What's new
By:
Filters

LDS general conference - Fall 2013

heyhey said:
“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife... as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

- Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., Latter-day Saint Messenger and Advocate, Nov. 1835
Click to expand...

"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?
 
spycam1 said:
Nah, not going to blast you or anything. I think we can respectfully disagree.

The whole concept of sexism, to me, is inferring something about someone's inner characteristics based on their outer characteristics, and I feel the typical Mormon responses to women and the priesthood (and similar topics) are sexist under this definition. For instance, I often hear Mormons spout out ideas such as "men are more visual, women are more emotional" as if having a penis inherently makes me a less emotional/spiritual being. So, when you say that women are above the priesthood, I interpret it in a similar fashion--that, as a male, I'm less in some way? If women are "above it", then that means I'm "below" it? All because my body differs from that of a woman's?

I said I wasn't going to blast you, so I hope it doesn't sound like I am. But when I hear people make comments I view as sexist, I try to at least explain to them why I see it that way in the hope that maybe they'll see the sexism in their statements and change them, or that they'll be able to point out flaws in my own reasoning so I no longer have to feel offended by similar statements I hear in the future.
Click to expand...

That right there is the issue. The difference between a man and a woman is not just their junk. I can't see why this would even be arguable.
 
Bronco70 said:
Some view the priesthood as much more a responsibility than a right or privilege.

I know this is kind of obtuse, but the young men in my ward are responsible for taking the garbage out of the building after meetings every Sunday. The young women, who outnumber the YM about 2 to 1, are never tasked with it. Not because they can't, but because they, as daughters of God, are above it.

Holding the Priesthood is ecclesiastic janitorial work.

I think the Priesthood is largely misunderstood - it's not magic and it's not authority over anyone else. It's simply a responsibility to serve God. It's extra work, and daughters of God are above it. There are no blessings available to Priesthood holders that aren't available to any and every faithful member.

[/my opinion]
Click to expand...

My personal belief with the trash is that it is an old traditional view of men and women's roles. The young men take out the trash and set chairs up/take them down while the young women do all of the babysitting at the adult functions. I personally would like to see these basic duties shared between the two groups. The YM need to learn how to take care of children, and it won't hurt the YW to help set up and take the trash out.
 
Sirkickyass said:
Come on colton, look at those death rates again and tell me there isn't a serious institutional bias problem with how the numbers are calculated? Do you really think there's not a problem with a system where gains are locked in forever and losses are assumed to absurdly low rates?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must have missed that. I didn't notice anything about death rates. Can you steer me to that again?

What do you think about the #congregations and #stakes point that I made earlier in the thread?
 
JAG said:
My personal belief with the trash is that it is an old traditional view of men and women's roles. The young men take out the trash and set chairs up/take them down while the young women do all of the babysitting at the adult functions. I personally would like to see these basic duties shared between the two groups. The YM need to learn how to take care of children, and it won't hurt the YW to help set up and take the trash out.
Click to expand...



Actually the official church direction is that this duty is to be split between the HP and the EQ, except when offered as a service project by the young women or young men (they need service hours for their Faith in God award.)
 
framer said:
Actually the official church direction is that this duty is to be split between the HP and the EQ, except when offered as a service project by the young women or young men (they need service hours for their Faith in God award.)
Click to expand...

Faith in God is a primary program.
 
UGLI baby said:
Gonna have to take your word for it. Sorry Lavar Burton.


dat jazzfanz.com mobile app doe
Click to expand...

Not the USED tp. I believe that all paper products in the church use recycled materials. Also Deseret Industries is a pretty darn green concept.
 
framer said:
Actually the official church direction is that this duty is to be split between the HP and the EQ, except when offered as a service project by the young women or young men (they need service hours for their Faith in God award.)
Click to expand...

And I don't think I've ever seen the EQ or the HP take this duty on.
 
spycam1 said:
Nah, not going to blast you or anything. I think we can respectfully disagree.

The whole concept of sexism, to me, is inferring something about someone's inner characteristics based on their outer characteristics, and I feel the typical Mormon responses to women and the priesthood (and similar topics) are sexist under this definition. For instance, I often hear Mormons spout out ideas such as "men are more visual, women are more emotional" as if having a penis inherently makes me a less emotional/spiritual being. So, when you say that women are above the priesthood, I interpret it in a similar fashion--that, as a male, I'm less in some way? If women are "above it", then that means I'm "below" it? All because my body differs from that of a woman's?

I said I wasn't going to blast you, so I hope it doesn't sound like I am. But when I hear people make comments I view as sexist, I try to at least explain to them why I see it that way in the hope that maybe they'll see the sexism in their statements and change them, or that they'll be able to point out flaws in my own reasoning so I no longer have to feel offended by similar statements I hear in the future.
Click to expand...

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.
 
framer said:
Not the USED tp. I believe that all paper products in the church use recycled materials. Also Deseret Industries is a pretty darn green concept.
Click to expand...

I know that the TP is about 80 grit and so thin it dissolves in water. Ouch.
 
NUMBERICA said:
The former is everything I was taught growing up and I'm not even 30 yet. It doesn't really make sense to me that the supposed one true church - that has the ability to commune directly with god - revises it's own beliefs at a frankly staggering rate.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JAG said:
And I don't think I've ever seen the EQ or the HP take this duty on.
Click to expand...

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.
 
JAG said:
My personal belief with the trash is that it is an old traditional view of men and women's roles. The young men take out the trash and set chairs up/take them down while the young women do all of the babysitting at the adult functions. I personally would like to see these basic duties shared between the two groups. The YM need to learn how to take care of children, and it won't hurt the YW to help set up and take the trash out.
Click to expand...

In my ward, when the RS/EQ have a function, the YM/YW usually provide a babysitting service. Both are involved, and frequently more YM show up than YW.
 
What are these EQ functions you speak of? Is that when we get together to put up chairs, or when we get together to take them down?
 
Sirkickyass said:
I did an example of this arithmetic in my previous post for Brazil whereby the church claims 1,138,740 members in Brazil, but in the 2010 census only 225,695 Brazilians claimed they were LDS. In other words 93% of the supposed church membership in Brazil is missing.
Click to expand...

How exactly is the census structured? Is LDS provided as an option in a list, or do they have to specify "Other" and then specifically identify LDS? So if 1 million of the mormons polled in Brazil stated "Christian" as that was the choice in the list, and the rest specifically stated Other-LDS, then that doesn't mean the other million are not LDS. Also, census is self-identification, so I could have chosen Pacific Islander as my race regardless of what my race actually is.

I found their 2010 questionnaire. Here is the question on race:

6.12 - WHAT IS YOUR RELIGION OR CULT? Open combo box of religion (entering 4 characteres)
(If you are under 10 years, go to 6.13. Otherwise, skip to 6.14)
Click to expand...

So what is your religion or cult and then an open blank to write it in. So how did they differentiate the possible different responses? LDS, Mormon, RLDS even maybe, is that lumped in? Church of Jesus Christ, and the out of space, so there are more than 1 Church of Jesus Christ out there. How many mormons wrote in Christian or some variation of that?


Anyway, I think the reporting of the actual number of church membership and activity is spotty at best and no doubt controversial. I guess my question is why does it matter? The church wants a higher number to look good to prospective members maybe? Is there outright lying on the part of the church, or its detractors? I think this last is the most relevant question and seems to be the overwhelming assertion. Is it possible it is simply the use of different methods (census vs count of church records, etc.) and both are legitimate and no one is actively trying to be deceptive?
 
colton said:
Sorry, I must have missed that. I didn't notice anything about death rates. Can you steer me to that again?

What do you think about the #congregations and #stakes point that I made earlier in the thread?
Click to expand...

Are we hashtagging things now?

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...

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.
 
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...

Impressive. It always gets defaulted to the YW here.

But I still stand by what I said about it being split between the YM and YW. YM and YW are at the age where they need to learn how to be an adult and how to raise a family. That requires the YW learning how to do some of the things the YM have to do and vice versa.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top