What's new
By:

LDS general conference - Fall 2013

colton said:
Not quite sure what you mean by that. Offhand, I can think of
1890ish - stopped polygamy
1978 - extended priesthood to blacks

Both of those were done by revelation (if you believe in that), or as a results of outside pressure (if you don't). Or maybe a little of both. But twice since the death of Joseph Smith in 1844 hardly qualifies as "a frankly staggering rate" to me.

But maybe you are thinking about other things.
Click to expand...

A lot of people lump "policy" into "doctrine" or "beliefs". From where I sit the core beliefs of the church have changed very very little. Policy on the other hand has changed quite a bit at various times. Most often, imo, to fit the exigencies of the time. Not sure if that is the same or not. Maybe it is, as wouldn't the claim be that the church structure itself is perfect, therefore policies would be as well, right?
 
mellow said:
I had to drag my flock to the church with me so that I could have the service opportunity of watching other peoples kids while the husband was home.

My battle with cynicism continues.
Click to expand...

Also, it is not to be referred to as "child care" or "baby sitting." It is a class. Supposedly a lesson is supposed to be taught. In one ward this was actually one of my callings. This is not a new policy direction, it has supposed to have been in effect for a number of years now.
 
spycam1 said:
What differences, specifically, are you referring to?
Click to expand...

You can start at the chromosome level and move up from there. Estrogen v. Testosterone, relative strength and endurance, center of balance, emotional differences, thought pattern differences, the propensity of certain disabilities like colorblindness. Seriously, this is not even debatable. . .
 
Bronco70 said:
Fair enough. I can appreciate that. I think that perhaps using the term "above it" was not the best way to describe my thinking.

Ultimately, this is what it boils down to for me: I would be 100% on board if the church decided to give women the priesthood. Personally, I have no qualms about them having it. But, as it currently stands, it's not enough to shake my tree or cause me to denounce my church.

The fact of the matter is, there are a lot of things I don't understand, and a few things that I just plain disagree with. But there are many things I like, and have a positive impact on me and my family.
Click to expand...

The priesthood "issue" is one of the many things that can be explained by the emphasis on the family unit in the LDS church. Women have been given the ability to have children. Of course there has to be a sperm contribution from the man, but the woman has the biology to carry a child and then give birth to it. This is the act of giving premortal beings an earthly body (a huge part of God's plan) and is considered a Godly attribute. Men, on the other hand, are given the priesthood. This is often defined as the authority to act in God's name. It is used within the family (blessings) as well as to perform essential ordinances such as baptism, endowments, and sealings. The obtainment of a body is nothing without the priesthood, and without bodies, priesthood ordinances could not be performed. They work together to accomplish God's work.

"Neither is the man without the woman, neither is the woman without the man, in The Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:11
 
spycam1 said:
What differences, specifically, are you referring to?
Click to expand...

There are none. Men and women are literally exactly the same, there is no difference other than a penis and boobs. The only imagined "differences" are complete fallacies foisted on us by an overly zealous religious movement that has had centuries to ingrain everyone with false ideas that there is even the tiniest difference at all in the sexes. Nothing mentioned as a difference could possibly hold any weight since it is all the product of a pervasively male-centric sexist culture that places a premium on being male and relegates all females to second-class citizens by design. We will only ever be free when we can resist any pigeon-holing of any kind and never acknowledge any differences in anyone, while at the same time celebrating and promoting, institutionally and through government mandate, diversity at every level.
 
framer said:
You can start at the chromosome level and move up from there. Estrogen v. Testosterone, relative strength and endurance, center of balance, emotional differences, thought pattern differences, the propensity of certain disabilities like colorblindness. Seriously, this is not even debatable. . .
Click to expand...

Strength/endurance and all that falls under physical differences I was talking about before.

What are the proven emotional differences between genders? And why are there these differences? Honestly curious, if you happen to know the details.
 
colton said:
"Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church"
https://biblehub.com/ephesians/5-23.htm

- Bible, pretty much any version you care to choose.


Not sure what you're trying to say, but surely it's not that anyone who believes in the Bible thinks that women cannot be the equal of men. Is it?
Click to expand...
I'm saying that I do believe that Christians are moral people but that they do not(even though they claim they do)derive their morals from the bible. You decide which versus in the bible are moral which makes you not the book the moral agent. I'm saying that if you did follow the moral code set forth in the bible you would not be a moral person. You would be a sexist, racist, xenophobic, homophobic monster.
 
LogGrad98 said:
There are none. Men and women are literally exactly the same, there is no difference other than a penis and boobs. The only imagined "differences" are complete fallacies foisted on us by an overly zealous religious movement that has had centuries to ingrain everyone with false ideas that there is even the tiniest difference at all in the sexes. Nothing mentioned as a difference could possibly hold any weight since it is all the product of a pervasively male-centric sexist culture that places a premium on being male and relegates all females to second-class citizens by design. We will only ever be free when we can resist any pigeon-holing of any kind and never acknowledge any differences in anyone, while at the same time celebrating and promoting, institutionally and through government mandate, diversity at every level.
Click to expand...

XX vs XY
 
LogGrad98 said:
There are none. Men and women are literally exactly the same, there is no difference other than a penis and boobs. The only imagined "differences" are complete fallacies foisted on us by an overly zealous religious movement that has had centuries to ingrain everyone with false ideas that there is even the tiniest difference at all in the sexes. Nothing mentioned as a difference could possibly hold any weight since it is all the product of a pervasively male-centric sexist culture that places a premium on being male and relegates all females to second-class citizens by design. We will only ever be free when we can resist any pigeon-holing of any kind and never acknowledge any differences in anyone, while at the same time celebrating and promoting, institutionally and through government mandate, diversity at every level.
Click to expand...
The problem is discontinuous thinking. The average man is stronger than the average woman but people are not averages. I have known women that could beat the living **** out of 90% of Jazzfanz. Is it fair to delegate someones position in society based on average differences amongst the general population. For sure men are much more likely to be working on a construction site but that does not mean that all women are incapable of doing the work. What is it about the (male only)priesthood that makes the differences between men and women insurmountable.

BTW I don't believe that government mandated quotas are necessary and that if a woman wants to be a firefighter for instance she needs to be held to the same physical standards as the men.
 
heyhey said:
The problem is discontinuous thinking. The average man is stronger than the average woman but people are not averages. I have known women that could beat the living **** out of 90% of Jazzfanz. Is it fair to delegate someones position in society based on average differences amongst the general population. For sure men are much more likely to be working on a construction site but that does not mean that all women are incapable of doing the work. What is it about the (male only)priesthood that makes the differences between men and women insurmountable.

BTW I don't believe that government mandated quotas are necessary and that if a woman wants to be a firefighter for instance she needs to be held to the same physical standards as the men.
Click to expand...

you say this like the WNBA does not exist. Watch a few games, then get back to me.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Are we hashtagging things now?
Click to expand...

No, to me the "#" symbol is still a plain old number sign.

What I wrote earlier was:

Let's take the numbers reported on April 6, 2013. Official membership was reported up by 341,127 to 14,782,473. The "increase in the children of record" is 122,273 and new converts are 272,330. (Mormon children are typically baptized at age 8, so a new "child of record" is a child of a member or a convert that hasn't been baptized yet.)

So are there any subtractions? The gross increase is 122,273 + 272,330 = 394,603. Difference between net and gross increase is 394,603 - 341,127 = 53,476. Even if we assume the entire subtraction is due to death, the death rate is at MOST 3.7 deaths per 1000. Compare that to the 8.4 and 8.3 deaths per 1000 for the U.S. and World respectively.

https://www.indexmundi.com/united_sta...s_profile.html

This has been going on for decades, and the LDS assumptions about its own death rates lead to a constantly increasing gap between the "real" number and the reported number even if we assumed retention rates were truly close to 100% as the church treats all former members that haven't officially resigned membership as current members.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Thanks for reposting. I must have just glossed over that without thinking about it very much. I agree that that's a pretty compelling case that the gap is likely increasing.

I have seen allegations (although I don't know if they are accurate) that the church puts members on the roster until it officially learns of their death or until they are something like 105 years old. I'm not certain if the number is accurate, but it would explain the lower assumed death rate that we can reach just from simple arithmetic.

The congregations and stakes number is harder. I do know that growth has occurred in the net but I don't know what that necessarily means about membership. I suspect that parishoners per stake/ward is not uniform across countries nor do I know what that says about active members. I do know that stake/ward numbers were predicted at one point in the 1970s-1980s based upon then-current growth rates and the current numbers are well below those predictions.
Click to expand...

I think the #people/ward is more constant across the world than you think. It's basically set by the church organizational structure. If you count up the number of callings mentioned in the church handbook, a ward is going to be pretty close to that--maybe a little short, maybe a little long, but pretty close. Maybe if I get some time in the next week I'll look up the historical values for that.

What I think you seem to be missing, is that it's very possible for the % of active members to be shrinking, while the total number of active members continues to increase. As I said earlier, I think there's no chance that the actual #active members has gone down at all, let alone substantially like you posited in your prior post.
 
Sirkickyass said:
I have seen allegations (although I don't know if they are accurate) that the church puts members on the roster until it officially learns of their death or until they are something like 105 years old. I'm not certain if the number is accurate, but it would explain the lower assumed death rate that we can reach just from simple arithmetic.
Click to expand...

This is correct. The number is 110. Sure, you could say that 80 years old would be a more appropriate age to assume people have died of whose whereabouts are unknown, but the further you decrease that number the less and less sensitivity you get in being able to locate living members. If one wants to believe the church conveniently selects an older age to be able to boast numbers, I suppose that's their prerogative (how many would that add, anyway?) However, if you tend to view the church as feeling they have a responsibility and stewardship to tend to, as mentioned in The Book of Mormon ("and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer" Moroni 6:4) then it seems to make more sense. I mean, don't people on the church rolls complain that the church keeps hounding them wherever they live? If people can't be found, they go to the address unknown file in Salt Lake where efforts are made to locate those individuals. At some point they will pass away, but at what point should the LDS church say with confidence that a person has deceased and you can cease efforts? For a church oft accused of being exclusionary, they seem to spare little effort to find anyone and everyone. If someone is inclined to think they inflated age of presumed death is a book-cooking trick to make the church look a couple hundred thousand members bigger, then that's fine. But it's rather relevant to consider the underlying reasons for policies and not just default to foul play.
 
infection said:
This is correct. The number is 110. Sure, you could say that 80 years old would be a more appropriate age to assume people have died of whose whereabouts are unknown, but the further you decrease that number the less and less sensitivity you get in being able to locate living members. If one wants to believe the church conveniently selects an older age to be able to boast numbers, I suppose that's their prerogative (how many would that add, anyway?) However, if you tend to view the church as feeling they have a responsibility and stewardship to tend to, as mentioned in The Book of Mormon ("and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer" Moroni 6:4) then it seems to make more sense. I mean, don't people on the church rolls complain that the church keeps hounding them wherever they live? If people can't be found, they go to the address unknown file in Salt Lake where efforts are made to locate those individuals. At some point they will pass away, but at what point should the LDS church say with confidence that a person has deceased and you can cease efforts? For a church oft accused of being exclusionary, they seem to spare little effort to find anyone and everyone. If someone is inclined to think they inflated age of presumed death is a book-cooking trick to make the church look a couple hundred thousand members bigger, then that's fine. But it's rather relevant to consider the underlying reasons for policies and not just default to foul play.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the # is 110 because they don't want to assume one of their members was dead when they weren't. If you were mormon and found out that they had you listed as deceased your feelings would be hurt and no one would bother to visit you. If you were dead and they thought you were still alive I don't think you would give a ****.
 
heyhey said:
Can they have the kind that allows you to baptize people? The kind that one would have if that person were a bishop.

The blacks do have drinking fountains!!!
Click to expand...

Exactly.... They don't have the priesthood to do those things as of now, but for those who claim they can't get the priesthood and that it is gender specific that is not true...

I won't be surprised if the church allows all worthy women to some day have the priesthood like the worthy males!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top