Here’s a fun party question: Who are your favorite commenters?
Over at some-other-blog, Margaret Young writes in a comment: “Card-carrying Mormons do often believe that Blacks were fence sitters in the pre-existence and that polygamy is essential to eternal progression. Neither position has been formally repudiated by the powers that be. We have merely distanced ourselves from them.” This comment, I think, highlights two different possible views on how Mormon doctrine dies.
As we become more like God — all progressing towards the same end point — will we lose our uniqueness as individuals? How can we maintain individuality as we become just like God? As with many questions, this one can be answered by recourse to the classic computer game Nethack.
Do church members have a duty to present the church in a favorable light at all times? (more . . .)
Recent comment discussions at the Exponent II and Feminist Mormon Housewives blogs have examined the propriety (or impropriety) of using terms like “slut” and “whore.” A few male commenters used those terms in comments; in response, female commenters, making an argument I tend to agree with, have asserted that there is no place for these words in general discussion. I think that’s right; people should not use these kinds of terms in general conversation. And yet, how can I make that argument with a straight face, given the frequent usage of these kinds of terms in scripture?
Wilford Woodruff’s journal entry for Tuesday, December 5, 1865, is short: “I spent the day packing away Apples.” (The entry for the 6th is equally short: “I undertook to make some Cider to day. It was to Cold to get the Juece out of the Apples.”)
I was maybe ten years old when I complained to my father about having to go to church. I didn’t like it; it was boring; why couldn’t I just stay home? His response susprised me: “If you don’t want to be there, then stay home. God doesn’t want your grudging obedience.”
Mormon Stories is no longer “open, honest, respectful”; however, they are now “building bridges.”
Let’s face it — we haven’t hit the mainstream until we’ve broken into horror movies. And the possibilities for Mormon horror are enormous. After a quick brainstorm with danithew (of Blog-Diss fame), I’m chuckling about some of the possibilities. In the best Julie-Smith tradition, let me present:
Over at some-other-blog, Kristine asks the interesting question, “what is the purpose of time?”
A common narrative in the church relates to new converts who join the church despite intense pressure from their family or community. But does the calculus change any if a promise is involved? How and when should religious promises be broken?
What is the bloggernacle? Good question. People’s views are likely to differ, and the quest to define the nacle is bound to be an ongoing one. It’s a fun question, but for now I’m just going to point out a significant new post on the topic: DMI Dave has been around long enough to have a better grasp of the community definitional issues than just about anyone else, so when he weighs in on the topic, it makes sense to pay attention. The don’t-miss-it nacle post of the [week? most-recent-short-period-of-time?] is Dave’s “Defining the Bloggernacle.”
A prior thread examined rationales for extending priesthood eligibility to women. This thread will examine the opposite question: If you believe that women should not receive priesthood eligibility, why not?
Some of our readers and participants have expressed a belief that eligibility for priesthood ought to be extended to women. Iâ€™m curious about the reasoning underlying different participants’ acceptance of this argument.
“If you gave women the Priesthood and then took it away, would they be less happy than if theyâ€™d never gotten it to begin with?”
From its inception, Times and Seasons has been a forum for relatively diverse political, theological, and applied approaches to Mormonism.
whether or not there is love at home.
We sojourned in the wilderness for seven years, spending years of famine and frustration in small apartments. Our children learned to play indoors; our driving skills deteriorated. Worst of all, we neglected our food storage.
Here’s a quick thought exercise: 1. How many female Melchizedek Priesthood holders are currently in your ward? 2. How many Black Melchizedek Priesthood holders are currently in your ward?
So, we’re told that motherhood is given to women, as Priesthood to men. Two motherhood-priesthood thoughts occur to me: 1. True or false: “The rights of motherhood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven, and the powers of heaven cannot be controlled nor handled only upon the principle of righteousness.
According to Mormon doctrine, children who die before the age of accountability are fast-tracked straight to the Celestial Kingdom. This idea creates all sorts of numbers problems.
Of you it is required to forgive all men, reads the scripture. That’s not an easy one.
My children are getting ready for Father’s Day, and this involves practicing that primary song about fathers of the home, the ward, and us all. So tonight we had an interesting dinner-table conversation, about whether the same structure applies to mothers. We have a mother of our home, and we have a mother of us all. Is there a such thing as the mother of the ward?
There are a small but growing number of gay Mormon men who comment regularly on T&S and other bloggernacle blogs.
When I was a child, I tasted sour cream, and I immediately wondered, “why on earth would anyone willingly put that stuff into his mouth?”
Don’t miss this discussion (over at another blog) about just what the Bible has to say on homosexuality.
There are two ways to eat out, broadly speaking: You can order a pre-set meal from the menu, or you can order a la carte. Do we have the same options with religion?
Yes, today is 6/6/06. And apparently, some folks are celebrating it in Hell, too. We won’t go quite that far, here. However, in honor of the day, let me post this, from an e-mail that’s been circulating for a while: Number of the Beast: 666 Next door neighbor of the Beast: 668 Social Security Number of the Beast: 666-66-6666
The nacle has been around for some time now, and a culture of inside jokes and insider language has sprung up with terms like monkeys, peaches, fondue, chupacabras (chupacabrim?), and Bannergate. Nacle newcomers may find the local patois a bit off-putting. This post, intended as a basic field guide, may serve as a starting point for newbies.
There have been some very strong posts of late in the bloggernacle. Two of particular note: -Guest-Eve at FMH* has a very thought-provoking post on Forgiving the Church. She begins, “the Church has brought me both the most profound and beautiful and some of the most heart-wrenching experiences of my life” — and it gets better from there. Don’t miss it! -Deborah at X2** writes “Making Sense of Sunday,” a post about love and loyalty and judgment and compassion (and as a bonus, it discusses SSM too!). Yet another don’t-miss. (Other strong recent offerings come from Serenity at LDSLF about portrayals of Mormons in cinema and DMI Dave on the missionary program). And now back to our regularly scheduled lineup of SSM and abortion, interrupted by the occasional server crash.