?'s for Kishkumen

[_Blixa]

The sooner women are given the priesthood and you are in a position of authority, the sooner I'll "return." That word is in quotes because there are some things in my heart that I've never left...

Women already have the priesthood. They employ it in the temple. The only change required is the policy that forbids them to openly use it outside of the temple such as being called to general leadership positions and so on needs to be removed.

Pedant! : )

[_zeezrom]

Maybe these commandments aren't in the New Testament because they are more comparable to those in the Old Testament book of Leviticus. Could it be that the temple which we have reduced to a wedding mill is actually supposed to be the great symbol of inclusivity, in which the sons of Levi offering sacrifice for the entirety of the human race?

Female priests in Corinth making offerings, ca 530 BC.

[_Kishkumen]

I think it's silly for a person to self identify as LDS when the only part of Mormonism they actually believe is the "be a good person" part. JMO

You are so entitled.

I never said such a silly thing, and I also don't think that my LDS identity is reducible to such a spare description.

[_Nomomo]

I think it's silly for a person to self identify as LDS when the only part of Mormonism they actually believe is the "be a good person" part. JMO

You are so entitled.

I never said such a silly thing, and I also don't think that my LDS identity is reducible to such a spare description.

Of course you wouldn't say that ~_-
And it was only a slight exaggeration for effect.

[_palerobber]

I think it's silly for a person to self identify as LDS when the only part of Mormonism they actually believe is the "be a good person" part. JMO

do you still identify as your parents' child? how often do you visit them?

[Guest]

I never said such a silly thing, and I also don't think that my LDS identity is reducible to such a spare description.

Why is it that so many people adopt such a crude manichean view of LDS identity? On one side of the spectrum, this type of thinking motivates a great deal of the very worst aspects of mopolagetics (specifically, the desire to seek out and destroy the "wolves in sheep's clothing" or to "separate the wheat from the tares" or to "spit out the lukewarm" etc.). Yet on the other hand, we have folks who choose screen names like "Nomomo" and who like to say things like "Morg" or "Utard." They also see it as "silly" for someone to call themselves Mormon because they see it as an abdication of reason, or worse, a lack of integrity. As an example, just take a look at most of the comments on this thread on RFM on John Dehlin's Sunstone talk: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,586254

Religion, belief and identity are complicated things people! This type of thinking is just the flip-side of the same coin as mopolagetics.

[_Madison54]

I never said such a silly thing, and I also don't think that my LDS identity is reducible to such a spare description.

Why is is that so many people adopt such a crude manichean view of LDS identity? ....

Religion, belief and identity are complicated things people! This type of thinking is just the flip-side of the same coin as mopolagetics.

Cicero, I 100% agree with what you wrote above. Complicated is the perfect word to use here.

Why do I still identify myself as being Mormon but my husband does not? Why does my teenage son (who spent 16 years in the church and holds the priesthood) tell people he's an agnostic when they ask what religion he is? He also says he is most definitely NOT a Mormon.

For me, I know that it's like it's in my DNA (sounds dramatic....but it's true). I go back on both sides to original church members from Nauvoo. All of the stories of my ancestors are Mormon stories, pioneer stories, polygamy stories and so on. It's a huge part of who I am.

It's too much a part of me to just discard it because I no longer attend and no longer buy into the white washed version of church history.

I do still believe in all the good in the church and I also believe others have the right to attend and believe.

But just because my butt isn't in the pew each week, does that mean I'm no longer Mormon?

I guess the answer to that question is "yes" for some.....but for me it so far is a "no".

[_Blixa]

I never said such a silly thing, and I also don't think that my LDS identity is reducible to such a spare description.

Why is is that so many people adopt such a crude manichean view of LDS identity? On one side of the spectrum, this type of thinking motivates a great deal of the very worst aspects of mopolagetics (specifically, the desire to seek out and destroy the "wolves in sheep's clothing" or to "separate the wheat from the tares" or to "spit out the lukewarm" etc.). Yet on the other hand, we have folks who choose screen names like "Nomomo" and who like to say things like "Morg" or "Utard." They also see it as "silly" for someone to call themselves Mormon because they see it as an abdication of reason, or worse, a lack of integrity. As an example, just take a look at most of the comments on this thread on RFM on John Dehlin's Sunstone talk: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,586254

Religion, belief and identity are complicated things people! This type of thinking is just the flip-side of the same coin as
mopolagetics.

Exactly. I've been thinking about this a lot lately as I write about self and memory.

[_Kishkumen]

Why is is that so many people adopt such a crude manichean view of LDS identity? On one side of the spectrum, this type of thinking motivates a great deal of the very worst aspects of mopolagetics (specifically, the desire to seek out and destroy the "wolves in sheep's clothing" or to "separate the wheat from the tares" or to "spit out the lukewarm" etc.). Yet on the other hand, we have folks who choose screen names like "Nomomo" and who like to say things like "Morg" or "Utard." They also see it as "silly" for someone to call themselves Mormon because they see it as an abdication of reason, or worse, a lack of integrity. As an example, just take a look at most of the comments on this thread on RFM on John Dehlin's Sunstone talk: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,586254

Religion, belief and identity are complicated things people! This type of thinking is just the flip-side of the same coin as mopolagetics.

Cicero,

I absolutely agree. In fact, this has been an issue for me from at least the mid '90s. It was my revulsion at such a "Manichaean" view of LDS identity that brought me into conflict with LDS apologetics in the first place. Now, finally, thanks to the efforts of people like John Dehlin, Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, David Bokovoy, Blair Hodges, Brant Gardner, Kevin Barney, Gerald Bradford, Don Bradley, and others, I can see that very many good, upstanding LDS people do not turn LDS identity into the black & white vision that certain LDS apologists present when they write attack pieces against their ideological foes. This has me rethinking very many things.

Like you, I see numerous ex-Mormons as representing the flip side of this all or nothing formula.

[_mormonstories]

Cicero,

I absolutely agree. In fact, this has been an issue for me from at least the mid '90s. It was my revulsion at such a "Manichaean" view of LDS identity that brought me into conflict with LDS apologetics in the first place. Now, finally, thanks to the efforts of people like John Dehlin, Richard Bushman, Terryl Givens, David Bokovoy, Blair Hodges, Brant Gardner, Kevin Barney, Gerald Bradford, Don Bradley, and others, I can see that very many good, upstanding LDS people do not turn LDS identity into the black & white vision that certain LDS apologists present when they write attack pieces against their ideological foes. This has me rethinking very many things.

Like you, I see numerous ex-Mormons as representing the flip side of this all or nothing formula.

Applauding.....