darth_ender

TV's Frink said:

darth_ender said:

TV's Frink said:

I feel like my reasoning was perfectly rational.  Maybe they should have chosen better titles.  Or perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the dictionary definition of the two words.

Again, I'm willing to move on.

 Not irrational, just simplistic, ignoring the bulk of my responses to focus on rather trite aspects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_organization_(LDS_Church)

Again, the priesthood remains the priesthood, the governing aspect of the church.  Obviously if women don't have the priesthood, they won't govern in the primary governing body.  But even the male-presided bodies in the auxiliary organizations remain non-priesthood in nature, and therefore are auxiliary (Young Men and Sunday School).  Hopefully this is more understandable, but if not, I'm fine with dropping it.

 ...

An auxiliary organization is a secondary body of church government within The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) that is "established for moral, educational, and benevolent purposes."^[1] As their name suggests, LDS Church auxiliary organizations are ancillary to the governing power of the priesthood in the church. The five auxiliary organizations of the LDS Church are Primary, Relief Society, Sunday School, Young Men, and Young Women.

The existence of church auxiliary organizations as a means of assisting the priesthood is based the Apostle Paul's statement that God has established "helps" and "governments" in the church to assist the apostles and prophets who lead the church.^[2] Apostle Harold B. Lee taught that "an auxiliary is to be an aid to the priesthood in watching over the Church and also an aid to the home, under the direction and … cooperation [of] the priesthood."^[3] The purpose of the auxiliary organizations is to help “plant and make grow … a testimony of Christ and of the Gospel."^[4]

According to Joseph F. Smith, church auxiliary organizations are temporary organizations which may be created and discontinued as the needs of the church and the priesthood hierarchy change.^[5] As President of the Church, Smith further stated:

We expect to see the day, if we live long enough ... when every council of the Priesthood in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will understand its duty; will assume its own responsibility, will magnify its calling, and fill its place in the Church, to the uttermost, according to the intelligence and ability possessed by it. When that day shall come, there will not be so much necessity for work that is now being done by the auxiliary organizations, because it will be done by the regular quorums of the Priesthood.^[6]

I mean, come on!  Secondary, ancillary to governing power, assisting, aid, under direction of, temporary....how can you not see the words that describe an organization that is not at the top of the food chain?

Congratulations, women are part of the leadership that assists the real leadership.

 I think we must be on different pages here.  I fully admitted that they served under the direction of the priesthood.  The priesthood is the governing power.  All the auxiliaries are supportive of the priesthood authorities.  You asked if there were high up women authorities.  I said yes.  I consider both the priesthood leadership and auxiliary leadership part of the highest leadership.  My response remains true.

What you (and Jaitea, and all others) continue to ignore is my question as to how a male-dominated priesthood constitutes any real power.  If the priesthood is bogus (which obviously any non-Mormon would believe), then the only power it wields is worldly gain.  And what worldly gain is there to be had from the priesthood?  I see none.  And while you may consider the secondary, ancillary, assisting, temporary, aiding nature of the auxiliaries to be a sign of inferiority, you might be surprised at how the top leadership does not simply make decisions willy-nilly without consulting with those organizations.  If a policy change might affect women, the First Presidency and Apostles will meet with the auxiliary women leaders and other women and obtain their opinion, seeking to find a consensus as to the proper course of action.

You might find such an organization sexist, and by modern societal standards I can see why that is so.  But my church does not see different roles as a mark of superior and inferior, but rather as a means of organization, of order, of guidelines of aspiration.  You don't have to like it.  I often don't like it.  I'm really a somewhat shy fellow, a major home body, and lack the ambition of my wife.  Sometimes I wish the roles were reversed.  But I believe that I should aspire to be what God has in mind for me.

c5

P-8e

Was xhonzi already guessed?  If not, that should have been a pretty obvious choice.

I don't have a problem with legitimate criticism, and your complaints are legitimate, even if I don't agree on every point.  What I do have a problem with is the double standard that a majority religion (or any group/community/whatever) is up for free criticism while a minority group is immune to criticism for the exact same thing.  I remember once reading in the Arizona Daily Wildcat that English-only advocates (tying them with whites) are racists for not allowing Spanish to thrive.  I found this hypocritical and stupid, considering most blacks in our country only speak English.  But somehow, only the whites were racists.  That's a bunch of crap.  If we demand equality among all groups, then we must hold them to equal standards, no? 

My reply was in response to your deleted comment, which implied that in 50 years, the world would be better off as most people abandoned religion.  Unless I misinterpreted.  No need to take offense.  I'm glad you recognize such good.  I've heard many atheists who attribute all evil in the world to religion.

P-8d

So, I guess we never figured this one out.  And I guess only one person can narrow down the Ziggys, though your asking for specifics made it sound like it must be one of them (though I only know of Ziggy Stardust).

G-5b

Hadn't checked for a while.  Apparently things are going so well he set up two additional forums:

http://holidayspecial.freeforums.net/

http://sequeltrilogy.freeforums.net/

K-3a

twister111 said:

*wonders if anyone would be interested in an "Ask the Jewish person" thread*

 Forgot to respond to this.  If you are a practicing Jew, I know I would love to read (or watch gif posts) of such a thread ;)

Colton posted a 53 gb file to MySpleen, supposedly putting every version of Harmy's ANH despecialized together as a single file (note, just ANH, nothing else).  What a weirdo.  What could anyone do with such a thing?

I have a lot I'd like to say.  I just don't have much time these days.  But for now, instead of clogging up threads devoted to answering questions about a particular faith, if someone would like to simply say, "This is why my belief system is better," or "This is why that belief system is no good," this is a good thread to do so.  All are invited to attack or defend, instead of leaving it up to the OP.

TV's Frink said:

I understand that, but again, so what?  That's why I keep calling it a first world problem - you Christians should be able to handle a little mockery, it goes with the territory of being a majority (again, at least in the US).

I'm straight.  Should it really bother me if a gay person on TV calls a straight person a straitey?

 My time is extremely limited of late, so I haven't bothered much with this thread.  However, I will say that I am sick beyond words of this sort of argument.  A majority is fair game?  How is bigotry ever acceptable just because it is directed at a majority?  Does being part of majority guarantee that all is well and good for a person?  Look at Syria: President Assad is part of the minority, yet he and his family have ruled his nation for years, only recently encountering such political difficulties.  Being part of a minority does not immediately mean one is underprivileged.  Our nation, though imperfect, has leveled the playing field quite well.

When does one really qualify as part of a minority?  In Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites are roughly equal.  Who gets to pull the "religionist" card when their brand of Islam is victimized, and who just has to suck it up?

And why do minorities deserve more shielding from criticism?  It interferes with real discussion.  It is an indisputable fact that black young men commit more crimes than any other race.  Yet, instead of individuals taking responsibility for their actions, I've often heard that it's still white people's faults for keeping blacks under their thumbs.  Why don't we instead foster a culture of responsibility so that minorities, even if disadvantaged as blacks generally face more than whites, still must accept just as much responsibility for their own decisions.  Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if this sort of comment gets me in trouble because I'm a white guy.

I am a Mormon.  I am part of a minority, often the focus of criticism from both so-called "mainstream" Christians and non-Christians.  Don't I deserve special treatment?  Why have you come after my faith?  I'm part of a minority.

Again, I don't mean to be harsh, but the fact is that if something is truly wrong, it is always wrong, regardless of how many people look, think, or believe like you do.  Holding double standards (cue Greenpenguino) in fact fosters greater divides between the groups we are trying to improve relationships between.

Jaitea said:

EDIT:too much alcohol taken

J

 I wish I'd responded to this before you removed it.  I did read it.  It was almost like a 'testimony' of why you don't believe in God or religion ;)

Your comment did not offend.  I do, however, feel this thread (as well as the Catholic thread) have become far more like "Reform the foolish believer" threads rather than engaging in understanding why we believe what we believe.  I don't mind that sort of discussion, but it would probably be better in its own thread, where the OP doesn't feel compelled to defend religion on his own.  You don't have to believe in God, but I assure you that 50 years down the road, people still will.  Instead of dwelling on what damage this world may have seen from religion, look at the good it has provided.  Most great discoveries have been performed by religious believers.  The freedoms enjoyed by this world's greatest nations have been founded by believers.  It can be used for ill, but so can the lack of religion.  If you truly subscribe to the belief that religion is the reason for most suffering on earth, then I encourage you to think things through a little more, my friend.

I think I'll start a new thread soon.

TV's Frink said:

I feel like my reasoning was perfectly rational.  Maybe they should have chosen better titles.  Or perhaps you need to refresh yourself on the dictionary definition of the two words.

Again, I'm willing to move on.

 Not irrational, just simplistic, ignoring the bulk of my responses to focus on rather trite aspects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auxiliary_organization_(LDS_Church)

Again, the priesthood remains the priesthood, the governing aspect of the church.  Obviously if women don't have the priesthood, they won't govern in the primary governing body.  But even the male-presided bodies in the auxiliary organizations remain non-priesthood in nature, and therefore are auxiliary (Young Men and Sunday School).  Hopefully this is more understandable, but if not, I'm fine with dropping it.

Whoops.  In my limited time I posted my shogi move in this thread.  Sorry to confuse you.

d5

S-4b

S-4b

You go ahead my friend.

More than you know.  I'll whine about it later.  Quick move: K-4a

Well, Warbler, you want to start a second game with me while your first one wraps up?

Hey, that was a great analysis.  I wish I had time to return the favor now.  Being Christmas, I'll probably be busy the rest of the day (I even had to go into work today).  I'll try to analyze from my POV with pics ASAP.  In any case, I'll make a quick move: P-3d

Forgot to move!  G-3b