Mormon Feminism is Back (and its Name is Still "Apostasy.")

[_Droopy]

Joanna's right, though, about Heavenly Mother being taboo. One of the recently revised Sunday school manuals changed "heavenly parents" to just "Heavenly Father."

No, she made it up. The term "Heavenly Parents" can be found peppered throughout contemporary LDS teachings and literature. Its most obvoius manifestation is in the The Family: A Proclamation to the World. It can be found in numerous other official Church venues.

I suspect that's why they're not canonizing the proclamation on the family - it also refers to heavenly parents. They're trying to phase out Heavenly Mother very slowly.

The Proclamation on the Family is already scripture; its a declaration of core doctrine by the First Presidency and the Twelve unitedly. It hardly needs "canonization."

In this era of rising inflation, its good to see that tin foil is still affordable to the common run.

[_Droopy]

"God," then is not both a man and a woman, but both

1. God, The Father, whom we worship and pray to directly.

2. The Godhead, or entire Grand Council of the Heavens as a united body.

Do you believe that Heavenly Mother is a member of either the Godhead or this "Grand Council of the Heavens," Droopy?

The Grand Council is comprised of the Father, his Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I have no idea whether or not Heavenly Mother is a part of that council, but the revelations, as we have them now, do not indicate such to be the case (which alters nothing, of course, regarding her personal attributes as a perfect, exalted individual being).

[_Buffalo]

Joanna's right, though, about Heavenly Mother being taboo. One of the recently revised Sunday school manuals changed "heavenly parents" to just "Heavenly Father."

No, she made it up. The term "Heavenly Parents" can be found peppered throughout contemporary LDS teachings and literature. Its most obvoius manifestation is in the The Family: A Proclamation to the World. It can be found in numerous other official Church venues.

I suspect that's why they're not canonizing the proclamation on the family - it also refers to heavenly parents. They're trying to phase out Heavenly Mother very slowly.

The Proclamation on the Family is already scripture; its a declaration of core doctrine by the First Presidency and the Twelve unitedly. It hardly needs "canonization."

In this era of rising inflation, its good to see that tin foil is still affordable to the common run.

You're incorrect. They're already beginning to revise "heavenly parents" out of the manuals. And per Packer's amended talk, the proclamation is merely a guide, not revelation.

[_Droopy]

You're incorrect.

No, you have no idea what you're talking about, which is standard fair for you, Sir Bluffalot.

They're already beginning to revise "heavenly parents" out of the manuals.

No they're not. You're making it up as you go along, Bluff, which makes you a shoe in as a major Brooks defender here. The idea of heavenly parents is conspicuous throughout LDS doctrinal literature and GA teaching over many generations. I see nothing changing as of the present.

And per Packer's amended talk, the proclamation is merely a guide, not revelation.

The Proclamation represents the official doctrine of the Church unitedly supported by the First Presidency and the Twelve as a single body, and Packer has never said otherwise regarding it.

Your wool-pulling operation here, Bluffalo, is fascinating for its brazenness, but pulling wool over the eyes of others with one's pants down around one's ankles is inadvisable (and could get you arrested, if done in public).

[_Droopy]

Were would Droopy be without Wikipedia? It'd be so much harder to pretend he knows anything about feminism if he were just going from memory of Rush Limbaugh's career-long rants about "feminazis."

Why would I need Wikipedia when I've been studying, observing the feminist movement closely, and perusing the writings of various and sundry feminists for nearly thirty years (if not longer)?

[_DarkHelmet]

The Proclamation represents the official doctrine of the Church unitedly supported by the First Presidency and the Twelve as a single body, and Packer has never said otherwise regarding it.

It's as doctrinal today as the official statement on the Negro question was back in 1949. It could become non-doctrinal at some future date, but as of now, it is doctrine.

[_Buffalo]

No they're not. You're making it up as you go along, Bluff, which makes you a shoe in as a major Brooks defender here. The idea of heavenly parents is conspicuous throughout LDS doctrinal literature and GA teaching over many generations. I see nothing changing as of the present.

Read it and weep. I'll expect you'll be issuing an apology to me now.

1997 Gospel Principles, p 13:

http://www.LDS.org/gospellibrary/materi ... ere_01.pdf

Our heavenly parents provided us with a celestial home more glorious and beautiful than any place on earth. We were happy there. Yet they knew we could not progress beyond a certain point unless we left them for a time. They wanted us to develop the godlike qualities that they have.

2009 Gospel Principles, p 10:

http://www.LDS.org/bc/content/shared/co ... f?lang=eng

Our Heavenly Father knew we could not progress beyond a certain point unless we left Him for a time. He wanted us to develop the godlike qualities that He has.

[_Buffalo]

Were would Droopy be without Wikipedia? It'd be so much harder to pretend he knows anything about feminism if he were just going from memory of Rush Limbaugh's career-long rants about "feminazis."

Why would I need Wikipedia when I've been studying, observing the feminist movement closely, and perusing the writings of various and sundry feminists for nearly thirty years (if not longer)?

When you say you've been observing the gay movement closely for decades, including their sexual habits that you claim to find disgusting, it rings a little truer. As if you didn't have to rely on hasty googling so heavily.

[_DarkHelmet]

When you say you've been observing the gay movement closely for decades, including their sexual habits that you claim to find disgusting, it rings a little truer. As if you didn't have to rely on hasty googling so heavily.

That made me think of this old onion article. I think Droopy and BC Space have the same problems with homosexuals as this guy.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,10861/

[_Buffalo]

When you say you've been observing the gay movement closely for decades, including their sexual habits that you claim to find disgusting, it rings a little truer. As if you didn't have to rely on hasty googling so heavily.

That made me think of this old onion article. I think Droopy and BC Space have the same problems with homosexuals as this guy.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/why-do-all-these-homosexuals-keep-sucking-my-cock,10861/

bcspace? I don't think so. Definitely Wade, though.