[Beefster]

The priesthood is the power that holds the church together through ordinances. These blessings are available to everyone, not just those who officiate in them. The priesthood itself is not a blessing of the priesthood. It’s just the priesthood. It’s a tool for bringing salvation.

We really don’t know why women do not have the priesthood, and I really can understand where some women are coming from when they feel less important than men because they don’t have the priesthood.

I’m sure you’ve heard the idea that men are given the priesthood to bring them on equal grounds with women, but that is misandry and so I reject that notion. (I recognize it can be seen as, and often is seen as, misogyny, particularly if you take a “priesthood by default” point of view)

I would say that the temple evens the playing field due to women officiating in ordinances there, but that still fails to address the differences in wording and ceremonial wear that have always bothered me a little. Women seem like second class citizens there, where nearly all their blessings are captured in a “to your husbands” clause. And Eve never says a word outside the Garden of Eden… And she’s the only woman. It makes it seem as if women need to be escorted everywhere by their husbands. It still bothers me, and it would probably bother me more if I were a woman. I try not to let it get in the way of anything else, but it’s always there waiting to be resolved.

But the thing is, I really don’t believe that’s God’s intended message. I wouldn’t hold my breath for any of the presentation to change. Still, I know that God isn’t that hair-splittingly petty. I know He loves women dearly. I know God isn’t sexist, misogynistic, or misandristic. That would be against his nature. I don’t know why the wording is the way it is. I don’t know why women are presented in a way that can suggest they are second-class citizens in God’s Kingdom. I don’t have any clue why women are not given the priesthood. But I do know that God loves us, and I’m just going to have to let that be enough, despite not being anywhere close to intellectually satisfied.

[Beefster]

Wouldn’t want those lesbians at girls camp to see your lower calves… So scandalous.

I noticed today that my ward doesn’t really care what the girls are wearing to church. What matters is that they’re at church. Modesty should be a personal decision, not a rule.

I do consider modesty important in girls whom I date, but that is another issue entirely.

[Beefster]

I dunno if avoiding the bishop is necessarily the right course of action in every case. Not every bishop is that black and white. At least in theory, he’s there to be a love and a support to you as an arbitrator in helping you work through the repentance process. Sometimes repentance involves disciplinary action (as in the case of pre- or extramarital sex, and murder), though I will admit there’s a pretty serious leadership roulette problem there because some issues are treated with wild inconsistency.

For instance, masturbation has little consistency from leader to leader when it comes to disciplinary action. There are bishops who revoke your TR, bishops who will say you can’t take the sacrament, bishops who just tell you to stop doing it and move on, and there’s probably just about everything in between.

I guess you should consider your bishop’s personality and pray about it before taking action. If your bishop is a “Gospel of Christ” bishop rather than a “Law of Moses” bishop, you’ll probably be fine confessing the sin and he’ll actually be helpful. Law of Moses bishops will likely resort to more strict, and generally less helpful, action.

[Beefster]

Old Timer wrote:

Leadership roulette is a real thing at BYU – but there are plenty of excellent Bishops there, as well.

Definitely true. I got lucky with the four bishops I had in Provo, but they were not all equally good. My favorite bishop was easily the one I had for the two years immediately after my mission. His favorite topic was pornography/addiction, but he approached it in such a comfortable and loving way that nobody really seemed to be bothered by it. He really did a lot to make the kind of environment where you could feel comfortable talking about it with your roommates or him. He even addressed the fact that it affects women too. His wife also made amazing barbecued pulled pork.

I’ve definitely heard of the bad bishops. I worked with this one unorthodox guy at one point. He was having issues getting his ecclesiastical endorsement renewed for some dumb reason (I can’t remember what it was, but it was something petty. Maybe it was because he was lazy about shaving. Maybe it was because he didn’t agree with the honor code. I dunno.) and his bishop made him jump through a bunch of hoops to get it renewed. I’ve also heard similar horror stories along the same lines from various people.

FTSOY really should be defining what the heck heavy petting is because it sounds like any sort of prolonged rubbing anywhere on the body (is that what your girlfriend thinks it is?), when that is not the definition I got when I Googled it (erotic contact between two people involving stimulation of the genitals but stopping short of intercourse.). Basically, it’s more like almost sex. [Admin Note: We have a policy against using graphic, sexual language, purely because so many different people read what is written here. We try to follow Paul’s advice about not eating meat with those who don’t eat meat. Therefore, some descriptions have been deleted.] If you and your GF have not done that, you have done nothing wrong.

The church really needs to stop using such vague terminology and just call a spade a spade when it comes to sexuality. :sigh:

[Beefster]

Ray, your tie-less temple attire and story of the casual couple have given me courage to begin to change things.

I am moving into a new ward in a week. Maybe I’ll use that as an opportunity to start something new. Perhaps I’ll start with something simple such as ditching the tie. I’ve done it on accident before and nobody seems to care when I do. Doesn’t change the fact that I was very self-conscious about it.

[Beefster]

I think this is a really interesting perspective that really puts things in a different light.

At one point, I thought that maybe missionaries should adopt a business casual look in order to be less intimidating. When people see suits, they think of top executives, corporate sales reps, lawyers, finance guys, etc… and put up a barrier because most of these kinds of people are not to be trusted. I think it was good when the dress code was “relaxed” in mid-2013 (Elders can now wear khakis with their white shirts, but backpacks were banned), as it makes them less intimidating. I guess when you consider that missionaries and GAs are actual representatives of the church, I can see why dressing appropriately for that matters. Then again, I’ve seen plenty of sales reps who dress business casual, so I don’t see the problem there.

I think it’s an unnecessary tradition that the suit is the uniform of the priesthood. I have never felt the need to be dressed up for home teaching (but I go along with it if my comp insists), I see no problem with officiating the sacrament in a plaid shirt and no tie, and I have probably given more blessings in casual wear than I have in a white shirt and tie. One of these days, I’ll give up the white shirt and tie at church and show up business casual just to show I’m done with the tradition, but like one of the posts here mentioned, I don’t exactly want to send the wrong message about my commitment to the gospel.

I do think there is value in dressing differently for church/Sunday, but I don’t think that needs to be a suit.

[Beefster]

Sorry. My bad about the sugar thing. That was kind of out of place to put it there. By no means am I imposing it on others and I apologize if it comes off as peddling a philosophy. It’s just something I do, and you’re right that it has nothing to do with the WoW. I don’t want to be like your typical vegan.

Good point about weed/narcotics. It should be common sense to avoid narcotics at the very least.

[Beefster]

Not sure if I’m beating a dead horse here in reviving this thread. Didn’t read most of the posts.

Any stake that does this is being short-sighted. I would suggest that having any dress code for girls camp is unnecessary and counterproductive. These girls know their own standards and are intelligent enough to follow them if they so desire.

In my ward in Colorado, girls camp this year had no dress requirements from what I could tell. I was a designated priesthood holder for one of the days (basically, we just got fed and sat around and watched movies. We were there just in case someone needed a blessing.) and I saw that at least half the girls wore short shorts and/or tank tops. But it wasn’t really an issue and it was actually probably a good thing overall. There were probably four girls who were inactive and girls camp was their only real contact with the church besides maybe home teachers. That is going to make an impact.

On an slightly unrelated note, I personally dislike yoga pants, but it’s because I always thought they looked dumb and not because I think they’re immodest. If you feel okay about wearing them, go for it. At least they’re super comfortable from what I hear.

[Beefster]

Wow, I can’t believe I forgot about “Oh my heck.” I didn’t realize that was a thing until my mission (when I got dumped in with a bunch of Utah natives) and I thought it sounded dumb from the very beginning.

If the goal of not swearing is to be civilized and sound educated, using fake swears doesn’t actually solve the problem. If it’s a matter of respect, I can get behind that.

It reminds me of a funny story: In my last BYU ward, at one point, one of the BR members called out the EQ for texting the phrase “sick AF” because the F stands in for a four-letter word. The irony in it was that he went on a few sentences later to say (I can’t remember the exact context) something was “pretty frickin’ awesome.” Once I realized the hypocrisy here, I was rather amused and almost decided to call him out on it in private.

[Beefster]

That too, though he probably would not have crossed the ocean since he had people on his tail until the day he died.

Also, Moroni was kind of a beast. I once calculated the weight of the plates to be something like 45 pounds. And how many miles would he have had to carry it?

[Beefster]

I’m reminded of the one Jeffrey R Holland talk about the fork in the road. He and his son felt as if they should go right… which was quickly a dead end. Perhaps this was because God knew it would work out either way and felt no need to actually inspire them. It didn’t actually matter which way they went, so God said nothing and Elder Holland and his son filled in the blank, and it just so happened to match.

Perhaps I overqualified the rarity of this kind of inspiration, though I have come to the understanding that it really doesn’t matter whether it’s inspired or not if it gets you to act. Most of the time, things will work out no matter what you do.

[Beefster]

Beginning thread necromancy ritual.

Old Timer wrote:

Yes – I follow the current, “accepted” interpretation of the WofW AND what I want to follow concerning the spirit of D&C 89. I eat meat regularly but in quantities I consider to be moderate (sparingly, very loosely defined); I eat fruits and grains and try to make it as healthy as I can (and I’ve focused more on that over the last few months – and lost weight accordingly, btw); I don’t partake of any currently “prohibited” substances (both because of what I know about myself and because I don’t care about those substances in any way and won’t partake simply to take a stance of any kind); I love the general idea of the strong sacrificing for the good of the weak; I believe the focus on future addiction peddlers was prophetic to the core; etc.

I don’t agree with lots of the justifications other people use to follow the WofW, but mine makes sense to me. I have no desire to not follow this one.

This pretty much reflects my sentiments on the matter.

I have a few additional thoughts.

[list]

[Beefster]

Here’s my theory:

There isn’t just one region it took place in. 1000 years is a long time. They spread out. They drifted. That’s why the theories can never seem to reconcile every detail of geography. It’s like Bible scholars assuming that the flood didn’t take Noah anywhere and that modern-day Tigris and Euphrates rivers are the same ones as in the Garden of Eden.

The Nephites landed in Northwest South America. Why? Occam’s Razor. It’s the most straightforward place for them to have landed and Nephi never said anything about following a coast (Africa), so they probably went on open ocean and went nearly due east. One assumption. It also lines up better with the wildlife and resources mentioned in 2 Nephi than does North America.

They spread out and drifted over the next few hundred years. Around Mosiah, the bulk of the Nephites were in Central America. The land of desolation is essentially modern-day Mexico plus the four corners states. Clay huts mentioned there line up well with tribal ruins in those places, which are typically made of clay.

Fast forward to the decline of the Nephites in Mormon/Moroni, and the wars probably took them into North America since the plates had to get to modern-day New York somehow.

The Jaredites landed on the East Coast of the modern-day US and mostly occupied North America. They fell into decline around Mexico, explaining why Coriantumr was found there.

The Hill Cumorah in Ether is probably a different hill than the one where the plates were buried. People like to name cities after other cities, so why not hills? Jerusalem itself is an example, since it literally means New Salem. Plus there’s the aforementioned Tigris and Euphrates rivers on the modern map as well as the supposed real location of the Garden of Eden in Missouri.

You save on a lot of inconsistency when you remove the assumption that the entirety of BoM history took place in the same region. Occam’s Razor wins again. I also like to stay away from the assumption that the Nephites were the only people who lived in the Americas. That avoids the genetics trap.

Of course you can go full-blown Occam’s Razor and just assume the BoM isn’t a literal history, as many of you have. Frankly, I don’t care one way or another because it really doesn’t have to be.

—-

I remember this one member on my mission who was one of the major guys behind the Peru theory. He lost me when he said that the plates were buried somewhere other than New York and God just moved them to where they were needed when they were needed. I don’t think God works like that.

[Beefster]

I think it’s useful for understanding people even if it’s not very scientific. Personality is always a lot more nuanced than four letters, but if you know someone’s MBTI type/neighborhood, it can help you understand in broad strokes why they act the way they do.

It’s also helpful for writing, but that’s only from what I hear.

[Beefster]

When it comes to the idea that men are responsible for the finances and leadership while women are responsible for the nurturing, I like to think of it thusly:

-This is generally how skills and preferences tend to naturally work out. They aren’t always this way, but it will work out this way more often than not.

-I see being ‘primarily responsible’ as presiding over that task. You can delegate, even permanently, much like a bishop will delegate duties to his counselors. It is not a failure on a father’s part if his wife is the primary breadwinner because it’s perfectly acceptable for him to delegate that duty. Likewise, a mother is not a failure if her husband is the primary caretaker. That’s just how it works out sometimes- they may even prefer it- and that’s okay. The husband is simply in charge of making sure that the providing is happening while the wife is in charge of making sure the caretaking is happening.

-I think this is a perfectly acceptable system. Leadership tends to work out better when people have clear, though not necessarily set-in-stone, responsibilities. Duties sometimes get missed when you expect a set list of responsibilities to get divided up between a group of equal-authority leaders. In some cases, you get situations where the husband thinks a particular thing is his wife’s job and vice versa, so nobody is actually doing it. Assigning duties specifically helps to reduce this problem. (though I guess that’s kind of a moot point for two things that are unavoidably fundamental)

I think a more important aspect to be focusing on is contributing equally to the marriage and family. This is fortunately way less of a problem for my generation than past generations, but I’ve noticed that some men in the older age brackets tend not to help much around the house. Some men don’t cook either.

[Author]

Posts