[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

Watcher wrote:

More along the line of the concept behind the Star Trek “Kobayashi Maru”. This was a test of character in a no-win scenario. There is a concept or idea that we learned and developed in the pre-existence. Our mortal experience is then a final test or trial in preparation for our eternal glory.

Fascinating. I remember that you had theorized elsewhere that the a primary common element of the human experience is suffering. Therefore, mortal life could be a test of character on how we deal with suffering (both our own and that of others). I certainly hope that we all rise to the challenge to offer compassion and support to one another in our mutual suffering. Very interesting idea!

You are so right. I have observed that those that have suffered are the best to comfort those who are similarly suffering. There is one more thing to complete and give reason to all this seemingly needless suffering and sacrifices. It is that; what appears to be a no-win scenario that can only end in death (both physical and spiritual) becomes a no-lose scenario with the atonement of Christ. Regardless of how badly we fail the trial and what was lost – all is forgiven and restored because of the atonement of Christ. The only thing that remains is that we forgive – both others (including the so called righteous Saints) as well as ourselves – which gives us true eternal peace and ends the suffering. Both in ourselves as well as with others.

[Watcher]

SilentDawning wrote:

I am willing to believe that all the church says and stands for may be true. This is in case I have experiences that reconvince me of this. I have great faith in my own ignorance, biases, and incorrect thinking so in that respect, I leave myself open to my own Road to Damascus or lesser experiences that could change my mind back to orthodoxy.

But I have drawn some conclusions based on my life experiences in the church until such time I change them back to more traditional thinking. Here is my current thinking:

I find the church administration to have a great preoccupation with temporal matters, sometimes at the expense of higher principles or the good of the membership. I, rightly or wrongly, see the church as just like other organizations trying to extract wealth from me, unfortunately, and I see it as a very wealthy machine that really looks hard at its own temporal interests first and foremost. The fact that they own 5% of Florida is a case in point.

But there is one thing that doesn’t fit this narrative or temporal self-interest — temples. I don’t see how they are really a very wise investment, unlike functional chapels and land. I am not sure what they would be good for if not for the original purpose intended. They tend to be in residential areas, not zoned for commercial use (to my knowledge) many of them, and they are expensive. I don’t see them as affordable or built to eventually be cashed in for sale — their purpose is ongoing and timeless. And they don’t serve the same basic purpose of creating a place for day-to-day teaching and training as chapels do. At least chapels can be treated as profit centers, with the expenses generated from each chapel netted against the tithing to produce a profitability figure. Frankly, if you were designing a religion that had temporal goals only, I would leave temples out of the equation completely given their duplication of the teaching focus of chapels, and their cost to maintain.

What are your thoughts on this? Are temples a wise financial investment? If not, does the church’s investment in them (like the 18 new temples announced in Conference) make a point in favor of the Church’s truth claims?

I will provide my point of view and thoughts – knowing by experience that my point of view is hardly shared by others. I grew up in what I have learned to be unique circumstances. My father was raised very poor with 13 other siblings in a 3-bedroom home without indoor plumbing, electricity or central heating – only a cole burning stove. His father-in-law (my other grandfather) was quite wealthy and helped (taught my father the secrets of wealth). Though I grew up in a very wealthy household my father believed that children of rich parents were a blight on society. I grew up thinking we were poor, sharing a single bed (sleeping perpendicular with our feet hanging out) with two older brothers. We raised chickens and rabbits for meat and maintained a garden and fruit trees. We supplemented our meat hunting and fishing. My father seldom spent money on shopping – mostly he invested. (As a side note – I very much dislike fishing or shopping and think such to be a colossal waist of time.)

I grew up with an appreciation of work but a strong dislike of money. I do not like counting or spending money. Most of my life I have not even known what I was being paid for my work. I often had to be told to cash my paychecks. When I married, I let my wife do whatever she wanted with money. I really do not care about money. I am also not attached to things.

If it was up to me – I would gladly give everything I have to the Church and live under the Law of Consecration. I would let the church pay all my taxes – most of which are property taxes. I would gladly live in a much smaller house but my wife likes this place and the neighbors.

I love temples – much more than chapels that are way underused. I think chapels are or can be somewhat selfish, whereas temples are all about sacrifice and service. I believe the greatest revelations of divine things come through sacrifice and service. There are two places I feel always close to G-d – alone deep in the wilderness (usually mountains) and in the temples.

There is one other observation I have discovered about life. The more you give money to someone in need – the more they will hate you and your money. The only way to gain someone’s respect for your help is to provide them and their needs with your blood, sweat and tears – which is what Jesus did. Of all the programs I have encountered for the poor – none appear to be more helpful than the Church charities – especially fast offerings – which I believe to be the very essence of sacrifice and offering – and the only way to end poverty. Any concept of entitlement destroys personal respect.

But then – it is likely my opinions on such things as to why I have never been put in charge of such thing in the Church.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

Watcher wrote:

Without a pre-existence and post mortal spiritual reconciliation based in agency there can be no rational and consistent purpose of anything. If there is – I have not encountered it but I would gladly consider any other rational intelligent possibility.

I think that is a fair assessment Watcher. It reminds me of an analogy of a 3 act play by Elder Packer. We are in the middle part and it doesn’t seem to make any sense because we cannot remember the first act and the third act hasn’t happened yet.

Part of my difficulty is that if the plan of happiness were a three act play then it would be a play where the first and third parts are so very different from the middle as to seem from different plays altogether. In the first act we live with Heavenly Father and Jesus. In the second act we arrive at earth with no memories and whether or not G-d exists at all or what meaning the mortal life has is all up for debate and taken on faith.

And that is the crux. It is a leap of faith for those that are able to make the leap. I further believe that some of us are not capable to make the leap (either because of nature or life experiences). Fortunately, I also believe that there will be accommodations made for all things that are beyond the individual’s control. Indeed, I believe that there will be accommodations, invitations, encouragement, and support made sufficient for each and every one of us so that in the end only those that actively choose to turn away from G-d will be left out.

Similar to what OT said, if there are only two churches then in the final accounting all but the sons of perdition will belong to the Church of the Lamb.

Thank you for your kind post. I agree that the concept of a 3 act play fits somewhat. However, I would take this concept a little deeper. More along the line of the concept behind the Star Trek “Kobayashi Maru”. This was a test of character in a no-win scenario. There is a concept or idea that we learned and developed in the pre-existence. Our mortal experience is then a final test or trial in preparation for our eternal glory.

I sometimes think of glory in terms of money, wealth and position but all in an eternal spiritual sense. Our solar system is believed to be 4.5 billion years old. I am of the impression that we, as spiritual offspring of G-d the Father have been around learning from our Father for at least that time. If we compare that time to distance and let 1,000 years be a foot. We, if we live to be a hundred years or less old; we will spend about an inch to complete our mortal trial. If we were traveling from Salt Lake City to Dallis Texas – that would be the amount of time we have spent preparing. The last inch of the journey would be our mortal trial.

To make our trial effective – the trial, of necessity must be done without knowing the outcome – which includes all the planning and preparation made in the pre-existence. Our mortal probation, though but a moment, of necessity is blind. Therefore we come to this life without knowledge of our pre-existence and armed only with faith. This makes the trial poignant and real; forcing us to pass through the sacrifice, suffering and death, demonstrating our true character only through faith. When completed we are ready to exercise our agency as to our choice of Glory within the “kingdom” of G-d.

I agree with you and OT that all who exercised their agency in the pre-existence to complete a mortal trial will be saved in the one true church (or Kingdom of G-d). I have speculated that much like the circumstance in this life that there will be some (perhaps very few – including Satan and his followers and perhaps others that are called sons and daughters of perdition) that will choose (by their agency) to not participate in any of the one true Church (kingdom). Perhaps we may even see them from time to time and say hello. The ancient concept of being in the presents of G-d meant more along the lines of counseling with G-d. Since I equate attending church as being in counsel with G-d – I speculate some to be agents unto themselves and not interested in counseling with G-d – but I believe the opportunity will always be available but at such a point – I do not think anyone will have a change of heart. C.S Lewis presented this concept in his short book titled “The Great Divorce”.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

Watcher wrote:

A G-d of such precise order as our earth and solar system that fits preciously into our very structured and order universe could not be represented such a disarray of conflicting competing organizations as we have in current modern churches.

I have taken this same position.

1) It was awfully convenient for me to take this view seeing as how I had been born into the LDS church and had a vested interest in defending the only religious world that I knew.

2) I had reasoned that if G-d had any kinds of rules or steps for returning back to Him then He would set up an organization with spokesmen to communicate those steps in clarity. The problem for me now is that the LDS church is such a tiny percentage of the overall population that if this is G-d’s plan to teach and save his children then it is not a good plan. It barely scratches the surface and is really only available in a practical sense for those born in the right time and place. If G-d could set it up any way that He wanted then why wouldn’t He do something to make it less ambiguous. Maybe have angels visit and tell the world which organization truly represents Jesus and the Father.

3) Barring sending angels or having a voice speak from the sky or something like that, why would G-d send his message to a religious organization with as tortured of a history as we LDS have. To many people, our church is just weird. We are like the weird uncle that comes to thanksgiving dinner with his conspiracy theories about how he alone knows the truth. If the LDS church is revealed in heaven to be the only church and kingdom of G-d then lots of people will be left scratching their heads – as if to say “Really? Am I being pranked right now?”

How could the G-d of the universe be represented (and only represented) by the tiny weird little church that we have?

If we attempt to measure any idea of what is good, just, beneficial, important or needed (or even any counterparts of bad, unjust, malevolent, unneeded or unnecessary) based on what we can mitigate between the birth and death of human life – let alone any life as we understand life – nothing can be rationalized or demonstrated by example. Not for any religion nor government notion of what ought to or ought not to be. There is no way to justify why one human was born 5,000 years ago in a barely subsistent rather ignorant hunter gather society only to be sacrificed in infancy and another human is born in an affluent modern society with unlimited access to political, scientific, social, religious and philosophical knowledge gathered over time.

How can any theologian or philosopher claim there is a just, compassionate or intelligent G-d or even a consistent just purpose of life – let alone, so called, intelligent life? Certainly not in the western Abrahamic religions. Perhaps, in some of the more mistic Eastern religions there are possibilities but none of them are keeping up with the explosion of recent scientific knowledge. Nor is there any possibility for justice between birth and death in any philosophy. There is just no mitigation for the intelligence of humans – with the single exception I know of in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do realize that it is possible that I have not discovered some obscure hidden answer – but the logic of that (outside of birth and death) has already been dismissed by other posters.

Only in LDS theology is a pre-existence explained that allows for intelligent humans using the process of agency to determine their specific life experience and course. Again, only in LDS theology is there a post mortal existence (spirit world) that completes any an all variations in mortal experience giving all opportunity for a just, compassionate and intelligent exercise of agency to determine their “eternal” destiny. I have yet to encounter any religion that suggest we intelligently determine our eternal destiny through our own agency — in essence all other imply we are only what G-d, circumstance or chance makes of us.

The short and simple purpose of a mortal human existence is only given any possibility of personal determination (agency) through the concepts of the plan of salvation in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All else is unreachable through the appendage of the dichotomy between precept of good and evil that cannot be completed in mortality because in mortality we are ignorant and dependent on things beyond our mortal control or choice. Without a pre-existence and post mortal spiritual reconciliation based in agency there can be no rational and consistent purpose of anything. If there is – I have not encountered it but I would gladly consider any other rational intelligent possibility.

[Watcher]

SilentDawning wrote:

In my reading of the BoM I came across this passage that kind of surprises me. This is in 1 Nephi 14:10 where Nephi is allowed to see the things his father saw.

Quote:

10 And he [an angel] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people.

Two Questions

1. Would you say that all churches other than the one true one can be considered the Church of the Devil? Isn’t this a little hard on the many good people who have chosen alternatives to the LDS Church such as mainstream Christianity?

2. Why does it say the church of the devil “sat upon many waters”? Churches don’t float on the water, so I’m puzzled by the use of the term “waters” when describing the church of the devil.

I will make an effort to explain. Part of the problem in understanding ancient scripture is trying to understand ancient symbolism using modern style thinking. Very few living today have experience or understand the ancient kingdom types of government. Yet, we speak of heaven as a “kingdom” and think of G-d as the “king” of kingdom of heaven. Anciently it was understood that the religious organization that was properly connected to G-d was a type and shadow patterned after the Kingdom of heaven. In short – the church of G-d was an earthly manifestation of the kingdom of heaven or another way of thinking is that the “church” was the training ground preparing those involved for living in the Kingdom of Heaven and serving the King of Heaven.

In our modern society, we do not think of church as being that directly connected to G-d nor his “kingdom”. In essence it is just a place where we worship. We also think of worship as a stylized extension of our culture. Therefore, the modern idea of church is believed to be just a human extension of our various cultures. Nephi, being a prophet, saw our modern day and realized the problem and the disconnect between modern churches and G-d.

There is some perception and concept in the idea of “The One True and Living G-d”. If one believes that it is possible that there is a “One True and Living G-d” of this planet earth and its inhabitants then it stands to reason that there is, in the same manner, “One True and Living Church” that is his representation on earth of His Kingdom in Heaven. A G-d of such precise order as our earth and solar system that fits preciously into our very structured and order universe could not be represented such a disarray of conflicting competing organizations as we have in current modern churches.

Nephi also presents the idea that any human organization pretending to be the kingdom of G-d on earth that is not specifically otherized by Him (G-d) is made counterfeit with origins connected to the g-d of deceptions who is Satan. In the same manner that we guard our currency – any money claiming to be authorized by our US government – regardless of how much it looks to be real or how hardworking and honest those fooled – is counterfeit and those that created the counterfeit are criminal elements rebellious to the laws and order of the USA. A little side note here. Those that unknowingly believe the money to be lawful are not criminal agents of the seditious elements that created the counterfeit diversion and should not be thought of as criminals. Likewise, I do not believe those that unknowingly attempt to worship G-d at a counterfeit church ought to be criticized or held to account by those Saints of G-d that are building up the genuine Kingdom of G-d on earth.

As to the symbolism of waters – Water is referenced in creation and is an ancient symbol of the power of G-d. Water is also referenced in the epoch of the flood and baptism as an element of cleansing power. I believe Satan is attempting to present himself as the savior of mankind.

[Watcher]

DarkJedi wrote:

Just to be clear, in my earlier post I did reference you by name in relation to church’s pot of money. I did also refer to subsidizing but perhaps should have been more clear that I was referring to (and agreeing with) OT in that regard. I think we all agree that North America subsidizes other parts of the world and that’s clear from things you point out, Nibbler. A temple in Vanuatu? Most of those people literally have no money. The US with far more members than Canada does provide the bulk of the subsidy, but we can’t overlook the concentration of members in western Canada and the wealth of some of those members.

I also agree that the church does seem to focus it’s efforts in civil projects in SLC and environs. However, they have in some cases done things outside Salt Lake. An example is the area surrounding the Philadelphia temple where the church did indeed gentrify the neighborhood. Another example might be the refurbishing of the Smith farm in Palmyra and the building of the temple there. The church paid millions to move the road from where it had been in front of the Smith house to behind the house, and built a new road where the temple and stake center are located (this road connecting Stafford Road and Route 21). Part of that project also included expanding the Palmyra water and sewer systems to the temple area (a matter of a couple miles). Aside from the church historical reconstruction itself, the infrastructure cost totaled in the millions. Certainly not on the same scale as Utah, but it does happen.

One point about poor areas of the church. There are many poor areas in foreigh countries that are fast offering positive and many “rich” areas in the Utah and the USA that are fast offering negative. I am of the opinion that the religious poor in the church donate a great deal more than the religious rich – perhaps not in amount but in % of what they have.

The Church owns more land (acreage) in Missouri than any other entity – more than 95% is currently producing agricultural land. There are several other states there the Church owns large sections of agricultural properties. I hinted in a previous post that the Church operates in other countries under various legal corporations – many of which own land and various production facilities where a variety of products are manufactured – mostly under the welfare and humanitarian arm of the Church.

[Watcher]

There are a number of problems with donated (and other) monies within the Church. Even a casual look into history should give good reason for the Church to avoid transparency; in essence there is little reason to give our enemies any legal cause to bankrupt the Church. Church leaders have also made mistakes with funds – perhaps most notable would be the Kirkland Safety Society. Sadly, the enemies of the church have targeted church funds since the beginning. Currently the Church has entire separate legal organizations specifically for funds in every country in which the Church operates and accepts funds.

Often, “outsiders” of the Church are critical because, based on lessons learned, the Church is not very “transparent”. Those within the Church that have had anything to do with Church funds realize that the Church does not deal with it’s financing lightly. Monies obtained by the Church are consider “consecrated” and misuse is not easily forgiven. Most general authorities have their personal finances in pristine order before they are called as general authorities and are not known to be liberal or unwise spenders. Other Church leaders are monitored very closely for any funds they are allowed to spend.

From my own experience in such matters – if the Church is moving funds from Canada – what is being reported is likely somewhat of a tip of an iceberg. If I had investments in Canada, I would immediately liquidate as much and as soon as possible and pursue as low a profile in such affairs as possible. It is my opinion that the Church (of all organizations I have encountered) is the wisest (though not without any flaw) with funds as an organization. I wish more organizations (especially governments) were as cautious with their funds.

[Watcher]

I apologize that in my previous post I got off track. As Old-Timer and nibbler have pointed out – I do not have access to many things. Therefore, I can only speculate on what is given. I am very interested in the thinking of others posting. I personally have a hard time with the idea that G-d or righteous men worthy of the kingdom in these last days and restoration of all things have gone off the rails to keep the priesthood from women.

In an effort to come to some logical conclusion, it is my speculation and view that in the pre-existence that we were intelligent beings that had complete access to all light and truth – as well as darkness and lies. Included in our access we were all given agency to decide or choose for ourselves. Nothing was forced upon us – through our agency we could exercise our choices in all things. I am not saying I am right or this is the only logic other than logic that makes sense to me with what we are given. I am very interested in the logic of others. I would very much enjoy in-depth discussion but I have been advised that such discussion is not within the wheelhouse of this particular forum – So I put out my speculation for something to consider and something I am most willing to discuss with anyone that would have input. I find input very valuable to me because I do not trust exclusively my own logic.

Since there were counsels where we were able to make our choices known about mortality – including things concerning the priesthood. I speculate we exercised our agency accordingly. If we did not like what was determined in the counsels, we did not have to accept what was determined. This non-acceptance was called rebellion and would result in separation from participation or support of the counsels. I speculate that this is what is meant by Lucifer (Satan) being cast out – or meaning not involved in the counsels. We see perhaps a parallel to this in the restored church (kingdom) with those that have their membership removed. They are not cast out from attending church but are forbidden to participate in the covenants and counsels of the church (kingdom).

I speculate that the majority of those participating in the covenants and counsels of the pre-existence were women. That what ever was decided (by individual agency) in the pre-existence counsels included all the women as well as all the men. Since I speculate that there were more women than men – that the decision that during mortality, men would participate in the church (kingdom) with the oath and covenant of the priesthood was in essence under the control of the women (as a majority) and their exercise of agency. With this logic I speculate that it is possible that men accepted this extra burden as part of their mortal responsibility experience.

I am not saying this has to be – only offering such as a possibility.

[Watcher]

AmyJ wrote:

Watcher wrote:

I have come to speculate that in the great councils in the heaven of our pre-existence that the decision of men being required to hold the priesthood in mortality was primarily supported by the superior efforts of the more righteous women than that of the men. That the quality of women of our day and time in morality has absolutely nothing to do with them not receiving the priesthood. That it is not women but rather the needs of men that has created our current circumstance concerning men and the priesthood. (And that such is, by definition, somewhat sexists – just not as many advertise it).

So is this a static (non-changing) or a dynamic (change-able) need that men have for having the power, privileges, and authority to act in the name of God that come embedded in having the priesthood?

[Yes, I am aware to a certain extent, it is a “depending on whom you ask” and a “generational” thing.]

I have not found the priesthood to be power, privilege and authority kind of thing. My experience is that divine things have more to do with love, kindness and compassion. Power privilege and authority seems to me to be more malevolent – especially towards the idea of agency. The example of Jesus (whom the priesthood was initially named) seemed to be more about suffering and sacrifice for the benefit of others. Even in birth – women suffer and sacrifice much more than men. Thus I speculate that priesthood is an attempt to balance things – a little but it appears, not enough.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

I agree that there tend to be some differences between men and women. Some of those differences may come from nature and others may come from nurture. But saying that these differences can explain the priesthood only being available to men doesn’t seem to make sense.

Are we saying that the most spiritual, compassionate, and righteous man among us is less than the least spiritual, compassionate, and righteous woman among us? If not then perhaps the least among the women might benefit from the priesthood “boost” and perhaps the best among the men might not need the priesthood. (unless we are arguing that women are like children that die before the age of 8 and need not to be tested really – only to receive a mortal body in order to inherit the celestial kingdom)

Another thought… are we just saying that men need the priesthood or that men need women to NOT have the priesthood? IOW, does the specialness of having the priesthood go away if women can also have it? If so, would the specialness increase if only certain men could attain it?

In my opinion, trying to defend the current disparity feels like trying to defend the priesthood restriction against blacks before it was repealed. Many members, church leaders, and even individuals sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators came up with reasons for the necessity of the priesthood restriction and we now know that they were the ideas and justifications of men.

It is all speculation. I did not intend to imply that individually women are more spiritual than individual men just that in general that there are more spiritual women than there are spiritual men. For example, women are far more ahead of men in getting temple work accomplished. Thus, I speculate that the priesthood is used as a tool to increase the “NUMBER” of spiritual men.

I have pondered this and for the life of me – I cannot think or any other logical possibility. I am open to any and all other ideas concerning this.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

Gospel Q&A: If God loves his daughters as much as He loves his sons why can’t women hold the priesthood?

https://www.ldsdaily.com/personal-lds-blog/gospel-qa-if-god-loves-his-daughters-as-much-as-his-sons-why-cant-women-hold-the-priesthood/

I guess apologists gonna defend and justify. Even so, I was disappointed that there was not even a hint that this could change by revelation in the future

Reason #1

Men and women have different roles

Quote:

We don’t know why the Lord organized things so that men are holders of the priesthood and cannot create life while women create life and cannot hold the priesthood. But we do know that “men and women have different but equally valued roles. Just as a woman cannot conceive a child without a man, so a man cannot fully exercise the power of the priesthood to establish an eternal family without a woman. … In the eternal perspective, both the procreative power and the priesthood power are shared by husband and wife” (President M. Russell Ballard).

It is not really the same thing. Men (by virtue of holding the priesthood) can hold visible positions of power, respect, and authority within the organization and within the community. It is phrased as though you can either have one or the other (uterus or priesthood) when there is no clear connection between the two at all.

Reason # 2

Women will receive some sort of power and authority as queens and priestesses in the CK

Reason # 3

Priesthood exists not to benefit the holder but those around the holder.

I suppose we could make this argument about any profession. The teacher doesn’t teach themselves, the doctor doesn’t heal themselves, the lawyer doesn’t act as their own defense (at least they don’t if they are smart). Should that help us to feel better if we were prohibited from working in those professions?

Reason # 4

Prophets and Apostles aren’t sexist?

Quote:

So, are the apostles and prophets sexist?

In 1935, the First Presidency stated, “The true spirit of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gives to woman the highest place of honor in human life” (James R. Clark comp., Messages of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1965–75, 6:5).

This makes me wonder if the blog author knows much about sexism – particularly benevolent sexism. I guarantee you that the First Presidency in 1935 was sexist by today’s standards. I suspect that if a modern LDS woman were to go back to the 1930’s and had to live according to what the 1935 First Presidency felt was an appropriate lifestyle for women – that particular time-traveling woman would very keenly feel the constraints of the sexism prevalent in that era.

Are apostles and prophets sexist? If we believe that apostles and prophets are products of their environments (and we do) then the answer is yes. Apostles and prophets are sexist in differing degrees just as with other groups of humans. Becoming an apostle or prophet certainly doesn’t stop a person from being sexist.

Reason # 5

Not only do men and women have different roles but priesthood would prove distracting from women’s far more important focus.

Quote:

President Boyd K. Packer didn’t see the bestowal of a priesthood office as being a limitation on women, but rather as an expression of the greater role that women hold as primary nurturers and caretakers in the home.

“The limitation of priesthood responsibilities to men is a tribute to the incomparable place of women in the plan of salvation. The prophet who said that ‘no success [in any field of endeavor] can compensate for failure in the home’ (David O. McKay) did not exempt callings in the Church.”

No priesthood calling is more important than the work that goes on within the walls of our own homes.

What does it say about a policy when all the explanations for it seem really sexist?

I have pondered things about the priesthood. I am inclined to think or imagine that in the quantity of higher intelligence and spirituality in the society of Heaven that it is likely there are more women than men. I ponder such based upon my own experiences that the influences of women in my life – especially that of my wife. When we married, I thought myself quite superior to my wife. We met in college, she being a cheerleader and I being in the top of my class of mathematics and physics – I thought myself smarter. I have discovered quite the opposite. Her understanding of things important (outside of science which is not as important as I initially thought) to be far superior.

And so, my opinion about men and the priesthood has come more from her than from my own thinking. Many time she has suggested to me that I need the priesthood much more than her. That I need to learn to focus more on the needs of others and that having the priesthood helps me do that. Even being in positions of leadership in the church I have learned that the sisters of the Relief Society are much better at seeing needs of others that are the men.

I have come to speculate that in the great councils in the heaven of our pre-existence that the decision of men being required to hold the priesthood in mortality was primarily supported by the superior efforts of the more righteous women than that of the men. That the quality of women of our day and time in morality has absolutely nothing to do with them not receiving the priesthood. That it is not women but rather the needs of men that has created our current circumstance concerning men and the priesthood. (And that such is, by definition, somewhat sexists – just not as many advertise it).

[Watcher]

I will make an effort to present my opinion about scripture based upon my experiences. At an early age I became interested in both religion and science. I became convinced that what I was told about religion was flawed compared to what I was learning about science. I began to believe that many (perhaps most) holding to religion were blind to human advances and truths being discovered in science. That the separation between science and religion was primarily the fault of religion.

I began to study scripture and religion through the lens of science. I found myself more open to “things” in other religions. I learned that to study other religions I needed to befriend someone devout in whatever religion I intended to study. I learned it unwise to talk to Christians about the religion of Muslims, Buddhists or Hindu or even Satan worship. I also learned that talking to Christians about atheists is about as fruitful as learning of Christianity from atheists.

The more I learned about science and other religions the more I learned and understood about my deep roots in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the more I came to appreciate those deep roots. Most of all, I believe I have discovered that those that have faced the more difficult challenges of life and survived and thrived – the more such individuals have to contribute to others navigating the turbulences of similar waters.

I will likely be criticized for not comforting those in need of comfort but it also seems to me those stuck in their own sorrows do not contribute much for themselves nor others but rather are in need of someone that understands their certain sorrows and can speak and comfort them. Because I find great benefits to devotions to scriptures and to religious principles – I will likely not connect with those who have difficulty with such. For me, science and things spiritual are great gifts or opportunities in life. And for all my experiences and studies I have never found any religion more suitable to science than the principles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I have come to believe in the understanding that only through divine influence (Holy Ghost) can any truth (of science or religion) be understood and bring lasting comfort to any purpose. I cannot speak for anyone else but only myself and my experiences.

[Watcher]

I have pondered if the epoch we have in scripture is missing some critical elements. Instead of being a young lad – Isaac was a young man, say in his early 30’s. That the place called Moriah was where Jerusalem would later stand. That the exact place at Moriah would later come to be called Golgotha. That Isaac knew in advance that he would be the sacrificial lamb and in response (according to some ancient Jewish teachings) – that Isaac was willing and expressed that he would sacrifice himself in honor of Abraham but even more so, in honor of G-d. In other words the epoch is not just about Abraham and Isaac as it is about our Father in Heaven and his Son, Jesus the Christ and the real meaning (purpose) of human sacrifice.

[Watcher]

InquiringMind wrote:

Being an atheist was easy in some ways. According to the atheist argument, there is no objective morality, and each individual gets to decide what is moral, even if such morality is ultimately meaningless given the assumption that consciousness ends at death. We can do empirical tests to determine some moral questions; but for others, morality just comes down to personal preference. You prefer this, I prefer that, so we have different moral preferences. Even though people have strong moral sentiments, they are just that – sentiments. And it doesn’t really matter anyway, because humans will eventually become extinct and the universe will eventually be unable to support life. So yeah, nihilism.

Now that I am thinking that maybe I do believe in God and I do believe in an afterlife, morality is becoming more complicated.

I have a pretty good idea of what my own moral sentiments are. I know where I stand on most of the very divisive “culture wars” issues, those perennial hot-button issues that define our endless political discourse. You know the one’s I’m talking about. The trouble is that if there is an afterlife, I have no information on what moral choices I would make in this life that would affect my standing in the afterlife. If there is a God, I have no information on what moral choices I would make that would please or displease God, if such a being can be pleased or displeased.

If you look at spiritual schools of thought, most of them emphasize kindness and compassion. The trouble is that there is much more to morality than just kindness. You can’t keep a society operating in an orderly way if your only tool is kindness. Just ask any law enforcement officer. You need more than just kindness if you want efficiency and order.

So I am getting frustrated because I want to “live rightly” but I have nothing to go on at all other than my own moral sentiments. I can follow my own moral sentiments and live by them, but I have no way of knowing if my particular moral choices are pleasing to God or if they will improve or hurt my status in the afterlife.

Additionally, my own sentiments will certainly bring me into conflict with people who have different moral sentiments. I know where I stand on those hot-button “culture wars” issues, but I also know that other people have very different moral sentiments, and I have no way of determining which side God is on, so to speak, or who will get a reward in the afterlife because they were on the “right side of history.”

Is it really true that I get to pick my own morality and live by it? If so, how do I know that God is happy with it? And if God is happy with my moral choices, would God be unhappy with someone who made different moral choices? And if God doesn’t care about my moral choices, or if God honors all moral choices, why do we bother talking about morality at all?

I am very impressed with your insight and questions. I have followed a strangely similar path with the exception that I have always had a strong belief in G-d – though I have spent most of my life working with atheists. For me the idea of advanced intelligence has always been the most logical view of order in complexity.

It is my understanding of G-d and the intelligence of G-d that allows one to determine what is moral (valuable) to them. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – I believe this is taught as “Agency”. It is my understanding that we choose agency. According to my understanding of the Plan of Salvation, we experience mortality to learn about the opposition in all things. In other words, the choice we have. A blind choice, in reality, is not a choice but rather a guess.

The whole purpose of mortality (in my mind) is that whatever we choose – we get a do over if we like. That we can learn by our experience and modify our behavior according to whatever mortality we choose. The ability to modify our behavior is called repentance in the religious universe. It is most interesting to me that in science – intelligence is defined as the ability to learn and modify behavior. Intelligence and repentance seem to be two parallel definitions of the same thing. Some are worried that we can create artificial intelligence that is more intelligent than humans are and that such would spell the end of humanity. Having spent part of my carrier in artificial intelligence – I am not concerned.

As we think of religious definitions – a damned sole is (again according to my understanding and in no way a reference to anyone else) is a sole that is no longer able or willing to learn and modify their behavior. This looks a lot like a being that refuses to evolve or thinks they cannot change. I have never found a difference between the belief in what cannot be accomplished from the determination to not accomplish. That the result is the same for I cannot as it is for I will not.

And so it is in my mind and belief – that it does not matter what G-d will or will not; opposed to what he can or cannot. The real question is what we will or will not. But in my experience, there is one more even more difficult question and that is how we reconcile with others concerning our will (agency) and their will (agency). I do not intend to upset anyone – but it seems logical to me that if we will not or cannot reconcile our agency choices with the agency and choices of others – we will unlikely be able to reconcile our agency choices with G-d or any other intelligence more advanced than ourselves.

[Watcher]

Roy wrote:

….. it is possible, and there is a fair amount of evidence to make a case for the BoM being a 19th century work.

…..

I find it very logical that there is a great deal of evidence that the BoM is a 19th century work. That is the era in which it was translated. What would puzzle me as a problem is if there was an era represented with no logical connection.

[Author]

Posts