♪alt13
Well-Known Member
Do you not see how self contradictory your statements are?
LDS general conference - Fall 2013
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
Zulu
Well-Known Member
All I'm saying is there is precedents for women to hold the priesthood equally as men!!!
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
ok
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
Sounds good. I don't think I'm coming from the place you think I'm coming from, but you're right that some of your opinions on this subject don't make much sense to me. It's one thing to not want to hold a position of leadership in your church, and a totally different thing not to be allowed to. Are you saying you wish you were a woman?
♪alt13
Well-Known Member
yeah bronco cuz I know this guy in Mexico that can help you out with that.
framer
Well-Known Member
I counter your argument with why isn't there one woman in the NBA. Surely if your premise is true, then there is a woman that could have replaced Milt Palacio on a roster, no?
Look, I get where you are coming from. But to say that the only REAL difference between men and women is the roles that society has thrust upon them is pure horse squeeze. It is possible to believe that women are quite different from men and also agree that they are not inferior in any way. You don't need to justify this by just making stuff up. This is why political correctness sucks, because, in the end, it stops people from growing into the truth by denying the argument.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
I totally get the not wanting a leadership position thing. I am always asked to be Ward Mission Leader or something similar due to management background, and sometimes I just want to get into a ward and be Brother Joe Schmo and not have a calling, and not have to manage when I don't have to be managing for work.
This brings up another question, why the compulsion to create callings just so everyone has one? We had an assistant 2nd Sunday Deacons Quorum teacher. 2 of them actually. Is that for real? They had a lot of younger families, so a glut of younger elders (20's and 30's) and so they had a 1st Sunday teacher, 2nd Sunday teacher, and so on, for a deacon's quorum of about 8 boys, same in teachers and priests, while the primary had close to the population of Rhode Island with well over 25 sunbeams and had a few tandem teachers and that was about it. Sometimes I felt like it was silly to put me in as assistant to the assistant facilities guy while we had 3 guys called as the facilities guy in the ward (true story), and did not feel one bit closer to anyone in the ward for it, not any more included than if I just went to my meetings and participated and was a nice guy.
Why won't they sometimes just let us be members and allow us the opportunity to actually volunteer for things (like scout camp helper, or unofficial "mover" or cook at ward picnics, etc. all of which I have volunteered for at one point or another and more) rather than being pushed into a meaningless "service" position just so they can say everyone has a calling?
This brings up another question, why the compulsion to create callings just so everyone has one? We had an assistant 2nd Sunday Deacons Quorum teacher. 2 of them actually. Is that for real? They had a lot of younger families, so a glut of younger elders (20's and 30's) and so they had a 1st Sunday teacher, 2nd Sunday teacher, and so on, for a deacon's quorum of about 8 boys, same in teachers and priests, while the primary had close to the population of Rhode Island with well over 25 sunbeams and had a few tandem teachers and that was about it. Sometimes I felt like it was silly to put me in as assistant to the assistant facilities guy while we had 3 guys called as the facilities guy in the ward (true story), and did not feel one bit closer to anyone in the ward for it, not any more included than if I just went to my meetings and participated and was a nice guy.
Why won't they sometimes just let us be members and allow us the opportunity to actually volunteer for things (like scout camp helper, or unofficial "mover" or cook at ward picnics, etc. all of which I have volunteered for at one point or another and more) rather than being pushed into a meaningless "service" position just so they can say everyone has a calling?
gotta love the oxymoron here!
your post made me think of those "awards" in grammar school, especially the lower elementary grades, when everyone in the class is the "Best" something....
Some questions: Are "points" tallied so to speak for holding leadership types of positions? Is it like some sort of community service requirement? Would that be part of the reasoning behind creating rather meaningless "leadership" titles? Or is it just up to each region (or ward or stake or whatever they're called) to set up what they think will work best for their demographic? As Log said, is it more of an illusion to make people feel involved and important?
There are certain callings that are universal. Others depend on the specific needs of the ward.
Sometimes the reason a person is given a "calliing" is more to help themselves than it is to help the ward. For example: say you are the bishop of an older ward that was many less physically able members. I could see giving that old cat lady member of the ward that is lonely and has to much time on her hands a calling where she is responsible for finding ways to church for those that do not have one and want to go. Call it the Attendance Coordinator or something. She can reach out to ailing and/or older mmebers and arrange assistance and transportation for them if needed.
Helps the ward but it is also about her. She has a task and something to help occupy her time. She feels like she is contibuting and not just a burden.
That's to be expected, right? If we're looking at it from two completely different angles, there will be differences in what we see. Like I said, I do respect your opinion, and I'm sure you arrived at it through a process of careful thinking. But I would hope that you understand that I have too, and not just assume that, because I don't see it the way you do, I must be stupid or a mindless follower.
That's a loaded question. In the context of the conversation, it wouldn't matter. I'm not worried about heavy leadership callings. I'm not the "type" that usually winds up there.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
You can say this with a straight face even though you are a JF Moderator? Let's be honest. What higher calling is there in this world than that?
I was gone for a few days, had to help a few people move. Did I miss anything? Should I read what I missed? TIA
Yes.
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
everytime someone calls for me this way, I come running. babe the elder, sitting in my secluded mountain cave, appreciating the call to comment. . . .
In the Moron Culture there are several types. . . active, and inactive, with subsets of each. orthodox, and liberal. I'm an oxymoron, somewhat different and incomprehensible. . . .
Well, I like your humor. Nice to hear humor about Mormons, done nicely, by regular folks. Maybe we could become normal someday, instead of peculiar, if everyone could just laugh.
Well, and if we could laugh with them?????
(babe the oxymoron)
Someone was asking for a thousand-word treatise on this subject. . . . I take it as a calling. . . . .
I know how you can get out of this mess. . . . . say "yes" to the wife team idea. . . . and let the ladies manage things.
talk about outta the frying pan and into the fire. . . . .
j/k
you might be missing a few neighbors. Those who showed up at Conference saw Jesus and were taken to Heaven. Seven Years of "bad luck" for those who missed the boat.
j/k
D
Deleted member 848
Guest
Male Y chromosomes have 78-86 genes, which code for only 23 proteins. The X chromosome, on the other hand, has ~2000. 2 of the genes on the Y chromosomes are merely isoforms of X chromosome genes. Of the 21 others, most of (if not all) directly, or indirectly play a role in sperm development. That's it.
All of these are essentially rooted in estrogen v. testosterone.
This has been largely overblown. Almost every scientific study that has appraised the male brain as larger, or the female limbic system as being prone to receiving more blood flow, has more or less inferred that the variation within a gender is much larger than between them.
Men having one X chromosome, thus making them more prone to X-linked diseases (in this case red-green colour-blindness specifically, because they don't have another potentially wild type X) doesn't make for a very compelling case as to why men and women are different. There are numerous men out there with two X chromosomes, and a Y. They don't suffer from the higher rates of X-linked diseases-- so does that mean they aren't men?
Depends what 'this' is. Are men and women different? Well no ****. But are the differences between the two genders absolutely overblown? From a genetic standpoint, ABSOLUTELY.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
A 2008 religious self identification survey in the US found that only 3.2 million people self-reported as Mormon, compared to 5.9 million on the LDS church membership rolls. Of these, 77% report attending church regularly, so that equals about 43% activity rate.
It's much, much worse outside of North America, however. Religious self-identification surveys in Chile, Mexico, and Brazil found that fewer than 25% of people on LDS membership rolls actually self-reported as being Mormon. So, if we assume that of these, again 77% are active (as in the US, probably a generous assumption), this translates roughly into 19% activity rates. My assumption is that it is roughly the same in other countries, particularly in the developing world where the LDS church finds a good share of its converts.
Plus, the oft heard statement that the LDS Church is one of fastest growing religions in the world (one of the things members say to convince themselves that this is indeed God's work--what we call a 'social proof') is not true either. Membership rates are stagnating, and the numbers leaving the church are approaching those joining the church. It's especially true among young men who are leaving the church at higher rates than young women, which begs the question, if temple marriage is still the ideal, just who are all these women going to marry?
