If a female tried to get into the priesthood session of GC...

[Topper]

Agreed. It doesn't make for much exchange of ideas.

The reason given or understood is that the Church is not a democracy, so the members are simply to receive counsel as if coming from God. The membership should then figure out how to follow it, not how to understand it or why general counsel might not apply to a particular individual. Nor is it to reconcile inconsistent statements from the past. As a result, the Church will not admit to learning bottoms up, only top down. I suspect there is bottoms up learning, but given the position that the Church is led by inspiration, many in leadership must believe it will undermine their authority to admit to learning bottoms up. (I suppose if done adroitly, it could actually increase their authority).

That is quite different than most other relationships we experience in our social life. In our political life, we are not to merely trust what leaders advise. If we did that, we'd be led down the primrose path every time. Nor should we do that in business or professional life. So the questioning mind is to be put to rest in religious life. It is at odds with the rest of our lives.

[Topper]

And clumsy.

Yes, they often end up making the original position look weaker in their clumsy defense.

[All-American]

And clumsy.

Attempts to appease the intractable often are.

[Topper]

Attempts to appease the intractable often are.

You don't need to say much to the converted or to those who reject it. The need for cautious statements is for the neutral. Style and substance matter.

[All-American]

You don't need to say much to the converted or to those who reject it. The need for cautious statements is for the neutral. Style and substance matter.

We may not disagree here. I'm not sure it was a good idea to do anything at all.

[splitbamboo]

The reason given or understood is that the Church is not a democracy, so the members are simply to receive counsel as if coming from God. The membership should then figure out how to follow it, not how to understand it or why general counsel might not apply to a particular individual. Nor is it to reconcile inconsistent statements from the past. As a result, the Church will not admit to learning bottoms up, only top down. I suspect there is bottoms up learning, but given the position that the Church is led by inspiration, many in leadership must believe it will undermine their authority to admit to learning bottoms up. (I suppose if done adroitly, it could actually increase their authority).

That is quite different than most other relationships we experience in our social life. In our political life, we are not to merely trust what leaders advise. If we did that, we'd be led down the primrose path every time. Nor should we do that in business or professional life. So the questioning mind is to be put to rest in religious life. It is at odds with the rest of our lives.

And yet that's exactly how this whole thing restarted a couple hundred years ago.

[Green Monstah]

And clumsy.

I didn't really like the free speech zone thing, but the letter is about what I expect from the Church. This may not make sense, but I think the fact they had a female sign the letter bothered me most. Strategically, I guess it makes sense. If the usually PR guy signs it, OW folks could say, "Classic example of a male dominated church telling the sisters how to behave," but it came off as trying a bit too hard.

[Topper]

I didn't really like the free speech zone thing, but the letter is about what I expect from the Church. This may not make sense, but I think the fact they had a female sign the letter bothered me most. Strategically, I guess it makes sense. If the usually PR guy signs it, OW folks could say, "Classic example of a male dominated church telling the sisters how to behave," but it came off as trying a bit too hard.

Somebody smarter than I could discern a mean by which the leadership could save face, yet consider extending the priesthood to women. It may be years to come, but the interest seems to be growing.

Those prepped for leadership are growing with the numbers of sister missionaries increasing. In light of how long it took for it to be extended to all worthy men, I am not holding my breath, but it seems more likely than I would have thought thirty years ago.

[hostile]

I didn't really like the free speech zone thing, but the letter is about what I expect from the Church. This may not make sense, but I think the fact they had a female sign the letter bothered me most. Strategically, I guess it makes sense. If the usually PR guy signs it, OW folks could say, "Classic example of a male dominated church telling the sisters how to behave," but it came off as trying a bit too hard.

I suspect the letter was signed by a female because she is the PR rep for Utah, not for the entire church.

[Green Monstah]

I suspect the letter was signed by a female because she is the PR rep for Utah, not for the entire church.

Nevermind, then.

[HBCoug]

I suspect the letter was signed by a female because she is the PR rep for Utah, not for the entire church.

She needs to be at home raising her children instead of responding to heretics. Maybe running a photography biz on the side.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The reason given or understood is that the Church is not a democracy, so the members are simply to receive counsel as if coming from God. The membership should then figure out how to follow it, not how to understand it or why general counsel might not apply to a particular individual. Nor is it to reconcile inconsistent statements from the past. As a result, the Church will not admit to learning bottoms up, only top down. I suspect there is bottoms up learning, but given the position that the Church is led by inspiration, many in leadership must believe it will undermine their authority to admit to learning bottoms up. (I suppose if done adroitly, it could actually increase their authority).

That is quite different than most other relationships we experience in our social life. In our political life, we are not to merely trust what leaders advise. If we did that, we'd be led down the primrose path every time. Nor should we do that in business or professional life. So the questioning mind is to be put to rest in religious life. It is at odds with the rest of our lives.

"bottoms up"?

You have been drinking too much.

[byu71]

The reason given or understood is that the Church is not a democracy, so the members are simply to receive counsel as if coming from God. The membership should then figure out how to follow it, not how to understand it or why general counsel might not apply to a particular individual. Nor is it to reconcile inconsistent statements from the past. As a result, the Church will not admit to learning bottoms up, only top down. I suspect there is bottoms up learning, but given the position that the Church is led by inspiration, many in leadership must believe it will undermine their authority to admit to learning bottoms up. (I suppose if done adroitly, it could actually increase their authority).

That is quite different than most other relationships we experience in our social life. In our political life, we are not to merely trust what leaders advise. If we did that, we'd be led down the primrose path every time. Nor should we do that in business or professional life. So the questioning mind is to be put to rest in religious life. It is at odds with the rest of our lives.

Some good thoughts. I have a bit of a different take.

I think a lot of the conflict comes from those who can, will, want to take things on faith and those who have to have a reason or answer for everything. It has to make sense. It has to meet the "scientific" criteria, as if science itself often isn't a crap shoot and isn't black and white.

Thus you have some very successful, thoughtful, intelligent people looked down upon and thought of as "non-thinkers" because of something a more "educated" person just couldn't accept.

I am not sure there are many organizations or societal (sp) structures that rely on faith more than religion.

[SoonerCoug]

It has to meet the "scientific" criteria, as if science itself often isn't a crap shoot and isn't black and white.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously--what do you know about science? Nova? The Science Channel? Popular Science?

[Topper]

Some good thoughts. I have a bit of a different take.

I think a lot of the conflict comes from those who can, will, want to take things on faith and those who have to have a reason or answer for everything. It has to make sense. It has to meet the "scientific" criteria, as if science itself often isn't a crap shoot and isn't black and white.

Thus you have some very successful, thoughtful, intelligent people looked down upon and thought of as "non-thinkers" because of something a more "educated" person just couldn't accept.

I am not sure there are many organizations or societal (sp) structures that rely on faith more than religion.

There are some very insightful leaders who succeed without being analytical, but rather whose intuition serves them well.