Mormon Open Forum Comments

by: Betsy Wyatt

Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:35:39 +0100

Excellent question and prompted writing! I stumbled on your blog today and have an instant need to write. I always make the example of us parents as mini-models of Him as The Parent. We tell our kids, “Don’t ___,” knowing full well they probably will disobey that order, either fully or in part. Does that mean it’s all over? No. Was there a greater good? Not always, and not evidently to me at the moment. And His grace and forgiveness far surpasses mine. Some things are left to our decisions to define and specify as we act out this life. The reason we are given these hard lessons in this life, from what I can tell, is that we are to decide and do our best to follow guidance and, as parents say, “Listen to me.” My point is, He knows we’ll fall just as I know my 13-year old WILL eat all the brownies I said not to eat. By “forbidden fruit”, do we think of everything that is “forbidden”? And is it all specifically listed? Did the attorney you mentioned find any loopholes? Depending on the person, the fruit could be a sexual relationship, a brownie, the R-rated movie we’re not to watch - the list is endless. It’s put there as a choice for a reason - to work and exercise this life. The lesson comes after the stumble, and the hope is that redirection can show the error and we learn. I call it my V-8 moment - a slap on the forehead where I say, “I should’ve listened to you all along!” While I haven’t had relations or intercourse or anything “big” like that out of my Temple Covenants, I have stumbled in other ways, and fully expect to learn more and more from those experiences. That’s a difficult struggle, though, because those Covenants are so much more than a simple request or suggestion. Greater good? I don’t know if the forbidden fruit is set up by God, but it is certainly expected in this life. He did equip us with the desire and knowledge to learn from it if we will as an after-effect. We’re given the tools to overcome the results of eating too much forbidden fruit, and those tools are up to US to use. That’s the part put in place by Him.

by: Elias

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 15:35:59 +0100

It is not true that women don’t get the priesthood. Anytime that a relief society president is set apart she receives the keys to perform her job. This is the authority of the LORD, which is the very definition of priesthood.

Current social thinking is that if you’re not in charge of someone you’re irrelevant. Domination is the key to “being somebody.” At the end of each 3 hour block I stack the chairs and put the hymn books away. Maybe it’s not glamorous and doesn’t let me boss others around, but it is far from irrelevant.

Some people have suggested that “women have their own organization” but men pick the leaders. In the sense that God is a man - they’re right. Anyone who strongly believes that God doesn’t direct the church should go looking for another church - one they think God does direct.

by: Elias

Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:21:14 +0100

Why should I be? Someone from my ward got bumped up into the 70s (I live in Peru).

by: rpm mom

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 20:33:50 +0100

You are the only one. Get over it.

by: Anon

Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:48:10 +0100

Look at the cover of the October 2007 Ensign. It’s a couple carrying what looks like overnight bags, grinning broadly, and the caption invites “Come to the Temple.”

by: Lee Who?

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 12:41:41 +0100

I also heard those reports and was absolutely aghast, not because I’m FLDS but because I’m LDS and many people wonder what happens in our temples.
But before we all jump to conclusions…
I would like to think that maybe a cot or bed was available to those infirmed, or tired or workers overcome by the “spirit”.
That certainly makes more sense than the sordid explanation given in the press used for sensational and titilation purposes.

by: Cordeiro

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:58:10 +0100

Ummm, yeah Steve, you’d be the only one embarrased by photos of Church leaders.

by: mormonopenforum

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 16:10:26 +0100

Mark,

Point taken and title is now toned down.

by: Mark N.

Sat, 05 Apr 2008 15:32:38 +0100

I’m embarrassed by the title of this thread, which shows up rather prominently at LDSelect.org for the time being, if that counts for anything.

by: FrenchExpat

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 08:45:32 +0000

Kurt wrote: “trendy pop cultural stuff (e.g., race issues, feminism, homosexuality, etc.)” I don’t think civil rights are a matter of trendy pop cultural stuff!

Reform Mormonism is not related to the LDS Church. The Church of Rome might have the same source as Protestant churches, but they are a world away from one another. Reform Mormonism takes the most radical points of the Nauvoo era and developed a new faith. These points are those that have been/are played down by the LDS Church.

As for no mention of Jesus, it’s because Reform Mormonism is not a Christian faith.