LDS

Status
Not open for further replies.
RandFan said:
While on my mission I met a professor at UC Irvine. He held a PHD in the field of theology (though he was an atheist). He was extremely kind and listened to our lessons and then by simply asking theological and philosophical questions he exposed us as wet behind the ears door-to-door sales people. At least that is how I felt. I think I was above average in my understanding of general theology but no where near this guy.

He was one of the steps on my road to leaving the Church. Though that journey would take another 15 years.
Click to expand...

Can you outline the simple theological and philosophical questions he used, please?

Thank you.
 
I thought this was interesting:

The Utah-based church's stance on homosexuality has softened considerably since it was one of the leading forces behind California's Proposition 8. A new website launched this year encourages more compassion toward gays, implores them to stay in the faith and clarifies that church leaders no longer "necessarily advise" gays to marry people of the opposite sex in what used to be a widely practiced Mormon workaround for homosexuality. In May, church leaders backed the Boy Scouts' policy allowing gays in the ranks. Some gay Mormons who left or were forced out of the church say they are now being welcomed back — even though they remain in same-sex relationships.

It may seem like negligible progress to outsiders, but Mormon scholars say 2013 has been a landmark year for the religion on gay and lesbian issues.
Click to expand...


Mormons pushing church stance on homosexuality
 
halleyscomet said:
To bring this back to the topic at hand, I'd like to know more about the role of women culturally among LDS Mormons. Jan is clearly capable of defending herself when she wants to. Is this normal among LDS women? Is it encouraged?
Click to expand...

Is it normal among LDS women to defend their own words, and is it encouraged? Absolutely. The only one who can truly say what someone meant is the person who initially said it. Others may respond as to what they think might have been meant, but it's best for the person who said it to respond personally.

The LDS believe in a patriarchal society, with father at the head, presiding in fairness and love. It is also his job to be the provider and protector of the family. The mother's job is primarily to carry, bare and raise the children. LDS women are encouraged to obtain an education and take an active role in their society and/or politics, should they desire to do such.

Most of the LDS women in my ward are employed outside the home. Though granted that most of them either have school aged children (so they work while the child's in school), or they're older and no longer have children at home. My ward is primarily an older demographic. I don't see anything wrong with strong minded women in the Church, nor do I see the Church discourage it. There are several strong minded women in my ward.

Is Sky's rushing to her defense in any way influenced by Mormon attitudes about women? Is his apparent perception that she needs rescuing entirely based upon American ideas of the "maiden in distress" or does his LDS faith enhance that attitude?
Click to expand...

I'd say if Skyrider felt the need to save a "Sister" in distress, he missed coming to mine 8006 :confused: so I don't think that's the reason.:rolleyes:

Cat, Was there something about Mormon men that lead you to marry a non-Mormon?
Click to expand...
There's absolutely nothing wrong with LDS men, I just happened to live in an area where I was the only member and the nearest church was over an hour away. I didn't go on a weekly basis and eventually quit going all-together. Then I met Pup and it was love at first site. We agreed to disagree on the subject of religion and we've been happily married now for over 20 years. BTW, after we got married, I moved to his community where there was a church and I started going back to church. He accompanied me for a little over a year before finally just deciding it wasn't for him. I appreciate his attempt, but also appreciate the fact it isn't for him. I don't want someone to convert if they don't truly believe -- no sense in that.

As far as "are LDS women considered second class citizens?" I sure as heck don't feel like a second class citizen, and I don't know of any who would say they do. We have all the rights that men do with the exception of holding the priesthood.

Anyway, I'm getting ready to go away tomorrow, so I don't have a lot of time to post here. I'm sure Janadele would like to take back her own thread anyway, or maybe Skyrider wouldn't mind answering my questions?
 
Cat Tale said:
Is it normal among LDS women to defend their own words, and is it encouraged? Absolutely. The only one who can truly say what someone meant is the person who initially said it. Others may respond as to what they think might have been meant, but it's best for the person who said it to respond personally.

The LDS believe in a patriarchal society, with father at the head, presiding in fairness and love. It is also his job to be the provider and protector of the family. The mother's job is primarily to carry, bare and raise the children. LDS women are encouraged to obtain an education and take an active role in their society and/or politics, should they desire to do such.

Most of the LDS women in my ward are employed outside the home. Though granted that most of them either have school aged children (so they work while the child's in school), or they're older and no longer have children at home. My ward is primarily an older demographic. I don't see anything wrong with strong minded women in the Church, nor do I see the Church discourage it. There are several strong minded women in my ward.



I'd say if Skyrider felt the need to save a "Sister" in distress, he missed coming to mine 8006 :confused: so I don't think that's the reason.:rolleyes:


There's absolutely nothing wrong with LDS men, I just happened to live in an area where I was the only member and the nearest church was over an hour away. I didn't go on a weekly basis and eventually quit going all-together. Then I met Pup and it was love at first site. We agreed to disagree on the subject of religion and we've been happily married now for over 20 years. BTW, after we got married, I moved to his community where there was a church and I started going back to church. He accompanied me for a little over a year before finally just deciding it wasn't for him. I appreciate his attempt, but also appreciate the fact it isn't for him. I don't want someone to convert if they don't truly believe -- no sense in that.

As far as "are LDS women considered second class citizens?" I sure as heck don't feel like a second class citizen, and I don't know of any who would say they do. We have all the rights that men do with the exception of holding the priesthood.

Anyway, I'm getting ready to go away tomorrow, so I don't have a lot of time to post here. I'm sure Janadele would like to take back her own thread anyway, or maybe Skyrider wouldn't mind answering my questions?
Click to expand...

One last question. Earlier I posted an article about women being denied admission to a "men only" meeting. Are there corresponding "women only" meetings of a religious nature?
 
Cat Tale said:
He accompanied me for a little over a year before finally just deciding it wasn't for him. I appreciate his attempt, but also appreciate the fact it isn't for him. I don't want someone to convert if they don't truly believe -- no sense in that.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, I never had any interest in joining the church or converting, but it was fun to learn about it. Interested non-members or new members wanting to learn basics can attend "investigator's class" (I think it's offically called "gospel principles") instead of regular Sunday school. You're expected to ask questions without the assumption that you're there to have preconceived ideas reinforced, so it didn't seem rude to ask questions from a non-Mormon viewpoint.

After a while, though, it gets repetitive and it seemed odd being an "investigator" forever (though I love the weird name--sounds like it ought to be on a business card: "Pup, Mormon Investigator," LOL.) But it also seemed rude asking skeptical questions in regular Sunday School and priesthood meeting, among people who are there to enjoy being around like-minded folks, and so it just didn't seem worthwhile to go anymore.

halleyscomet said:
One last question. Earlier I posted an article about women being denied admission to a "men only" meeting. Are there corresponding "women only" meetings of a religious nature?
Click to expand...

Not sure if Cat Tale will have a chance to get back online before tomorrow, so I'll just answer--yes, "Relief Society meeting." The name comes from when it was just a women's organization for the relief of the poor, but now it's expanded into sort of a Sunday School class for women while the men attend priesthood meetings.

I never attended Relief Society meetings of course, but Sacrament, Sunday School and Priesthood didn't seem much different than any small-town Protestant church.

The manuals are online: http://www.lds.org/manual/relief-society It's typical Sunday School stuff with a slight female spin.

There are other Sunday meetings separated by age and sex too. Here's a summary of the various groups/meetings and who attends: http://www.lds.org/handbook/handboo...-the-church?lang=eng&query=priesthood+meeting
 
I have a long time friend who told me once that he is Reform Mormon, not LDS. I never really gave it much though until reading this thread. The differences listed on the linked site seem to parallel the differences between fundamentalist literalist and less literal varieties of Baptists, for example. I wonder if that is the difference we are seeing here among the Mormon posters.
 
I'm not sure (never felt the urge) to attend a priesthood class in my ward. I don't think I'd be asked to leave. Same with men attending Relief Society.

I think the difference here is it was General Conference where seating is limited and the talks in priesthood are primarily pointed at the men, and those in Relief Society are primarily pointed at the ladies. People come from all over the world to SLC for the General Conference, and the ushers do try to get the men who want to attend Priesthood, and the ladies who want to attend Relief Society into their respective sessions.

When I attended a few decades ago they handed out tickets based on whether or not one was a foreigner, or from east of the Mississippi, or a westerner. And they tried to accommodate those who came the furthest first. Seating's limited and there's a lot of people who want in to watch the various sessions.

The point is, the women still got to watch it on their electronics so it's not that they were denied access to what was said. All sessions, including the priesthood, is on lds.org

And yes, my bad, not bare -- bear! :D
 
Janadele said:
AdMan, re your post 8413 ... There is no need to speculate as to the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this information is clearly available:
http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.4#214
21.4.5
21.4.6
21.4.10
21.4.11
21.4.12
"Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline."
Click to expand...

Amazing. Thank you for posting such a clear, direct link, to such an on-point answer.

Even given that "the Church" presumes to speak for "the Lord" in such detail, I still would not find it terribly objectionable (any more objectionable, say, than the SBC continuing to refuse ordination to women) if (and it's a big if) it were only applied to members--that is, if it were only applied to adults who freely and informedly consent to the "rules". Where you, and others like you, do err is when you arrogate to apply your superstitions, the "rules" of your 'god', to people who do not believe in your 'god'; people who did not consent; people who are not and have no desire to be part of your cult.

You, and others like you, and others not very much like you at all, have a right to worship as you see fit. You, and others like you, and others not very much like you at all, have no right to try to ensure that others live up to the standards of your superstitions.

What goes on among consenting adults, on my land, affects no-one but the adults consenting to participate. What goes on in your church should do the same. It is as wrong, as "disgusting and abhorrent" for you to pretend the right to enforce your "rules of behaviour" outside your church as it would be for me to pretend the right to enforce my standards of behaviour outside the confines of my chambers.
 
Janadele said:
AdMan, re your post 8413 ... There is no need to speculate as to the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this information is clearly available:
http://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.4#214
21.4.5
21.4.6
21.4.10
21.4.11
21.4.12
"Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline."
Click to expand...

Interesting that you've proved it only applies to members. How do you then justify your hate-filled diatribes against non-members?
 
Janadele said:
Akhenaten said:
By the way, while I have your attention, you seem to have missed this post of mine:
Akhenaten said:
I want to learn and understand why the LDS... before I decide on my chosen level of agreement.

Please help me.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


No Akhenaten I did not miss it. Our Heavenly Father does not reveal all to us, and to those who reject what He has revealed, even less is given.
Click to expand...


You know, I would have sworn that post of mine that you're pretending to answer had a few more words when I originally wrote it. Let's have a little looky, shall we?


Akhenaten said:
I want to learn and understand why the LDS perpetuates the demonstrable fraud of the Book of Abraham before I decide on my chosen level of agreement.

Please help me.
Click to expand...

My goodness gracious! I wonder how that could have happened.

Anyway . . . no harm done, although now that it's all fixed up you might like to have another go at it.
 
Akhenaten said:
You know, I would have sworn that post of mine that you're pretending to answer had a few more words when I originally wrote it. Let's have a little looky, shall we?


​

My goodness gracious! I wonder how that could have happened.

Anyway . . . no harm done, although now that it's all fixed up you might like to have another go at it.
Click to expand...

I am shocked! SHOCKED, I say...

Oh, wait. No, I'm not. Business as usual.
 
Janadele said:
"Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline."
Click to expand...

Members
Members
Members

Why then, is the LDS church getting involved in the Marriage Equality debate, as their meddling impacts NON-Members?

My lesbian friends are NOT Mormon. By your own church's guidelines, the LDS church has NO authority over them and thus, no right to keep them from marrying.
 
Janadele said:
"Members who violate the Lord’s law of chastity or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline."
Click to expand...

Right. Members. So why are you and your church trying to force non members into complying with this? Why do you pass judgment on what other people do when it has no bearing on you living your own life, worshiping as you please, and going about your own business?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom