Womanhood, priesthood and manhood
I’ve heard it said that womanhood and priesthood are parallels. Do you believe this? If so, is there a parallel to womanhood and manhood? Are priesthood and manhood the same thing?
Popularity: 6% [?]
Our Thoughts
Thought-provoking commentary on life, politics, religion and social issues. 18699 comments on 1650 posts.
Pages
Feeds
-
Sideblog
Mariners schedule LDS Night; Institute to throw out first pitch
#Mormon among those killed at Mexican consulate shooting
#A Mormon Response to Glenn Beck’s Attack on Social Justice
#Dismissing Book of Mormon geography inaccuracies
#Marie Osmonds son Michael Blosil commits suicide in L.A.
#Ogden Temple to Get Architectural Facelift
#10 New Missions to be Created, 14 to be Discontinued
#Being a 30-something Single in the Church: Part V, the Law of Chastity.
#Countering subversive attacks on Mormon scholarship.
#- #
-
Recent comments
- Sally: Paranormal Activity
- Maya: America the Beautiful
- Isobel Shaw: Paranormal Activity
- Defiant Teenager: My 37th Birthday
- Kim Siever: My 37th Birthday
- REIG: My 37th Birthday
- Melanie Long: Homeschooling Choice
- Joseph Gulbransen: Public Showers
- Richard: Why Are Mormon Church
- David Bottger: Breast Implants, Tanning and
- Anonymous: Why Are Mormon Church
- jim: Why Are Mormon Church
- Dawn: Why Are Mormon Church
- jksdfs@yahoo.com: Why Are Mormon Church
- Syphax: Why Are Mormon Church
- Elizabeth Taylor: Canadians win two silvers
- Hollie Powell: Canadians win two silvers
- RWG: How would you increase
- Anonymous: A Modest Proposal: Making
- Kim Siever: How would you increase
-
This month's top commenters
- Kim Siever (16)
- Dawn (5)
- Chris H. (5)
- Sally (4)
- Anonymous (3)
- TStevens (3)
- jjackson (3)
- ltbugaf (2)
- rick (2)
- Conifer (2)
-
Search archives
-
10 most popular posts
- Woman puts sex offender sign on wrong house
- Another free will post
- < insert snappy title here >
- Public Showers
- Apocrypha
- General Conference Open Thread - April 2007
- Kirby Heyborne Beer Commercial
- DNA, Lamanites and Book of Mormon
- Stanley Park is Not Largest Urban Park in North America
- What do you get for tithing?
-
Archives
Canadian LDS Bloggers
Favourite LDS Blogs
Reciprocal
-
Meta
In my opinion priesthood is NOT the same as manhood. You can be a man and not hold the priesthood. But I do agree that womanhood and priesthood are on the same level and I don’t mean to have that being read as me saying women are equal to man. I am talking about priesthood. The things they have to learn here on earth we were taught it by our Father in Heaven. We are here on earth to learn other things.
27 Sep 2006 @ 23:56 | Permalink
Sally said: I don’t mean to have that being read as me saying women are equal to man.”
Do you consider women to be inferior to men? Perhaps of less importance?
28 Sep 2006 @ 07:40 | Permalink
This is closely related to the idea that women need to have some sort of equivalent to priesthood because they don’t have priesthood. But that idea is false: Women do have the Priesthood. They are full partakers in all of its blessings. It blesses men and women alike.
28 Sep 2006 @ 08:30 | Permalink
Sally said:”The things they have to learn here on earth we were taught it by our Father in Heaven.”
Is the ‘we’ in the previous quote refer to women in general? That would mean that the men are inherently lacking in some fashion, no?
28 Sep 2006 @ 08:38 | Permalink
George/Bill
My mother in law will speak for herself, but I can attest to the fact that she is for certain not saying women are inferior to men nor of less importance.
Equality does not automatically denote importance or lack of importance.
28 Sep 2006 @ 08:38 | Permalink
Sally said: “I do agree that womanhood and priesthood are on the same level”
What level do you mean?
28 Sep 2006 @ 09:52 | Permalink
George I do not think women are inferior or better then men. The original post from Kim talked about the priesthood not man in general.
ltbugaf I agree with your comment. We are full partakers of the Priesthood.
Rick yes the we is women in general. Some accept that fact some do not. We were all taught different things in the spirit world. It doesn’t mean the priesthood holders now inheritantly are lacking in anything. There are things they were taught that as women we were not and we have to learn now on earth.
George in Corinthians it states ”
“Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:11). Each brings his or her own separate and unique strengths to the family and the Church. Women are not just cooks, stewards of our homes, or servants. They are much more. We are the enrichment of humanity.
Women’s inner strength is our spirituality. In this we equal and even surpass men, as we do in faith, morality, and commitment when truly converted to the gospel. We have “more trust in the Lord. This inner spiritual sense seems to give us a certain resilience to cope with sorrow, trouble, and uncertainty.
28 Sep 2006 @ 10:29 | Permalink
“There are things they were taught that as women we were not and we have to learn now on earth.”
Do you have an example?
“Women’s inner strength is our spirituality. In this we equal and even surpass men, as we do in faith, morality, and commitment when truly converted to the gospel. We have “more trust in the Lord.”
I think the idea that women are inherently more spiritual than men as a whole is false.
“All are fallen and are lost” (Alma 34:17), not just men. we are all natural beings original fallen and it is only through gifts of the Spirit and following Christ’s example that we can overcome what is our nature.
Certainly, I can think of women who are more spiritual than men I know, but the reverse is also true.
28 Sep 2006 @ 11:21 | Permalink
I think Kim encapsulated my points quite well.
It just seems counterintuitive that women are given less decision making roles if they are indeed the more spiritual, in general, of the two genders.
28 Sep 2006 @ 13:13 | Permalink
no KIm I do not have an example perse as I do not remember all I was taught in the spirit world. I just know it is.
“I think the idea that women are inherently more spiritual than men as a whole is false”.
You check the stats against those that fall away from the gospel, those who are disfellowshipped/ex’d and they will show that men are more easily sidetracked “as a whole” from the gospel therefore less spiritual.
You are right when you say you know some men that are more spiritual then some women. Absolutely. I don’t disagree with you. I know you are more spiritual then some of my female friends. But as a whole that is the way it is.
Rick how do you figure women are given less decision making roles? One has nothing to do with the other. You can be very spiritual without having to make any world changing decisions.
28 Sep 2006 @ 13:24 | Permalink
I don’t know that this will change anyone’s mind but here is how this breaks down in my view. The divine nature of Womanhood is an equivalent to the Priesthood. As parts of both Motherhood is parallel to Fatherhood. Manhood in any kind of redeeming way is encompassed in the Priesthood ideal. A man may not lack the opportunity to receive the priesthood in this life, but with things in order he will undoubtedly receive it in the next. Likewise, women who grow in knowledge and wisdom in the Lord fulfill their divine nature and become something Celestial and Glorified.
Male and Female sealed by covenant in the New and Everlasting Priesthood together complement eachother and become gods, receiving all that Heavenly Father (and Mother) have. I guess the only meaningful parallel would be between righteous manhood and priesthood.
28 Sep 2006 @ 13:38 | Permalink
“You check the stats against those that fall away from the gospel, those who are disfellowshipped/ex’d and they will show that men are more easily sidetracked “as a whole” from the gospel therefore less spiritual.”
How do I get a hold of these stats? They certainly are not published publicly.
But if your theory is right and men are more easily sidetracked than women, then I guess priesthood is not parallel to womanhood.
28 Sep 2006 @ 17:23 | Permalink
Kim Siever said: “You check the stats against those that fall away from the gospel, those who are disfellowshipped/ex’d.”
Is it possible men are ex’d at a higher rate than women due to something as simple as removing the competition?
Is excommunication a beneficial tool to the person who is exe’d or is it more useful for the leader who impossed it?
28 Sep 2006 @ 21:00 | Permalink
“Is it possible men are ex’d at a higher rate than women due to something as simple as removing the competition?”
Huh???? Good grief, how many conspiracy theories do you have going? I have never heard of anything (well almost) so ludicrous in my life.
29 Sep 2006 @ 04:30 | Permalink
Bill/George: Where is the evidence that men are excommunicated at a higher rate?
29 Sep 2006 @ 08:50 | Permalink
“Rick how do you figure women are given less decision making roles?”
Sally, is there ANYTHING substantive in the church that does not go through a priesthood holder before being implemented? No.
Choosing what is going to be served at the ward supper is hardly on the same level as signing the cheques…
My only point was if the ladies are the more spiritual and more prone to be guided by the spirit, why is it that the men are the ones with the oversight?
30 Sep 2006 @ 13:28 | Permalink
First of all Rick, for you to say that all women do in the church is decide what is going to be served at the ward supper is highly insulting!!
I consider myself a leader in our ward and I do my work and plan for the spiritual, physical, mental and social development of the children. I do so without having to go running to the men for either approval or permission in the first place.
The way I see it is Heavenly Father is my Priesthood leader and if He is telling me it is ok to do something substantial in our ward then that is all the approval I need. I let my bishopric know what we are going to be doing and if they don’t agree with me then I just keep giving them more information until they see my way of things.
Christ had many many times where the people asked for him to perform miracles and to prove to them He was who He said He was. He would always say He knew who He was He did not have to prove anything to anybody. Men do not hold the market on having the so called oversight that you mention in your post. We were already taught in the Spirit World what the men need to learn here and now.
Oh and by the way for your information, our ward activity chairman who DOES plan our ward dinners is a man and the majority of his committee are men.
30 Sep 2006 @ 18:01 | Permalink
One possible evidence behind the theory that women are, as a group, more spiritually inclined than men as a group, is that women appear to accept the Gospel and enter into the covenant of baptism more often than men, and to drop out of activity less often than men. However, I add the caveat “appear” because my evidence is mostly anecdotal, based on my personal observations. I do recall seeing some actual statistical data as well, indicating that women outnumbered men substantially in the Church in some areas of the world. In my own experience, I was able to teach and baptize women more often than men as a missionary.
30 Sep 2006 @ 20:26 | Permalink
ltbugaf said: Bill/George: Where is the evidence that men are excommunicated at a higher rate?
You used to pretend to be a high priest so it surprises me that you would not know men are exed at a far higher % than women are. Women for the most part recieve probation.
30 Sep 2006 @ 21:04 | Permalink
rick said: “Sally, is there ANYTHING substantive in the church that does not go through a priesthood holder before being implemented?”
Women are not allowed to have a voice in anything except non important matters. Even the Relief Society (world’s oldest woman organization) the women do not decide. For example, when a new RS President is chosen, it is the Bishop that decides who it will be along with who her counselors will be.
It used to be different but the church is a different church now and women make no choices. After all, they are inferior to HP.
30 Sep 2006 @ 21:09 | Permalink
ltbugaf said: ” In my own experience, I was able to teach and baptize women more often than men as a missionary.”
I hope their husbands where in the room when you did your “teaching”.
30 Sep 2006 @ 21:12 | Permalink
George
“You used to pretend to be a high priest ”
I am not sure why you think ltbugaf has pretended to be a high priest. I believe he is one, and hasn’t said differently. Why is the elder/high priest scenario such a huge issue with you?
“Women are not allowed to have a voice in anything except non important matters.”
Not true. And since you aren’t a woman in the Church then I don’t see how you would know this. I am beginning to doubt if you are an actual active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. You have such animosity towards the church and the church leaders.
30 Sep 2006 @ 21:31 | Permalink
George you said “even the Relief Society (world’s oldest woman organization) the women do not decide. For example, when a new RS President is chosen, it is the Bishop that decides who it will be along with who her counselors will be.”
Actually the Bp calls the RSP but she chooses who she wants for her councilors. He does not decide for her.
You also said ” It used to be different but the church is a different church now and women make no choices. After all, they are inferior to HP”
Hey George did you feel that? That was me smacking you upside the head!!!! Are you kidding me??? What planet do you come from that you think women are inferior to the HP? My husband is the HP Group Leader in our ward and he would be the 2nd person standing in line to say I definately am NOT inferior to him!!
I go to Ward Council every month and several of my recommendations for our ward have been implemented. I would really love to stand by and watch you walk up to the Relief Society General President at church headquarters and tell her she needs to hurry on home to get dinner on cause after all she isn’t doing anything very important!
30 Sep 2006 @ 22:48 | Permalink
“…for you to say that all women do in the church is decide what is going to be served at the ward supper is highly insulting…”
True enough, so I’m glad I did not say it. I used it as an example of the types of responsibilities the individual genders are given.
“I consider myself a leader in our ward…”
You can consider yourself the queen of France but it does not make it so. Regardless of how many suggestions you make, they must be filtered through a priesthood holder (assuming they are substantive enought to require his attention). This ultimately positions you in a submissive role. I don’t agree with it, I’m just pointing it out to you.
ltbugaf said:”…women appear to accept the Gospel and enter into the covenant of baptism more often than men, and to drop out of activity less often than men.”
True enough, but the women also have the most peripheral benefits to belonging to the organization. Specifically in regard to the care and feeding of children and the natural inclination of women to be more socially active, in general.
The church assists in many of the day-to-day necessities of the woman’s role and therefore continues to be prioritized, whereas (especially in 3rd world countries) there is very little to hold a man in the church excepting belief.
2 Oct 2006 @ 08:27 | Permalink
I don’t think Bill’s reckless comments against me in comments 19 and 21 should need any reply, but for the sake of any who might be confused, misled, or just unwary, here goes:
1. I am a high priest.
2. I do imagine that men are probably excommunicated at a higher rate than women, but I have no evidence of that. I asked Bill for some evidence to support his assertion. I would also like to see some evidence backing up Bill’s assertion that women “usually receive probation.” But I don’t really expect Bill to provide that, either.
3. I never engaged in any inappropriate activity with a woman on my mission. “Teaching” means teaching.
2 Oct 2006 @ 10:02 | Permalink
ltbugaf
No you don’t need to explain yourself. Re #3, when George/Bill said that, I was sickened by his statement, implying you behaved inappropriately, or that missionaries do so. I certainly don’t believe you did so, and that such behaviour is not the norm among missionaries. His implication is inappropriate.
2 Oct 2006 @ 10:43 | Permalink
Mary Siever said: George
“You used to pretend to be a high priest ”
I have never pretended to be a High Priest. I have always maintained that I am an Elder.
4 Oct 2006 @ 11:25 | Permalink
ltbugaf said: I do imagine that men are probably excommunicated at a higher rate than women, but I have no evidence of that. I asked Bill for some evidence to support his assertion. I would also like to see some evidence backing up Bill’s assertion that women “usually receive probation.” But I don’t really expect Bill to provide that, either.
If you agree that men are excommunicated at a higher rate, then why do expect me to provide you with evidence to prove it? It sounds like you are trying to disprove me instead of speaking to the issue. Is there a possibility that your response was directed more at me than the topic?
4 Oct 2006 @ 11:30 | Permalink
George
Go back and read my comment again. I didn’t say you pretended to be a high priest, I was quoting YOUR reference to ltbugaf. That’s why I was using quotation marks.
4 Oct 2006 @ 11:36 | Permalink
Sally said: George you said “even the Relief Society (world’s oldest woman organization) the women do not decide. For example, when a new RS President is chosen, it is the Bishop that decides who it will be along with who her counselors will be.”
Actually the Bp calls the RSP but she chooses who she wants for her councilors. He does not decide for her.” Sally ends here.
George speaking now
Perhaps it is different in Canada but where I live, the Bishop not only decides who will be the RSP but he also decides who the councilors will be. There is no input from the women.
Sally said: “Hey George did you feel that? That was me smacking you upside the head!!!! Are you kidding me??? What planet do you come from that you think women are inferior to the HP?”
I do not think women are inferior to men. I believe HP think they are superior to other members of the church.
I know a good sister of the church who plays the organ in her ward. She only uses hymns out of the LDS Hymn book and she picks her songs based on the topic the speakers are using that Sunday and all of her music choices must be approved by the Bishop before she can play them each Sunday.
Do you know of any important decisions a female can make in the LDS Church that a HP does not have to approve of before it can happen?
Anything will do for your example but it must be considered important and effect the entire ward and planning a meal does not count.
Sally said: “I am beginning to doubt if you are an actual active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. You have such animosity towards the church and the church leaders.”
I find it interesting that you would choose to question my religion based on asking questions. How about you answering the questons instead?.
The Church and Church Leaders are two different subjects. The Church is fine if you take people out of the process. Men who pretend to be God’s annointed and ruin other peoples lives is whole different topic. Are you referring to my dislike of men who do evil?
I just learned one of the Stakes where I live just called a man who is addicted to porn to a Stake calling. Out of all the men in the Stake, he is the best they have? The answer is no but we could try friend of the SP.
I dislike evil men being held up as examples for the rest of us to follow.
Would you support a man in a stake calling if you knew was addicted to porn?
I know tell the SP or the Bishop but why if they already know his problem?
Sally said: “I let my bishopric know what we are going to be doing and if they don’t agree with me then I just keep giving them more information until they see my way of things.”
Can you do anything without letting the Bishop know first? hum?
4 Oct 2006 @ 11:40 | Permalink
Bill, asking for the evidence that backs an assertion is not avoiding an issue. If you have some actual evidence that men are excommunicated more frequently than women, or some actual evidence that women “usually” receive “probation,” then please provide it.
I hope you have now abandoned your campaign of disgusting and unfounded accusations against me.
4 Oct 2006 @ 11:48 | Permalink
And by the way, Bill, re: comment #30–
How do you know the bishop of your ward doesn’t get any input from the Relief Society president? Are you the bishop? Are you the Relief Society president? Are you present during every one of their communications?
4 Oct 2006 @ 11:50 | Permalink
Bill, the process your ward organist is the one that should be followed by any ward organist, male or female. It has absolutely nothing to do with being a man or a woman.
4 Oct 2006 @ 11:53 | Permalink
ltbugaf said: And by the way, Bill, re: comment #30–
How do you know the bishop of your ward doesn’t get any input from the Relief Society president? Are you the bishop? Are you the Relief Society president? Are you present during every one of their communications?”
So you are saying the only decision a woman can make in the Church is to give input to the Bishop?
Only being able to give input is not much decision making for women. But, then I believe women do have minds and can make decisions and do not need a HP to approve everything they do. I suppose this type of thinking would be grounds for a HP to attack me on.
Whats next on the HP agenda? Make the women veil their faces. Oops, I think they already do that.
4 Oct 2006 @ 12:10 | Permalink
George:
Sally (my mother in law) did not say ““I am beginning to doubt if you are an actual active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints. You have such animosity towards the church and the church leaders.”
*I* said that. And I stand by my suggestion of why. You need to read comments carefully before making accusations of who said what and why.
And your continuing comments back this up. You are very judgemental and seem to be full of animosity towards the church. I am unsure why you remain a member of it when you hold it in such contempt. Are you not aware that yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a patriarchal church? It doesn’t pretend to be matriarchal, never has. If you don’t like that, then why do you continue to call yourself a member of it? You do seem to have such a huge issue in reference to the high priest/elder “division” as you see it. It sounds as if you are jealous, though I couldn’t say why. As well, it is clear you are certainly not ready to advance in the priesthood if this is your attitude.
4 Oct 2006 @ 12:17 | Permalink
ltbugaf said: “Bill, the process your ward organist is the one that should be followed by any ward organist, male or female.”
Why does the Bishop need to approve every song that is sung if it comes out of the LDS Hymn book?
Does the Lord give inspiration to the Organist as to which hymns to use? A simple yes or no would work here. If yes then why does a HP need to oversee such a thing?
If no, then are you saying that only a HP (Bishop) receives revelation for songs to be sung?
Hands are laid on the head for church callings and – wait a minute, why do this if the Bishop makes all choices anyways?
Just questions, that all.
4 Oct 2006 @ 12:21 | Permalink
Mary said: “Are you not aware that yes, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is a patriarchal church? It doesn’t pretend to be matriarchal, never has.”
I know the church is patriarchal and women do what the men say.
Why does pointing this truth out give you the right to question my membership?
Are you and ltbugaf the same person? Just asking.
4 Oct 2006 @ 12:31 | Permalink
Well, since ltbugaf is a high priest, American and a man, then no, I am not him and he is not me. I am a woman, a Canadian, a mother (I doubt ltbugaf has ever given birth) quite clear about who I am, I don’t have different identities. I stick to whom I am. I am not suggesting ltbugaf does this either. But you are assuming I do, and he does.
I only question your membership based on ALL of your comments about the church and how it is run. Your animosity toward the priesthood offices, the men who are in these offices and your plethora of accusations towards so many men in offices of leadership and their right to be there.
As far as women doing what the men say, you have obviously not been in very many council meetings if you really think this is the case. I know more than one woman (myself included) who have definately had a say and don’t just tow the line. You also seem to have a low opinion of women if you think we are all such wimps that we don’t know how to stand up for ourselves.
4 Oct 2006 @ 12:38 | Permalink
Mary said: “You do seem to have such a huge issue in reference to the high priest/elder “division” as you see it.”
Rick said: “The church assists in many of the day-to-day necessities of the woman’s role and therefore continues to be prioritized, whereas (especially in 3rd world countries) there is very little to hold a man in the church excepting belief.”
Rick’s last line is the one that needs to read over and over again.
“There is very little to hold a man in the church excepting belief”.
When an Elder reaches his mid forties or early 50′s, he is no longer accepted. I know this sounds bad but it is true. There is age discrimination for Elders over the age of 50.
I dislike being discriminated against because of my age.
4 Oct 2006 @ 12:50 | Permalink
Mary said: “You also seem to have a low opinion of women if you think we are all such wimps that we don’t know how to stand up for ourselves.”
Your entire statement is not anything I said nor implied. I stated the truth. You do not have an answer so you accused me of things that are not true.
How would I know if you and ltbugaf are not the same person? I can only trust what you tell me.
4 Oct 2006 @ 12:56 | Permalink
George.. I did not say that you have animosity towards the church Mary did. I let the Bishop know what I am doing for my auxiliary as a sign of respect after all he is the leader of my ward. Not once in the 28 years that I have been a member, has a Bishop or Stake President come up to me and said you are NOT going to do that or you ARE going to do things my way. Never. And I have lived in many wards, different stakes, different provinces. Never.
Stake Presidencies are given mission goals for each year by the First Presidency. They in turn past these goals down to their Bishops and Branch Presidents (at least are supposed to). These goals are then passed on down to auxiliary leaders who use these goals to formulate their own goals that are tailored for their needs.
With these goals the Bishopric then have topics that they want used for talks during Sacrament meetings. These topics then are used for the ward Music Directors so that the songs follow the theme for the month.
For example if the theme for this month was blessings then songs for the month would fall under that category. That is why they correlate the music with the member of the bishopric that is over Sacrament meetings in regards to talks etc.
All songs in the LDS hymnal are appropriate songs and there is nothing wrong with them. But you would not want to be singing a song that is usually reserved for funerals on a Sunday where everyone is talking about elation, and excitement etc.
And actually I don’t usually let the Bishop know what I am doing anyway. I let the bishopric advisor that is over Primary know what I am doing who is my chain of command.
When our Bishopric was called I raised my hand to sustain them in their callings and as such I do what is right. Do I always like some of the decisions that are made? No. Do I voice my concerns? Yes. Do I grumble at times? Yes. I am human. A Bishop/Stake President has amazing responsibilities. They count on their auxiliary leaders to keep them informed on what they are doing. They council together and make decisions together. Just as we report back to our Bishopric, they report back to the Stake President. That’s why they have chain of commands.
Do I wish I had the Priesthood and could have this so called power you seem to think they have and lord over us mere women? Not on your life. I am here on earth to fulfill my destiny. I am not here to get the Priesthood. Are there bishops and stake presidents out there in the real world that use this power unrighteously? Of course. They are human like everyone else. And as such will have to stand on Judgement Day and report on their stewardships.
4 Oct 2006 @ 12:57 | Permalink
Mary? Tow the line and not speak out for what she beleives in? Snort!!! there is about as much chance of that happening as me not standing up and making my voice heard :-D
4 Oct 2006 @ 13:01 | Permalink
“When an Elder reaches his mid forties or early 50’s, he is no longer accepted. I know this sounds bad but it is true. There is age discrimination for Elders over the age of 50″
George how are you discriminated against? Why do you feel Elders are not accepted in their 40′s or 50′s? Accepted as what or where?
4 Oct 2006 @ 13:04 | Permalink
Well whether you know it or not, it doesn’t matter. It is very clear that I am Mary Siever (yes, my real name) and I am married to Kim. We have been married 11 years and last I checked, I am a woman. Since ltbugaf has made it clear he is a man, I don’t see where the confusion lies. And why confuse the two of us? It’s quite clear we don’t have identical opinions to each other (since I have been on his case plenty of times, he will be quick to assure you). I am who I say I am.
4 Oct 2006 @ 13:12 | Permalink
Whatever you want to claim is fine with me Mary or ltbugaf or whatever you want to be.
4 Oct 2006 @ 19:22 | Permalink
uh huh, ok.
4 Oct 2006 @ 19:27 | Permalink
JM said: “Personally, I feel that the right to privacy on forums such as these is paramount, and those with special inside information regarding the real identities of those posting should keep private information private.
What I dislike so much about this behavior is that you are indeed using it as an ad-hominem attack. You are attacking someone’s character in an effort to discredit anything they say.
By accusing someone of misrepresentation, you are hoping to cast a shadow of doubt on any argument they make without regard to the argument. A person’s identity shouldn’t matter. You should adress the argument itself rather than the presenter’s character.”
I would like to thank JM for writting those words. There is much wisdom in them.
The sad part is this is often how members of the Church address hard
questions, attack the one who ask instead of answering the question.
Once again, thank you JM for your wisdom and I hope you read this.
4 Oct 2006 @ 19:34 | Permalink
George
My feelings are that your attacks on leadership in the church, your animosity towards high priests and your caustic remarks are bothersome. You continue to twist and turn what people say. You can be as anonymous as you want, but by pretending to be two different people you cast suspicion on the validity of your comments. You can be as private as you want, I don’t care. That doesn’t bother me in the least. It’s when you post as two different people (and we are aware you are doing that because of your IP address) without saying “Yes, this is me.” I have never pretended to be anyone other than who I am. Perhaps I am *too* open. But I don’t pretend to be two people or three people. I am one person.
The questions you ask that make sense, are answered. When you ask questions just to raise contention, well, that’s another story.
What I might ask is why don’t you start a blog? Often you ask totally unrelated questions, which is why Kim set up your own thread. It might make more sense for you to have your own blog and then you can raise whatever questions you want, instead of trying to change the topics posted here.
4 Oct 2006 @ 19:48 | Permalink
Mary, watch out. Bill/George is trying to suck you in to turning this thread into another “Elders & High Priests” thread.
Bill, you asked why a bishop’s approval is needed for the hymns sung in a meeting. The answer is that the bishop presides over that meeting and is responsible for managing its content.
When I asked you how you could know what you claim to know in comment 30—that the bishop calls Relief Society counselors with no input from the Relief Society president—I actually thought you would answer. Instead, you try to substitute an actual answer by asking, “So you are saying the only decision a woman can make in the Church is to give input to the Bishop?” The answer is no, I’m not saying that. I’m asking you how you claim to know what you know. I must assume that, as with the wild tales of misconduct by Priesthood leaders that you regularly use to litter these pages, your “knowledge” is based on gossip and guesswork.
5 Oct 2006 @ 03:46 | Permalink
Read # 47. it applies to both of you.
5 Oct 2006 @ 08:55 | Permalink
Bill, I can’t agree. After all, you’ve shown you’re willing to accuse me of sexual mischief while on my mission, even though you had absolutely nothing on which to base that vile, degrading accusation. If you’ll go that far on nothing at all, why should I believe any of your other tales?
5 Oct 2006 @ 16:36 | Permalink
School Boy ltbugaf, it is amazing the things you fabricate in your mind. Not once have you been accused of sexual mischief while on a mission. You bragged that you mostly taught married women. I hope their husbands were present while they were being taught. That was Mission policy for me, I hope you would have followed the same rules but who knows with you.
It is a sad that you make up such nonsense when there are better things to discuss.
5 Oct 2006 @ 19:16 | Permalink
If the women were ever allowed to manage the RS without men over seeing it, how long would it be before the men would have to manage the affairs of the RS again?
Tough question to answer? Would it be months or years?
5 Oct 2006 @ 20:31 | Permalink
well George considering it was the RS that used their funds to bail the church out in the early years I don’t think us mere women have to worry about needing anyone but us to manage our affairs.
5 Oct 2006 @ 21:13 | Permalink
It was a joke Sally. I believe the women of the Church do not need a man (Bishop) to approve everything they do.
6 Oct 2006 @ 08:56 | Permalink
Bill/George:
1. Please don’t insult me further, while also insulting the intelligence of everyone who reads this ‘blog, by trying to claim your comment about having husbands in the room wasn’t meant as a sexual innuendo—everyone who can read your comment knows better.
2. Please stop evading and explain how you can possibly know what you claim to know about the way things work in your ward—especially what you claim to know in comment #30.
3. Please show some slight shred of decency by ending your use of “nicknames” such as “schoolboy.” You’re only displaying the puniness of your own intellect.
7 Oct 2006 @ 05:51 | Permalink
Schoolboy said: “husbands in the room wasn’t meant as a sexual innuendo—”
Gee is everything with you about sex?
7 Oct 2006 @ 15:46 | Permalink
TO ALL: Please indulge me for a short policy announcement.
I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to realize that no rational or reasonable response is ever going to come from Bill/George, and that all engagement with him is pointless. I’m now going to start doing what I should have done long ago: Ignore. No more responses to his taunts, his lies, his false accusations, his dual identities, or his wildly colorful stories. From now on, no matter how preposterous Bill/George becomes, he’s getting nothing from me.
7 Oct 2006 @ 17:27 | Permalink
…and I can only recommend, in the very strongest terms, that everyone else follow the same policy. I think it’s the only way to save the ‘blog from ruin.
7 Oct 2006 @ 17:28 | Permalink
Sorry I did not have time to finish. The wife wanted to go shopping.
ltbugaf said: “Please show some slight shred of decency by ending your use of “nicknames” such as “schoolboy.””
I suppose you expect a double standard since you continue to call me Bill/George. You also go to great lengths to call me names. Schoolboy is pretty tame compared to the things you write and even more so since you claim to be a HP.
Ever since you came back from hidding, you have tried your best to insult me. You really come across as a faithful follower of Christ.
I forgive you.
7 Oct 2006 @ 18:17 | Permalink
One more thing, Kim: I am not a big fan of banning people from a blog. But there’s a point where someone’s dishonesty and disruption are no longer tolerable and stand in the way of all reasonable discourse. I just think you should consider that.
7 Oct 2006 @ 18:26 | Permalink
Kim gave you your own thread. Maybe you should consider attacking me on the ltbugaf thread, then no one else would have to read it.
I still forgive you for the things you continue to write.
7 Oct 2006 @ 18:32 | Permalink
ltbugaf
I have decided the same thing, a few days ago (to ignore him). And for the record, I have noticed you are much nicer since coming back :).
7 Oct 2006 @ 19:36 | Permalink
I also forgive you Mary for the things you have written.
I am looking forward to not reading jabs. Thank you if you mean it.
8 Oct 2006 @ 05:13 | Permalink
ltbugaf,
Consider it noted. And acted upon. Sort of.
13 Feb 2007 @ 13:08 | Permalink