Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why people want to believe there is a god.
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 181 of 192 (18257)
09-25-2002 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 179 by Minnemooseus
09-25-2002 11:20 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-25-2002 11:20 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 182 of 192 (18676)
10-01-2002 1:21 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by nator
09-25-2002 11:45 AM


[QUOTE][B]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?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I don't see why not.
[QUOTE][B]The church seems to think that studying and questioning is a sin, (at the very least it's dangerous)[/QUOTE]
[/B]
That seems contrary to my personal experience. God answers questions and the scriptures are there to be studied. But somehow I doubt this is the kind of 'studying' you mean. I suppose you mean we should study all the biased, anti-LDS material out there.
Schrafinator, you've been looking around the 'net for information on this topic. How many pro-church sites did you find? How many anti-church sites did you find?
[QUOTE][B]And it does seem that those who question and study DO tend to leave the church.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Spotlight fallacy.
[QUOTE][B]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.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
It could also be that the spirit leaves because you no longer believe in it.
And now I need to point out that there is a very thin line between a personal attack and an attack on one's religion. Many times, to me, they are the same. In this thread, I don't see a big faceless church under attack, as perhaps you do, I see *myself* under attack, and my personal beliefs.
I'm not ready to leave just yet but this is definately winding down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by nator, posted 09-25-2002 11:45 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 10-02-2002 12:02 AM gene90 has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 183 of 192 (18782)
10-02-2002 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by gene90
10-01-2002 1:21 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by gene90, posted 10-01-2002 1:21 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by gene90, posted 10-02-2002 10:32 AM nator has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 184 of 192 (18838)
10-02-2002 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by nator
10-02-2002 12:02 AM


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.
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'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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by nator, posted 10-02-2002 12:02 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by nator, posted 10-02-2002 2:19 PM gene90 has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 185 of 192 (18875)
10-02-2002 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by gene90
10-02-2002 10:32 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by gene90, posted 10-02-2002 10:32 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by gene90, posted 10-02-2002 3:50 PM nator has replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 188 of 192 (18878)
10-02-2002 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by nator
10-02-2002 2:19 PM


First I want to apologize for the multiple posts. I didn't realize the message got put up this morning and the Delete function isn't working. I'll try to sort that out later. I'm also going to detail my recent tech problems on a new thread in case anybody is interested.
[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.
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.)
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][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.
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). Women and men are not the same. 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?
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.
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.
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by nator, posted 10-02-2002 2:19 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by nator, posted 10-03-2002 12:48 PM gene90 has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 189 of 192 (18997)
10-03-2002 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by gene90
10-02-2002 3:50 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by gene90, posted 10-02-2002 3:50 PM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by gene90, posted 10-05-2002 4:48 PM nator has not replied
 Message 191 by gene90, posted 10-05-2002 4:51 PM nator has not replied
 Message 192 by gene90, posted 10-05-2002 4:57 PM nator has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 190 of 192 (19123)
10-05-2002 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by nator
10-03-2002 12:48 PM


Part One.
[QUOTE][B]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]
[/B]
Yes. And if that is the case then I hope the church makes the priesthood universal soon. I have already considered that, and as I have said, I wouldn't have a problem with the priesthood becoming universal. However, I do see some justification for the current situation based upon our interpretations of theology.
[QUOTE][B]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. [/QUOTE]
[/B]
Brigham Young once remarked that he knew the Saints could endure persecution, but he wondered how they would endure prosperity.
However, if President Woodruff wanted to encourage persecution to hold the group together he probably would not have formally banned the practice in 1896. In fact, if he felt like persecution was profiting the church, why the secret ban in the first place?
[QUOTE][B]He might have also kept it secret because he was afraid that others inside the Church would punish him for making the decision.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Anyone in the church who could have "punished" him (?) would have known about the ban. In fact they would likely be attending the temples on a weekly basis, and I'm sure that at least a few of them would be practicing polygamy at the time.
[QUOTE][B]He also might have kept the secret out of stubborn pride, not wanting to show weakness to the government or his group.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
That still makes me wonder why he would ban the practice in the first place.
[QUOTE][B]I am sorry, Gene, but I really don't trust the history lessons of the Mormon Church as taught by Mormons all that much.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I must accept that because, as you know, I don't trust the history pushed by enemies of the church.
[QUOTE][B]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.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Actually we believe those men are inspired. In order to accept your point I must ignore that little detail, and that is asking too much.
So no, I can't accept your point because I don't believe it is "men" who "decide who is being disobedient".
Also those "other people" include men as well.
Finally, the obvious. Live the commandments and you don't have problems that would require anyone telling you are being disobedient.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by nator, posted 10-03-2002 12:48 PM nator has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 191 of 192 (19124)
10-05-2002 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by nator
10-03-2002 12:48 PM


Part Two.
[QUOTE][B]You really are a man, aren't you? Women's bathrooms are ALWAYS inadequate![/QUOTE]
[/B]
Please excuse me, but I'm not known for frequenting womens' restrooms.
[QUOTE][B]So, what about women who are sterile? They can't give birth, either, so are they left lacking, spiritually? [/QUOTE]
[/B]
People aren't responsible for their physical defects, so no, they aren't lacking.
[QUOTE][B]Was God just not able to make up his/her mind what physical and spiritual role these individuals were meant to play?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I'm going to venture an opinion that maybe these people were not intended to be confined to one gender role.
[QUOTE][B]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?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
In my opinion and experience, No and No.
[QUOTE][B]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[/QUOTE]
[/B]
I don't know their situation but my opinion is that she should have prayed for what she should do and receieved revelation rather than hearing opinions from other people. In fact I've never been told that I'm supposed to be a breadwinner and supposed to marry a homemaker. Heck, looking around me I see Mormon women who intend to find professional careers. I just don't see where this notion of your friend not working is originating from, but I'm going to make a guess that it isn't coming from the church but from the opinion of somebody in the church. Also note that I live in the Bible Belt, where most people are conservative anyway. If that were happening on any widescale basis, it would be happening *here* more commonly and more severely than anywhere else, with the possible exception of the Salt Lake valley.
[QUOTE][B]Males and females are different. Of course they are. Everyone can see this.[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Good. Now, why are they different? From a theistic standpoint?
Also I'm perplexed. Suddenly it is ok to admit that women and men
are different in one way, but completely unacceptable in another way. It seems like selective thinking to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by nator, posted 10-03-2002 12:48 PM nator has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 192 of 192 (19126)
10-05-2002 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by nator
10-03-2002 12:48 PM


Part Three.
[QUOTE][B]That is interesting. Women not wanting to put up with "boorish louts" is equated with having expectaiont of marriage which are "too high."[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Strawman. You are quoting a Baptist source.
[QUOTE][B]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?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
Hey Schraf, are your statistics based upon active LDS or just people from a Mormon background? Secondly, are your statistics limited to "Mormons" who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or your "Mormons" some weird combination of LDS, Community of Christ, and Strangites? Did you exclude the polygamists who are not members of the Church but can be (ambiguously) considered "Mormons" or did you include them as well? What about excommunicated members? If you only polled temple-worthy members, do you think your results might be just a little bit different?
[QUOTE][B]Also, Gene, do you really think that gay people really aren't gay?[/QUOTE]
[/B]
No biology text I have ever read dealt with the concept. However I think we are tempted differently. People who are tempted in that manner are probably not tempted as strongly about other things. I think it all ends up more or less equal in the end.
Whether or not they engage in sex is by choice and of their own free will, just like everyone else. If they don't like church policy on homosexual marriages, I guess they don't have to join.
If the church turns out to be true and they would have been better off joining, then their less fortunate outcome is a direct result of their own decisions, not the church's and not God's.
You can claim that they were unfairly disadvantaged because they were tempted to sin, but everyone is tempted to sin, just not necessarily in the same way.
Now one more point I meant to make in an later version of a post that you responded to before I could submit it.
You quoted statements that imply that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith were racists (by today's standards, actually JS was an abolitionist in his time). I admit those quotes took me back because they are so very different from our canonized scriptures, most of which came through JS.
Now, if JS was a racist, and if he was just speaking his opinions when he was supposedly speaking on behalf of God, why isn't "LDS God" a racist? Explain why those quotes took me by surprise.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 10-05-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by nator, posted 10-03-2002 12:48 PM nator has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024