http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index. ... 44122&st=0
A new poster named Nedra started the thread with this post:
I've learned a lot since I started posting this week. I have lurked for months, and decided to post because of a topic on sealings, temple work, etc.
As I've contemplated the responses and considered why I have not considered myself a member for more than ten years, I realize that it's primarily because I just don't believe the church. I don't believe in it, and I don't believe it. There are many things I like about it, but without complete belief in the remarkable claims of the church, and the extraordinary promises, there are other good organizations to join, good tenets to cling to, and good services to visit.
I also realized that I don't want to believe. I don't want to live in an afterlife where my gay nephew and his husband (yes, legally married) cannot live in the same afterlife with me if the afterlife is about married couples. I don't want to live in an afterlife where couples are given the choice to accept an ordinance on their behalf that ratifies their earthly union into the eternities. I don't want to live in or believe in an afterlife full of work instead of rest for my labors, or where women are hidden.
I completely admit this may be the wrong perception of the afterlife, but it's as I was taught and as I remember as an active member of the Church.
On this side of the veil, I have to believe that if I as an unmarried woman fool around with my date (all consensual) I am obligated/advised/required to tell my bishop about it, or I will not "feel" forgiven. I have to believe that women don't get to do some of the cool things men can do just because we don't have the priesthood.
And yet--there exists in the Church a strong sense of family, a love and work ethic that is unparalleled, and a rich history that is inspirational.
So my question is this: Does Heavenly Father want everyone to be LDS--either on this side of the veil or after this life? And what if people just don't want to be? Is it fair, then, that they wouldn't qualify for the highest blessings of heaven just because they can't, or won't believe, or because they don't like most things about the church?
I want to follow up on something that DCP also responded to, partly because it relates to some recent threads about male/females on this board.
DCP’s responded to this sentence in the OP
I have to believe that women don't get to do some of the cool things men can do just because we don't have the priesthood.
His response:
Speaking personally, I would happily allow women to do some of the cool things that I get to do because I hold the priesthood. Ten hours each week spent counseling with the guilt ridden and the emotionally troubled and the suicidal and the unemployed, for example. Early morning leadership meetings. Wednesday nights gone, from 6:30 until usually around midnight. Sundays simply gone. Several other evenings gone. Saturdays often gone (only three hours today, though!). Calls at work. Calls between 2 AM and 4 AM from people who've just overdosed on pain medications or cut themselves or are in jail.
It's an enviable lifestyle, no doubt, and the paycheck is handsome. But I'd be willing to let somebody else have a go at it who really, really craves it.
I think there is a myth in the church that having the priesthood means that men have much more of a burden in terms of church service then women do. DCP’s response certainly seems to convey that idea.
In reality, there are callings that women perform in the church that are emotionally taxing and demanding, as well. Relief Society president comes to mind. Doesn’t the Relief Society president spend many hours a week on meetings and helping, when needed? Isn’t the Relief Society called upon to provide services to the needy? Doesn't the Relief Society president provide aid and comfort at inconvenient hours?
I’ve never served as a bishop, so it may well be that the demands on the bishop exceed that of the relief society president, or the stake relief society president. But this is just one calling, and only one male in the church serves as bishop. All the other callings in the ward that males can perform are matched, in terms of time and effort, by callings females can perform.
It really seems a fallacy to insinuate that not having the priesthood spares women/mothers from being asked to perform extended and demanding duties at church. In fact, in some wards, it often seems as if the females keep the ward running.
So since both men and women can be asked to serve in callings that are arduous and emotionally draining, it seems that the one “cool thing” the priesthood can do that women cannot is to perform sacred ordinances in the name of Jesus Christ.
These are not time consuming functions. They are not arduous functions. 12 year old males perform many of them.
So why is it that performing sacred ordinances in the name of Jesus Christ must be reserved for men, in order to allow women to be MOTHERS? Why is it that performing sacred ordinances in the name of Jesus Christ doesn’t prevent men from being FATHERS?