Recent Comments

  • E.C. on A “Secular” Case for the Church: “@ Anna, I feel that you have fundamentally misunderstood the purpose of Christianity and, more specifically, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It’s not about rectifying power imbalances – Christ doesn’t seem to care about earthly notions of power at all, which is why He upset so many people among His disciples, rulers, and leaders from both Rome and Israel. Neither should his saints care (though all too many DO care, men and women alike). It’s about relationships between God and His people, and between the people within a covenant community. That sense of community I do feel the church leadership is struggling to build. That seems to be partly because people within the church refuse to unify around prophetic vision in any meaningful way, and partly because the leadership is trying to remove scaffolding before the building is structurally sound. They’ve axed a lot of programs which perhaps weren’t particularly helpful in furthering the work of God, but which helped build community, and they haven’t figured out how to replace them yet. But neither have we as members of the body of Christ stepped up to help build that community, so I see both members and leadership as culpable. Personally, though, as a single woman I keep going to church not because I feel that it’s useful for me, but because I want to be useful to God. Isn’t it the case that the imbalance in power between God and man is incalculably large? If all you want is for everyone to be on perfectly equal footing, well, Satan had a plan that would’ve attempted that. Ultimately, I reject your assertion that just because I’m a woman and single the Church has no place for me, or that men do well only because the Church makes them hierarchically superior. That is simply untrue, as Christ made it quite clear that those who want to be part of His kingdom must be humble servants to His people. That in no way excludes women, nor does it elevate men – though some imperfect (or actively bad) leaders may certainly interpret God’s instructions in ways that do just that. Thank you, Stephen Fleming, for seeking to make a secular case for the Church. Ultimately, I feel that no secular reason will be completely adequate to stay indefinitely in a religion, but your research and your views will hopefully help some decide to come and stay in the covenant belonging that the Church can provide.Mar 28, 23:30
  • Anna on A “Secular” Case for the Church: “I tend to agree with you that the church is good for men. But from my female perspective, not so good for women. 50 years ago, RS provided many of women’s needs that sort of balanced the advantage of life meaning and connection that priesthood and church connection gives men. But when RS was put firmly under priesthood, then on Sunday, then lost the work meetings, and finally the lessons made exactly what the men are learning in priesthood, without giving the women anything like the leadership opportunities that men get, well there is nothing left to do for women what the church does for men. Yes, our society has changed and with over 50% of women being in the work force the old Tuesday morning RS just would not cut it in today’s world. But now treating men and women totally differently, yet having RS be nothing but the same lessons the men get, it not only does not meet the needs of working women, but it has lost everything that made it valuable to women back when most were housewives and didn’t work outside the home. So, goody goody for the church being good for men. Ummmm, when is it going to get around to being good for women in the same way? Meanwhile, I will support my husband remaining active because it’s good for him, but you know, God has daughters too. P.S. Stephen, I am feeling a bit guilty here because you do have a good point that from a secular standpoint, the church is good for men. And I am feeling like my snark may come across as an attack and I don’t mean to address any attack towards you cause you’re one of the good guys. So, let me get serious. Why are men struggling in society in general? Because they are not adjusting well to loss of privilege. Women have changed and no longer accept subservient status. And the church is one place they have not had to give up privilege. So, it is good for men because it has failed to adjust to a changing society. It gives men a place where they can still be treated as special, they can maintain their privilege. Men have community because the men run things and 90% of the women are feeling like they don’t fit for whatever reason. For single women, they don’t fit because they are single. For childless they don’t fit because they are childless. For working it is because they work. For stay at home moms, it’s because most women work, for empty nesters, it’s because the church has no use for us. So, no women feel they belong. This isn’t a problem of individual women, but a failure by the church to provide a community that brings women together. So, It isn’t really a sustainable position for the church because the church is losing its women. And children 3/4 of the time follow their mother’s religious choice. So, unless the church changes it will keep losing its youth. So, sure, the church currently is good for men, but it is hemorrhaging members.Mar 28, 22:13
  • Nate on A “Secular” Case for the Church: “Amen. Happy Easter everyone, He is Risen! Oh death where is thy sting, oh grave where is thy victory?Mar 28, 20:54
  • Chad Nielsen on The Purifying Power of Gethsemane: “I think we’ve established pretty well that all of us (other than maybe Jack) are bad at following the living prophet. Given that we seem to be spinning into throwing insults and insinuations of unfaithfulness all around, however, I’m going to shut down the comment section on this post.Mar 28, 14:06
  • Dennis Horne on The Purifying Power of Gethsemane: “Jack, If you are the same “Jack” username that I see commenting occasionally on the Deseret News comment boards, I compliment your work and say more power to you. I admire your defending the Church. I do not believe the Brethren disagree doctrinally nearly as much as has been asserted. The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve are the Correlation Committee of the Church and have few doctrinal disagreements, in my view. Policy? perhaps. Finances? perhaps. Doctrine? no, not much. It all comes from the scriptures. DennisMar 28, 14:02
  • Dennis Horne on The Purifying Power of Gethsemane: “I simply inform readers that “James” is my internet stalker. He constantly looks for any comments or posts from me and uses comments sections on websites to slander or seek to embarrass. His real name is Cameron Stienbusch. He has used the aliases of “C.S.”, “Whizbang,” and “James” over the years in his stalking. His interpretations of my posts, comments, and views are not accurate, but are instead negative, spiteful, and twisted. I hope people will read what I write/wrote instead of trusting to his interpretations and conclusions. If he quotes me, he does so out of context. As for Elder McConkie’s final talk and testimony, all that he said therein was his testimony, the paragraphs including the doctrine of the creation and the fall were just as true and sacred to him as his perfect knowledge of the divinity and divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus Christ; they were to him the “three pillars of eternity.” The Spirit bore witness to all of it. He and President Romney (and President Smith and Lee and Kimball) were one in heart, mind, and doctrine. Presidents Nelson and Oaks spoke/speak as highly of Elder McConkie and his doctrinal teachings as of any man that ever lived in this dispensation. These quotes are publicly available. Don’t let Cameron’s spiteful rantings distract you from the power and true doctrine of Elder McConkie’s profound testimony. Those wishing further information about Pres. Romney’s teachings on the doctrine of the “mission of Adam” should read his “First Presidency Message” from the September 1980 Ensign and know that Pres. Romney repeated essentially the same wording three times: in general conference (April 1953), in a CES symposium (1979) and here: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1980/09/records-of-great-worth?lang=eng. In my view, it’s one thing to point out doctrinal error in a public post/publication, but quite another to troll and stalk and slander and insult someone. “James” or Cameron has evidently seen fit to ignore Pres. Nelson’s talk on Being Peacekeepers.Mar 28, 13:58
  • RLD on “A Little Hippyish”: “@REC911: If it were a vote they’d only need your #1 pick (unless they’re doing ranked choice voting, I suppose). They wanted three names because they were gathering information, not votes. They get more information by not just interviewing you, but hearing what other people say about you. I also find it fascinating that the Lord always makes us work for revelation. He doesn’t just want us to have the right answers, he wants us to learn how to get the right answers ourselves–eventually.Mar 27, 23:16
  • RLD on The Purifying Power of Gethsemane: “It’s been a long time since I’ve seen a full-blown “you can’t believe in the atonement if you believe in evolution” attack. It’s like one of those Japanese soldiers emerging from the jungle a decade after the end of World War II…except rather than discovering his side lost, he finds both sides have long since decided there never had been anything worth fighting over. Sadly, the main effect is to draw attention away from Elder McConkie’s testimony of Christ and turn what might have been a unifying moment into division and contention.Mar 27, 23:01
  • James on The Purifying Power of Gethsemane: “@Jack-true, but then again no one was disagreeing with his testimony, just his teachings. Elder McConkie and Elder Petersen didn’t always agree and Elder Maxwell disagreed with him, of which is fine but then according to Dennis Elders Renlund, Petersen, Maxwell and others are “ignorant critics and somehow will be “sorely mistaken”.Mar 27, 15:47
  • Jack on The Purifying Power of Gethsemane: “James, however the brethren may disagree with each other on policies or tenets I don’t think you’ll find any that disagree with Elder McConkie’s testimony of the Savior.Mar 27, 15:27