continues to make low wages, and one time quit his job without saying anything to my friend about it for a whole week.

​

They are both being pushed into roles that they are not particularly well-suited for, and it is causing a lot of unhappiness in that family.

​

My friend has been self-treating with human growth hormone (one of the quack businesses) because of ongoing depression for 5 years. I wonder why she is depressed?

​

quote:

---

I see men and the priesthood being linked as being no different from the Y-chromosome donor always being male, or pregnancy always being linked to females, or the mtDNA donor always being female.

​

I feel like if we were meant to have exactly the same roles the species would be hermaphroditic.

---

​

You keep slipping in and out of Biology (emperical) and the spiritual (not emperical).

​

Males and females are different. Of course they are. Everyone can see this.

​

However, you then attempt to connect biological difference with a spiritual difference, which is neither empirical nor logical.

​

[QUOTE]That is why most female members of the church don't want the priesthood any more than they want our prostate problems and we don't want pregnancy (however important pregnancy may be, both spiritually and in the sense of propagating the species).

​

[/B]

---

Wow, you just equated a disease with pregnancy.Since women get all the of the same, non-gender specific diseases that men do, maybe this points to more similarities than differences.Anyhow, I really can't get around the thought in my head that keeps saying, "Mormon females don't want the priesthood because they are taught that they shouldn't want it."Strict gender roles, and strict church policies, are not conducive to successful and harmonious family life, it seems:http://www.divorcereform.org/mel/rbaptisthigh.html [QUOTE][B]The levels vary among non-Christian groups, Barna reported. Jews have a divorce rate of 30 percent, while atheists and agnostics have a relatively low rate of 21 percent, according to the survey.The survey found that Mormons, who emphasize strong families, are near
the national average at 24 percent."What brings people to divorce has so many more important factors than
theology," said Bart Grooms, pastoral counselor for the Samaritan
Counseling Center of Baptist Health System. He said Christians'
expectations of marriage may be too high."I believe we expect more out of marriage than we used to," he said.
"Gender roles have changed an awful lot. A lot of women are not putting up with boorish louts like they were in the past."[/QUOTE]That is interesting. Women not wanting to put up with "boorish louts" is equated with having expectaiont of marriage which are "too high."Interesting indeed.Anyhow, despite how pro-family the LDS church says it is, it seems that its strict definition of what a "correct" family is and how the individuals inside that family are to conduct themselves seem to make little difference to if the marriage is sucessful or not.So, if Mormons get divorced at the same rate as the rest of the country, then tell me again why your way is so much better for building strong families?Actually, it would seem that if you want to have your best shot at not get divorced, you would want to be Catholic, Lutheran, or Athiest/Agnostic.Also, Gene, do you really think that gay people really aren't gay?