Announcement: Next Sunday is sisters in pants day

[_Droopy]

Pictured: free agency

I just don't know what to do with intellectual nihility such as this. I suspect, in all honesty, that its not inherent but rather carefully cultivated and nourished for particular purposes (much like Kevin's).

Move along...nothing to see here.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Pictured: free agency

I just don't know what to do with intellectual nihility such as this. I suspect, in all honesty, that its not inherent but rather carefully cultivated and nourished for particular purposes (much like Kevin's).

Kind of like homosexuality!

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Droopy]

I enjoy diversity. I see at church everything from the most expensive suits on men to crappy shorts with flip flops on teenagers. Some will wear their best for the very reason Mormons state: respect for God. Others believe God loves them no matter what they are wearing.

That is individual liberty.

"Diversity" is another one of those terms that no longer has any clear or coherent meaning, and has, indeed, come to mean precisely the opposite of its standard, historical meaning within modern political/ideological systems of thought, so its of little use without strict definition.

But you apparently missed my point entirely (either unwittingly or intentionally) when you went of on this tangent about flip-flops and crappy shorts. If one does not like the Church, one can leave at any time, and find another church to one's liking, or start one of one's own (again, to one's liking).

Or, one can repent and live the gospel, accept the rigors of discipleship, and endure to the end. The choice is ours.

The true Church is the Savior's Church. We do not alter or change things to our liking in his Church. He may change what he likes when he likes, but we have no authority to do so.

Much of this incessant liberal acting out regarding church dress and grooming standards is a bit like the Groucho Marx comment that he wouldn't want to be associated with any organization that would have him as a member.

Precisely.

I wouldn't want to be associated with any Church that was grounded upon my beliefs, my preferences, my predilections, my nostrums, my biases, and my generational dogmas and intellectual fads anymore than I'd want to be asociated with one grounded upon yours, or that of any other mortal human being.

My only interest in in the Lord's authorized restored kingdom upon the earth and his standards - not yours, not mine, and not some NOM leftist still trapped in the translucent bubble of the early seventies counter-culture and its facile attitudinizing about "liberation" and "freedom."

[_MsJack]

Who's behind this petulant, self-indulgent fit of adolescent acting out, Brooks? The Toscano's?

No and no. It's a group I've never heard of before called "All Enlisted," and I've seen no evidence that either Brooks or the Toscanos are affiliated with it.

The bottom line here is that There are other churches, and indeed, many of them.

For once, Droopy and I are in complete agreement. There are other churches that treat women as equals to men, indeed, many of them. If people want to see women treated as equals---if they want to see a church that actually takes Gal. 3:26-28 to heart---the best thing for them to do is to leave the LDS church and go to one of those.

That said, I respect those who choose to stay in the LDS church and try to change it for the better from within. I would never want that Sisyphean task, but if they love the LDS church enough to try and stop it from marginalizing women, more power to them.

[Guest]

I enjoy diversity. I see at church everything from the most expensive suits on men to crappy shorts with flip flops on teenagers. Some will wear their best for the very reason Mormons state: respect for God. Others believe God loves them no matter what they are wearing.

That is individual liberty.

"Diversity" is another one of those terms that no longer has any clear or coherent meaning, and has, indeed, come to mean precisely the opposite of its standard, historical meaning within modern political/ideological systems of thought, so its of little use without strict definition.

But you apparently missed my point entirely (either unwittingly or intentionally) when you went of on this tangent about flip-flops and crappy shorts. If one does not like the Church, one can leave at any time, and find another church to one's liking, or start one of one's own (again, to one's liking).

Or, one can repent and live the gospel, accept the rigors of discipleship, and endure to the end. The choice is ours.

The true Church is the Savior's Church. We do not alter or change things to our liking in his Church. He may change what he likes when he likes, but we have no authority to do so.

Much of this incessant liberal acting out regarding church dress and grooming standards is a bit like the Groucho Marx comment that he wouldn't want to be associated with any organization that would have him as a member.

Precisely.

I wouldn't want to be associated with any Church that was grounded upon my beliefs, my preferences, my predilections, my nostrums, my biases, and my generational dogmas and intellectual fads anymore than I'd want to be asociated with one grounded upon yours, or that of any other mortal human being.

My only interest in in the Lord's authorized restored kingdom upon the earth and his standards - not yours, not mine, and not some NOM leftist still trapped in the translucent bubble of the early seventies counter-culture and its facile attitudinizing about "liberation" and "freedom."

Suit yourself.

Maybe you need a new section in the D&C to define what everyone should wear.

Me, I think it is good that the people come to church. Who cares what they are wearing? Does God? I don't think so. "The gospel" does not have a dress code. Only one that is made up in the minds of false prophets.

Thou shalt wear no other clothes but what my servant commands.

Whatever.

Good luck with that!

[_Droopy]

No and no. It's a group I've never heard of before called "All Enlisted," and I've seen no evidence that either Brooks or the Toscanos are affiliated with it.

OK, I was just being facetious anyway (although this is there kind of meat and potatoes, to be sure).

The bottom line here is that There are other churches, and indeed, many of them.

For once, Droopy and I are in complete agreement. There are other churches that treat women as equals to men, indeed, many of them. If people want to see women treated as equals---if they want to see a church that actually takes Gal. 3:26-28 to heart---the best thing for them to do is to leave the LDS church and go to one of those.

Woman are utterly and in totality "equal" to men in the Church. You're fundamental premises here are faulty, or you are laboring under a particularistic interpretation of the term "equal."

That said, I respect those who choose to stay in the LDS church and try to change it for the better from within. I would never want that Sisyphean task, but if they love the LDS church enough to try and stop it from marginalizing women, more power to them.

Yes, this is the old, hoary, threadbare rationalization and self-justificational defense mechanism LDS liberals have long used to disguise their real beliefs and attitudes, which has nothing to do with "love" of the Church and everything to do with open rebellion against the living oracles, the gospel, the revelations, and the standards of the Church as revealed to the Lord's anointed servants, the prophets, in our time.

These people do not "love" the church - one does not attempt to corrupt and destroy what one claims to love (or claim to love the Church but then defy the established priesthood authority of its leaders and the core concepts of church government within the framework of that priesthood and take upon themselves that mantel and authority based upon various trendy ideological nostrums of the age without themselves holding that authority. They may, indeed, have a great love for themselves and their own generational golden calves and with their very self-important and self-anointed task of constructing a number of them within the Church in their own image.)

Repent...or don't forget to write. Or, sit in church and stew in your own feminist/multiculturalist/social justice juice. That's fine as well. But if you come out in open rebellion against the Lord's anointed servants, the prophets, and the established counsel and teachings of the gospel, then from an LDS perspective, you are then fighting against Christ and attempting to alter his church to coincide with your personal ideological/psychological predilections, in which case, you are telling Jesus Christ that his church is not up to your exacting, pristine, politically correct standards of contemporary ideological rectitude.

And anyone that follows this course then has a problem with the Church they "love."

[_Droopy]

Suit yourself.

Exactly my point all along.

Maybe you need a new section in the D&C to define what everyone should wear.

We don't need that, as we have living oracles among us, and in any case, they have only defined such in the broadest of terms regarding clothing, except on certain occasions (passing sacrament, etc.), in general styles to be worn by men and woman in worship services, and as to modesty in dress and grooming.

[_madeleine]

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.**

** Proper dress code required. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

[_madeleine]

Suit yourself.

Exactly my point all along.

Maybe you need a new section in the D&C to define what everyone should wear.

We don't need that, as we have living oracles among us, and in any case, they have only defined such in the broadest of terms regarding clothing, except on certain occasions (passing sacrament, etc.), in general styles to be worn by men and woman in worship services, and as to modesty in dress and grooming.

I realize this is your belief. I don't have a beef with what you believe. But claiming that there is a dress code for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, only indicates to me that your leaders haven't yet discovered what that Gospel is.

[_MsJack]

Woman are utterly and in totality "equal" to men in the Church.

Are they equal in access to authority?

Yes, this is the old, hoary, threadbare rationalization and self-justificational defense mechanism LDS liberals have long used to disguise their real beliefs and attitudes, which has nothing to do with "love" of the Church and everything to do with open rebellion against the living oracles, the gospel, the revelations, and the standards of the Church as revealed to the Lord's anointed servants, the prophets, in our time.

Prove it.

These people do not "love" the church - one does not attempt to corrupt and destroy what one claims to love (or claim to love the Church but then defy the established priesthood authority of its leaders and the core concepts of church government within the framework of that priesthood and take upon themselves that mantel and authority based upon various trendy ideological nostrums of the age without themselves holding that authority. They may, indeed, have a great love for themselves and their own generational golden calves and with their very self-important and self-anointed task of constructing a number of them within the Church in their own image.)

Prove it.

Repent

Of what?

Or, sit in church and stew in your own feminist/multiculturalist/social justice juice. That's fine as well.

I will! Going to a church where women lead the congregation, serve communion, and baptize, where there is racial diversity in church leadership and respect for other cultures, is pretty freakin' amazing. And I love how you say "feminist/multicultural/social justice" as if those are bad things! You crack me up, Droops.