June 25th, 2014
02:40 PM ET
Mormon feminist: l'll fight excommunication
(CNN) - Mormon Kate Kelly was excommunicated after she advocated for women to be ordained in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
She told CNN on Wednesday that she'll fight for reinstatement in her church.
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
I don't know why she's fighting excommunication–she should embrace it and tell all those old men to f____ off.
My wife was excommunicated from the Mormon church when she started dating me. Good riddance is what we thought. I don't know how they found out she was dating me, but they sent intimidation squads at night of old men who were used to treating adult women as if they were children. When my wife was a teenager, they gave her a letter explaining that her role was to bear children for the church. She bore a total of four before her Mormon husband (who btw is still in good standing with the church) abandoned her and her children, including one who had leukemia, and including a toddler and another baby on the way. After they excommunicated her, they tried to come after the children and take them off for indoctrination, and were bewildered when we wouldn't allow it. Later after we moved, they somehow found out where we moved to, and tried coming after the children again.
Another woman I knew in college, Robin, who was a recovering Mormon received a summons to the church court. Robin was charged with "indecent acts" or some such nonsense. She tried to find out what was going on but they wouldn't say anything until her date before the church court. So she sensibly refused to have anything else to do with them and was excommunicated–again, "Good Riddance". It turned out Robin's mail carrier was a member of the church, and noticed that her mail had her under a different last name from the man at the same address. The mail carrier assumed that they must not be married, not realizing that Robin had kept her maiden name for professional reasons, and turned Robin in to the church authorities. Pretty creepy when you think about it–your mail carrier is a spy for the church.
Are you spamming because you can't think of anything to say yourself?
One more thing, I don't hate or fear your cult...it's harmless to me just like your imaginary friend is! Actually I don't hate anything or anyone-stupid assumption on your behalf and rather infantile...Grow up!
Then where's the anger coming from?
Wow, no anger at all. You need to learn the difference between intolerance and anger. You said she should follow the tenets of the cult or leave. Now I agree I would be in the best interest of everyone involved to leave the cult but you seem to think this woman is in the wrong for joining the 21st century and not agreeing with the divisive tenets of your religion. If you had an open mind, you'd know that Joseph Smith lied and that he was a convicted felon, yet you continually deny these facts. Your tenets include teaching children that LGBT is sinful (sin doesn't really exist outside of the bible...just to educate you a little) and that women are second to men-that in itself is a joke. By trying to bring the church to the 21st century, this woman is doing the right thing and for you to judge her for doing so makes you the hateful one. Maybe you should act like a adult in the 21st century and use Atheist built computer (yes, the person who invented the machine you use to judge was a non-believer) and educate yourself, instead of blindly following the pedophiles lies in the book or Moron (Mormon). Your cult is damaging and the tenets are hateful and bigoted but I guess you support bigotry and hate given how you defend it. Common sense and an education (neither of which you appear to have) go a long way In this world...no heaven, no planet for you to go to, no hell; nothing within your books can be shown to be true...do you care about the truth or are you a simple-minded fool merely wasting the only life you'll ever get for the grand delusion of something after?
One more thing, obviously you are going to be biased about your master Joseph Smith, however, if you have the slight4st of an open-mind you'll actually take the time to FINALLY learn the truth about him instead of listening to the warm fuzzy lies you've been brainwashed with: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
One more thing, obviously you are going to be biased about your master Joseph Smith, however, if you have the slightest of an open-mind you'll actually take the time to FINALLY learn the truth about him instead of listening to the warm fuzzy lies you've been brainwashed with: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith,_Jr.
In the 21st century you should be acting as woman hat cares and be standing beside this lady in her path. Do you teach your children that LGBT are sinning? Do you teach them about Evolution? Did you teach them about the Big Bang?
Do you teach your children that LGBT are sinning? Do you teach them about Evolution? Did you teach them about the Big Bang?
Of course they wouldn't dare....teaching those things would be BLASPHEME.
Oh I know but down below she took on an air of arrogance speaking about how perfect her children are, not seeming to understand that as good as they might be manners wise, by lying to them about LGBT and the other stuff, she has taught them divisiveness and bigotry...neither of which makes her any better of a parent or her children any better. I'm guessing she home-schooled her children...a dangerous thing when religion is involved.
Actually, I didn't have to teach them anything. They learn this stuff all on their own.
Right now, I'm trying to convince my daughter that she does not have to hold her friends to any higher standards than what they set for themselves. That it's possible to be friends with someone who has "come out of the closet" so to speak. That just because one's church believes something does not mean that her friends have to be held to the standards of a church that they don't even belong to. One day, she'll see that.
rainbow: You are a liar! You should not be near any child and I feel sorry for the one left in your care. You didn't answer my questions but I'm not surprised given that you lack intelligence and obviously an education. Keep living in your fairy tale world...we know the truth about your cult and you should be ashamed for being a supporter of a pedophile...if hell exists, it is you who will be there...enjoy it-you've earned the spot. Now back under your rock and stop showing the world your ignorance.
Answer what questions?
These? -Do you teach your children that LGBT are sinning? Do you teach them about Evolution? Did you teach them about the Big Bang?_
I don't think I have to answer them. I don't answer to you. You make some pretty nasty assumptions of me, just because I don't agree with you 100%. I mean, DAMN that First Amendment, right? NO one should have the right to say what they think, or believe as they want or worship as they want, correct?
Oh wow, your 1st amendment right allows you the freedom to practise, not the freedom to impose your beliefs on others and that is exactly what you have done to this lady. You started this and failed to see where you were out of line.
Those questions do matter because if you have failed to teach your children that LGBT are born that way and that evolution/big bang are fact then you have lied to them and thus failed them...no decent parent lies to such a horrific extreme to their children.
Now this is done...enjoy living in the cult of lies.
-the freedom to impose your beliefs on others and that is exactly what you have done to this lady.-
Actually, it's the other way around. SHE was trying to impose HER beliefs on the church, and when it is one person against the whole church, then the whole church says adios to the one person.
-Those questions do matter because if you have failed to teach your children that LGBT are born that way and that evolution/big bang are fact then you have lied to them and thus failed them…no decent parent lies to such a horrific extreme to their children.-
IOW, because I don't raise my children to your satisfaction, then I'm a bad parent.
Sorry, I fail to see where God and everyone made you the top authority on how to be a good parent.
-Now this is done…enjoy living in the cult of lies.-
Can't, don't belong to one.
h and the next time you wish to accuse someone of being angry, I'd look in a mirror. You are intellectually dishonest. You have been provide fact after fact after fact abut JSmith and you still refuse to open your mind. If your cult has ay chance of surviving they best join the 21st century or they won't make it.
By not answering those questions you confirmed that you are a bigot hates women and has no respect for humanity. You are living a delusional life and are a true blemish on humanity.
-you wish to accuse someone of being angry, I’d look in a mirror.-
Yes, I do get angry when people not only tell lies about my faith, and about me, but do it in such a childish, immature way.
-You are intellectually dishonest. You have been provide fact after fact after fact abut JSmith and you still refuse to open your mind.-
I know a lot of facts about Joseph Smith, but I've yet to hear any from you.
-If your cult has ay chance of surviving they best join the 21st century or they won’t make it.-
IOW, God better get it in gear and do things your way, right? or He's toast!
-By not answering those questions you confirmed that you are a bigot hates women and has no respect for humanity. You are living a delusional life and are a true blemish on humanity.-
Do you BEAT your daughter to be a good parent like the Bible commands?
I didn't know I was supposed to. God doesn't say that.
(Prov. 29:15) “A rod and a reprimand impart wisdom, but a child left undisciplined disgraces its mother.”
Are you "disgraced'?
Not hardly! My kids turned out pretty darn good, with very few licks on the behind.
rainbow: A site was listed that proved J Smith to be a felon and you denied those facts-intellectual dishonesty. You suffer from Confirmation Bias...no matter what EVIDENCE is provided you will deny it because in order to accept it would mean you would have to OPEN your mind to the fact that what you believe is a lie (just like the entire bible has been proven to be).
If you are raising your children to deny science and to think that LGBT are not born that way, hen yes you are a bad parent. You're not raising open minded children when you raise them with religion involved....maybe that's okay with you but remember the rest of us have to put up with your kids at some point and we'd prefer they not be as ignorant as their parents about things that matter (ie; equal rights for all and science).
Your bible speaks of slavery, rape; child abuse and one I know you support-oppression of women.
You can scream this woman was an apostate but you're seriously wrong. You don't have to appropriate her strong head but you're failing to comprehend how very judgemental you are and how that in turn is a sin...so skip the hypocrisy and learn to be a better person yourself or it is you who is deserving of punishment from your imaginary friend not her.
I don't purport to be god or speak for it because it can't be proven to exist.
By he way you speak, I'm guessing you don't have much of an education...you should consider getting one, it might pen that small closed mind of yours. Oh and read the bible...it is the quickest path to Atheism.
" with very few licks on the behind."
That is child abuse. There should never be reason to use physical force to discipline a child, all that does is teach them that at times of anger it is okay to be violent. Those poor children.
Well, why break pattern? According to you, no matter what I do, I'm a child abuser. The only way I'd be a good mother is if my sons turned into total panty-waists and my daughter into someone like Michelle Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or (oh gag) Hillary Clinton.
But, my sons know how to treat a woman, and my daughter is a strong beautiful woman, and I like them just as they are, thank you very much.
Sounds like you were "disgraced" according to the Bible.
I guess I was. I'm sure God is just mad as all get out that I didn't beat them into submission, but instead chose to love them into being good people.
Let me give you a passage of scripture, slightly altered.
41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of (parenthood), only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
44 That he may know that thy faithfulness is stronger than the cords of death.
That is how I tried to raise my children, and I doubt that God is unhappy with the results.
Yes, your daughter would have done well to turn out like Hillary or Michelle...both women who stand for LGBT rights and women's rights.
WTH kind of rude remark is panty-waists? That is completely ignorant of you!! You should be damned ashamed that as a supposed adult lady you'd be that rude!! You're not a proper lady and don't claim to be...a proper lady doesn't lie to her children about a god that doesn't exist; a proper lady stands for women's rights; a proper lady doesn't use physical force on innocent children; a proper lady knows to stand on her own feet and a proper lady supports LGBT and stays educated.
Your leader is a FELON and no matter how many times you deny that, you are only fooling yourself.
You say you left one church for this one...so you traded out one set of lies for another...kudos for remaining ignorant ad not caring about humanity or facts. Remain ignorant and remain in your cave.
Btw: Do you understand that the computer you're using is man-made and many Atheists (heretic's in your small world) had a hand in building it?? Why are you being such a hypocrite and hating when you take full advantage of things that have nothing to do with your imaginary friends or do you enjoy looking like a complete moron??
-You’re not a proper lady and don’t claim to be-
A proper lady is a proper lady. I don't see Clinton or Obama or Pelosi or any of those others as proper ladies. I see them as...something else. Divisive, bigoted, racist, everything you say I am, or they would say I am. Sorry, but I show no preferences for anyone. I would hope that everyone would have the same rights and the same freedoms.
-Do you understand that the computer you’re using is man-made and many Atheists (heretic’s in your small world) had a hand in building it?? Why are you being such a hypocrite and hating when you take full advantage of things that have nothing to do with your imaginary friends or do you enjoy looking like a complete moron??-
why do you ass/u/me that I have any problems with atheists? Why would I care if someone is or is not an atheist?
So, you're an atheist. You seem to have a bigger problem with it than I do.
"I doubt that God is unhappy with the results."
Well first off, you have nothing to back the claim of a god...so you have lied here. Second, the Christian god loves child abuse and rape and slavery...sorry you're to ignorant to read the bible but it's all in there. The god you believe in is an immoral monster....read your bible.
Yes, I read the Bible, that's why I'm a Christian/Mormon.
Why do you think Clinton and Obama are divisive, bigoted and racist/ Give valid examples to show you have a clue.
Divisive, bigoted? What special brand of crack are you smoking?
They're standing up for all the right things while you sit back and refuse to all over your malicious belief system. They're not divisive or bigoted...they happen to stand for everyone unlike you!
Reading the bible doesn't make you a good person as you have proven. The bible is a book of lies and malicious, vengeful stories about a god that doesn't exist. All this proves is that you care about nothing other than appeasing the imaginary...a sincere insult to humanity. The bible was written to control the gullible, weak-minded fools and you have fallen for it...such a weak mined stance to take.
Follow the Golden Rule and try to be a good person (not that you'll ever come close to Hillary or Michelle).
-Follow the Golden Rule and try to be a good person (not that you’ll ever come close to Hillary or Michelle).-
HAH!! That's rich! The "Golden Rule" to them is "Do unto others, before they do unto you". Or "do unto others as little as possible, while holding out for as much as you can get from them".
The LDS leadership seem to teach that THEY are the law the church is to live by. But the D&C says the revelations in IT are the law the church is to live by. The LDS leadership fight any attempt of members to claim the right to legitimately have a controversy over them and their decisions. But D&C 107:81-84 gives instructions on how to have a special Bishop's trial over the President of the church, or one of his counselors– saying this special trial will be the end of controversy over the matter. JST Mark 9:40-48 unfolds the mystery of one of Christ's parables: Every member of the body of Christ must accept the responsibility to "stand or fall" for themselves and not for another. This means if a brother, a leader or even the Prophet fail they must not fall with them. Kelly should not seek to make decisions for the church leadership. She was not called to do that. But she can seek to claim the right of legitimate dissent based on the scriptures I quoted.
>>But the D&C says the revelations in IT are the law the church is to live by.<> But D&C 107:81-84 gives instructions on how to have a special Bishop’s trial over the President of the church, or one of his counselors– saying this special trial will be the end of controversy over the matter.<>But she can seek to claim the right of legitimate dissent based on the scriptures I quoted.<<
There is no "right of legitimate dissent". She is allowed to believe as she wants, but she is not allowed to be an agitator, The church is not a democracy.
The church is a cult and you a fooltard for remaining. You only show your hatred for humanity by following the delusional rants of Joseph Smith...tiny hint, he never met jesus-there is no evidence to support Jesus' existence. Grow up...only children and delusional people have imaginary friends.
I don't hate anyone, it's a wasted emotion.
rainbow: Tell the truth for once in your life. You say you don't hate but you called this woman an apostate and heretic-meaningless words in a SECULAR country. You are willing to spread lies about her-gossip wench that you have proven to be all because she believes in joining the 21st century. Sorry you're such a small-minded hypocrite and not a real woman. You don't even know the history of your own cult (not church...it is far from that) and the stories you have been fed are lies to make you keep following the lies told by a convicted con-man...you're clearly delusional and in need of mental health help-locate the nearest asylum, urn your children over to child-protective se4rvices and enjoy a stay in a rubber room where they can help you...you're clearly not living in reality.
She does not speak for me, nor does she speak for the vast majority of women in our church. She IS apostate, and that's not just name-calling. It's a fact.
It is not a fact and it is vicious of you to call her that. Who exactly are you to judge her? You're not better than her, she is a far better woman than you'll ever be because she at least has the guts to stand against the church and stand for women's rights. Maybe you should grow a damn back bone and follow her good path or remain the good little sheep and stay ignorant. Blatant ignorance!
-You’re not better than her, she is a far better woman than you’ll ever be because she at least has the guts to stand against the church and stand for women’s rights.-
I never said, or even implicated, that I was in any way better than her. But, I do believe in what my church does, and if I didn't, I would just get out. Which is what I did, I was raised in one church, I didn't believe, and I just got out and found one that I liked, that believed like I did. Not that the other church would have excommunicated me. They would have just talked about me behind my back and pretended to like me to my face. I'd rather be ex'd, or leave, than live with a bunch of two-faced hypocrits.
-Maybe you should grow a damn back bone and follow her good path or remain the good little sheep and stay ignorant. Blatant ignorance!-
Ok, one more time.
I DON'T AGREE WITH HER, SHE DOES NOT REPRESENT ME, I LIKE MY CHURCH AND WHAT IT BELIEVES, I DON'T AGREE WITH HER AND NEITHER DOES MOST OF THE WOMEN OF MY CHURCH. She fights the good fight, and refuses to know when to surrender.
mid-14c., "one who forsakes his religion or faith," from L.L. apostata, from Gk. apostasia "defection, desertion, rebellion," from apostenai "to defect," lit. "to stand off," from apo- "away from" (see apo-) + stenai "to stand." Used in non-religious situations (politics, etc.) from mid-14c.
late 14c., from L. apostasia, from later Gk. apostasia, from apostasis "revolt, defection," lit. "a standing off" (see apostate). General (non-religious) sense is attested from 1570s.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
her·e·tic [n. her-i-tik; adj. her-i-tik, huh-ret-ik]
a professed believer who maintains religious opinions contrary to those accepted by his or her church or rejects doctrines prescribed by that church.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2014.
You're an idiot. I read what you said and told you how very wrong you are to judge. Just because you're a weak minded, uneducated, hateful, vengeful, bitter old lady doesn't mean she has to be.
Her best move and the right move for any woman that cares about women's rights is to walk away from the cult built on the lies of a convicted felon (stop lying about him...in doing so, you are complicit in supporting criminal activity and belong in an asylum).
Your god is imaginary and you lack the comprehension skills to realize this...living the grand delusion.
-Her best move and the right move for any woman that cares about women’s rights is to walk away from the cult-
NOW YOU'RE GETTING IT!!!!!
But that's not what she's doing! If I compared her to you, it would be if you joined our church, then campaigned openly like her to make the church into an atheist organization.
Mormon feminist: l'll fight excommunication..............
She's not too swift...they're doing her a favor by doing that....some people are so far behind the curve..
This to me is like; who cares? I'm not a Mormon heretic, so this just like idolatry and Idolatry like atheism, is Absolute, Complete and Total NONSENSE. Atheists and idolaters are extreme hypocrites, compulsive and pathological liars. They are also amoral people.
So what are you? Baptist, Lutheran, Baha'i, Hindu, Sikh?? Of course by identifying your religion, you will be subject to a complete analysis of your beliefs.
JAJAJA...oops... pardon me I meant to say HAHAHA. See... you're PRIME example of why I say that atheism is Abolute, Complete and Total Stupidity. Were your born that way or are you just playing the part? You don't really have to do that, you know.
So again, what is your religion?
If all she cares about is being a Mormon, there are 70+ different Mormon religions. She could join the Community of Christ and hold the priesthood. Also, her marriage is not annulled, just the sealing. She is still married to her husband.
But without the sealings she won't be able to have any spirit babies in the Celestial Kingdom!
Dont worry when Jesus Christ comes back on the earth you, me and Kelly will be re-taught and everything according to your faith will happen.
How does that work, because I've never known we can have spirit BABIES. I guess my church is slacking by not teaching me, or any other Mormon I know, this seemingly vital piece of knowledge.
“The Father has promised us that through our faithfulness we shall be blessed with the fullness of his kingdom. In other words, we will have the privilege of becoming like him. To become like him we must have all the powers of godhood; thus a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children who eventually will go on an earth like this one we are on and pass through the same kind of experiences, being subject to mortal conditions, and if faithful, then they also will receive the fullness of exaltation and partake of the same blessings. There is no end to this development; it will go on forever. We will become gods and have jurisdiction over worlds, and these worlds will be peopled by our own offspring.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 2:48)
Then will they become Gods, even the sons of God; then will they become eternal fathers, eternal mothers, eternal sons and eternal daughters; being eternal in their organization they go from glory to glory, from power to power; they will never cease to increase and to multiply, worlds without end. When they receive their crowns, their dominions, they then will be prepared to frame earths like unto ours and to people them in the same manner as we have been brought forth by our parents, by our Father and God”
(Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 283; Journal of Discourses 18:259)
“To live in the highest part of the celestial kingdom is called exaltation or eternal life. To be able to live in this part of the celestial kingdom, people must have been married in the temple and must have kept the sacred promises they made in the temple. They will receive everything our Father in Heaven has and will become like Him. They will even be able to have spirit children and make new worlds for them to live on, and do all the things our Father in Heaven has done. People who are not married in the temple may live in other parts of the celestial kingdom, but they will not be exalted”
(Gospel Fundamentals , 201).
You can confirm that last reference on the LDS website itself.
I don't see anything about spirit BABIES. Tell me about that, cause I don't know about that.
" a man and his wife when glorified will have spirit children"
"these worlds be peopled by our own offspring."
In the Celestial Kingdom, do a man and wife's offspring skip being babies?
That would save a ton of money on Spirit Diapers....
But spirit poop, I'm sure, doesn't stink as much and is much easier to clean up!
I just don't get what these Mormon feminists are on about. They either believe in the church or they don't. Church doctrine is church doctrine because God declares it to be so, through his prophet. Do they just think that the prophet just plucked this stuff out of his hat???!
You mean the bible says it was god and thus you blindly accept that. There is nothing to back that a god said anything but plenty to back that man wrote those words.
"because God declares it to be so"
No....men wrote that god said this and that. No where were any words written by any "god"
Men said god said. Men said god did.
Yes, they pluck it out of a hat. Just like in 1890 when they received new revelation that said pologomy was bad and the day before it was required to get into the celestial kingdom. Then in 1978 the "prophet" received another revelation that black people were actually human beings, and deserved to be treated as such. This is simply scared old white men who will hide behind their dogma until they are forced to change and then they will receive another magical "revelation" and change the policy. That is why there are 40+ splinter Mormon groups, any idea that pops into someones head they think comes from God and if it disagrees with mainline dogma they decide they have the truth and start their own version.
I think you need to actually READ those revelations, because they say nothing of what you think they do. For instance, in 1890, it wasn't because polygamy was considered bad, we were just excused from the practice, so that the US government (which was full of men who didn't like polygamy because it made them look bad) would not shut down the church.
And our church NEVER believed that blacks were anything less than what we all are, children of God. There was no pressure from anyone to do this.
Oh my, more delusions coming from you. Prove your god exists before spewing about what you think it wants or owns.
There is medication to help with your delusions-maybe look in to it and look in to joining this century...you're an embarrassment to women.
So, you know when the church was forced to allow blacks to have the priesthood? How did the government do that? Please, I want to know! No one knows! They always make the accusations, but when I ask for proof, I get the same garbage you are spewing at me.
Look, it's not MY fault that you can't back up your accusations, there's no reason to attack ME because YOU are a liar.
rainbow: Where did I mention blacks you liar? You can't be taken seriously or have your opinion trusted when you support a CONVICTED felon...you're a blemish on humanity. You came here looking for a battle to defend the con man and your cult but reality has it that people are not as stupid as you and the facts are out there. Grow up and please for the safety of your innocent children turn them over to proper people so they can be raised properly without brainwashing. You're a bigger 'sinner' than most...such a hypocrite...grow up ole delusional one.
Sorry, my brainwashing did wonders for them, if I were to turn them over to someone like you, they'd be just as nasty and evil and mean and angry as you are, and that I will not have!!!!!
No it didn't do them any good and you're judging. By far not angry...stop making crazy assumptions. I believe you're a hypocrite and are causing those innocent children harm by lying to them about a god that doesn't exist and that you can't prove exists.
You belittled an innocent lady and stated you'd spew lies about her...it doesn't make you a good person. You deny the truth about Joseph Smith, making you blind and uncaring.
If there's a hell, you'll be there because after how you've treated tis lady and others here, you are not worthy of much more.
rainbowdolt: Just to finish this, you have made judgments about me and about this innocent lady...you are out of line and wrong on al accounts. What you sense as anger is mere intolerance for your ignorance and hatred via judging. You have denied the FACTS about Joseph Smith and have chosen to remain wilfully ignorant.
You're no worthy of further conversation, s anything more out of your uneducated mouth (I suspect you never finished high school given your lack of being able to live in the 21st century and being a christard)
Your children would be lucky with a parent like me..at least they wouldn't be brainwashed to believe the lies of the Moron cult you raised them with...at least they'd know the truth about Joseph Smith and that the Christian god doesn't exist outside of the fairy tale books written by man.
Look up the Golden Rue and e a good christard and follow it...I'm done with your hypocrisy and judging..enjoy your delusions....you'll be ignored (as you should always be).
No, they'd be brainwashed with bigotry and ignorance.
"Do they just think that the prophet just plucked this stuff out of his hat???!"
Joseph Smith put a stone into his hat and then buried his face in the opening, pretending to see where buried treasure could be found. He was arrested and charged with fraud in 1826 for doing that with his hat. Later, the alleged translation of the Book of Mormon was done with that stone in his hat too. So doctrine and stuff did come out of a hat.
I've heard horses will run back into a burning barn. Mormons too, I guess.
How would you like to see THAT standing at your door. Scary.
I studied Hermeneutics from Herman Munster. Does that mean I can interpret scripture ?
She has the spotlight and she should use it to declare all religions null and void.
To save her some time:
Putting the kibosh on all religion in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
• A constant cycle of reincarnation until enlightenment is reached and belief that various beings (angels?, tinkerbells? etc) exist that we, as mortals, cannot comprehend makes for a no on Sikhism.
Added details available upon written request.
In a debate between Bart Ehrman and Michael Licona, 3 facts are given pertaining to Jesus's fate and what occurred afterward that nearly 100% of all scholars studying this subject at the time of the debate accepted. This includes Christians, Jews, agnostics and atheists.
1. Jesus' death by crucifixion.
"One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate." – Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.
2. Appearances to the Disciples
This is short for saying that shortly after Jesus's death, a number of Jesus's followers had experiences both individually and in group settings that they perceived were of the risen Jesus who appeared to them.
"Why, then, did some of the disciples claim to see Jesus alive after his resurrection? I don't doubt at all that some disciples claimed this. We don't have any of their written testimony, but Paul, writing about twenty-five years later, indicates that this is what they claimed, and I don't think he is making it up. And he knew at least a couple of them, whom he met just three years after the event Galatians 1:18-19)." – from Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus Interrupted
3. Appearance to Paul
Short for saying that Paul had an experience that he perceived was of the risen Jesus appearing to him.
""there is no doubt that [Paul] believed that he saw Jesus' real but glorified body raised from the dead."
– Bart Ehrman quote shown in his debate with Michael Liconia ("Ehrman vs. Licona (2009)") on YouTube.
What explanation do you give?
After only 3 days, some people didn't even recognize Jesus.
"After only 3 days, some people didn’t even recognize Jesus."
Huh? Are you saying they'd forgotten what He looked like?
Saving Christians from the Infamous Resurrection Con/
From that famous passage: In 1 Corinthians 15: 14, Paul reasoned, "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith."
Even now Catholic/Christian professors (e.g.Notre Dame, Catholic U, Georgetown) of theology are questioning the bodily resurrection of the simple, preacher man aka Jesus.
From a major Catholic university's theology professor’s grad school white-board notes:
"Heaven is a Spirit state or spiritual reality of union with God in love, without earthly – earth bound distractions.
Jesus and Mary's bodies are therefore not in Heaven.
Most believe that it to mean that the personal spiritual self that survives death is in continuity with the self we were while living on earth as an embodied person.
Again, the physical Resurrection (meaning a resuscitated corpse returning to life), Ascension (of Jesus' crucified corpse), and Assumption (Mary's corpse) into heaven did not take place.
The Ascension symbolizes the end of Jesus' earthly ministry and the beginning of the Church.
Only Luke records it. (Luke mentions it in his gospel and Acts, i.e. a single attestation and therefore historically untenable). The Ascension ties Jesus' mission to Pentecost and missionary activity of Jesus' followers.
The Assumption has multiple layers of symbolism, some are related to Mary's special role as "Christ bearer" (theotokos). It does not seem fitting that Mary, the body of Jesus' Virgin-Mother (another biblically based symbol found in Luke 1) would be derived by worms upon her death. Mary's assumption also shows God's positive regard, not only for Christ's male body, but also for female bodies." "
"In three controversial Wednesday Audiences, Pope John Paul II pointed out that the essential characteristic of heaven, hell or purgatory is that they are states of being of a spirit (angel/demon) or human soul, rather than places, as commonly perceived and represented in human language. This language of place is, according to the Pope, inadequate to describe the realities involved, since it is tied to the temporal order in which this world and we exist. In this he is applying the philosophical categories used by the Church in her theology and saying what St. Thomas Aquinas said long before him."
The Vatican quickly embellished this story with a lot CYAP.
With respect to rising from the dead, we also have this account:
An added note: As per R.B. Stewart in his introduction to the recent book, The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue,
"Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God's hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus' failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing."
p.168. by Ted Peters:
Even so, asking historical questions is our responsibility. Did Jesus really rise from the tomb? Is it necessary to have been raised from the tomb and to appear to his disciples in order to explain the rise of early church and the transcription of the bible? Crossan answers no, Wright answers, yes. "
So where are the bones"? As per Professor Crossan's analyses in his many books, the body of Jesus would have ended up in the mass graves of the crucified, eaten by wild dogs, covered with lime in a shallow grave, or under a pile of stones.
And Professor Ehrman:
His latest book:
Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth [Hardcover]
Bart D. Ehrman (Author)
Large numbers of atheists, humanists, and conspiracy theorists are raising one of the most pressing questions in the history of religion: "Did Jesus exist at all?" Was he invented out of whole cloth for nefarious purposes by those seeking to control the masses? Or was Jesus such a shadowy figure—far removed from any credible historical evidence—that he bears no meaningful resemblance to the person described in the Bible?
In Did Jesus Exist? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not."
But keep in mind, he borrowed most of the information from the following notes and references:
Once again references and commentary to the existence of an historical Jesus as studied in depth by many contemporary NT exegetes:
From Professors Crossan and Watts' book, Who is Jesus.
"That Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, as the Creed states, is as certain as anything historical can ever be.
“ The Jewish historian, Josephus and the pagan historian Tacitus both agree that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea. And is very hard to imagine that Jesus' followers would have invented such a story unless it indeed happened.
“While the brute fact that of Jesus' death by crucifixion is historically certain, however, those detailed narratives in our present gospels are much more problematic. "
“My best historical reconstruction would be something like this. Jesus was arrested during the Passover festival, most likely in response to his action in the Temple. Those who were closest to him ran away for their own safety.
I do not presume that there were any high-level confrontations between Caiaphas and Pilate and Herod Antipas either about Jesus or with Jesus. No doubt they would have agreed before the festival that fast action was to be taken against any disturbance and that a few examples by crucifixion might be especially useful at the outset. And I doubt very much if Jewish police or Roman soldiers needed to go too far up the chain of command in handling a Galilean peasant like Jesus. It is hard for us to imagine the casual brutality with which Jesus was probably taken and executed. All those "last week" details in our gospels, as distinct from the brute facts just mentioned, are prophecy turned into history, rather than history remembered."
See also Professor Crossan's reviews of the existence of Jesus in his other books especially, The Historical Jesus and also Excavating Jesus (with Professor Jonathan Reed doing the archeology discussion) .
Other NT exegetes to include members of the Jesus Seminar have published similar books with appropriate supporting references.
Part of Crossan's The Historical Jesus has been published online at books.google.com/books.
There is also a search engine for this book on the left hand side of the opening page. e.g. Search Josephus
See also Wikipedia's review on the historical Jesus to include the Tacitus' reference to the crucifixion of Jesus.
"One of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Cornelius Tacitus is a primary source for much of what is known about life the first and second centuries after the life of Jesus. His most famous works, Histories and Annals, exist in fragmentary form, though many of his earlier writings were lost to time. Tacitus is known for being generally reliable (if somewhat biased toward what he saw as Roman immorality) and for having a uniquely direct (if not blunt) writing style.
Then there are these scriptural references:
Crucifixion of Jesus:(1) 1 Cor 15:3b; (2a) Gos. Pet. 4:10-5:16,18-20; 6:22; (2b) Mark 15:22-38 = Matt 27:33-51a = Luke 23:32-46; (2c) John 19:17b-25a,28-36; (3) Barn. 7:3-5; (4a) 1 Clem. 16:3-4 (=Isaiah 53:1-12); (4b) 1 Clem. 16.15-16 (=Psalm 22:6-8); (5a) Ign. Mag. 11; (5b) Ign. Trall. 9:1b; (5c) Ign. Smyrn. 1.2.- (read them all at wiki.faithfutures. Crucifixion org/index.php/005_Crucifixion_Of_Jesus )
Added suggested readings:
o 1. Historical Jesus Theories, earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html – the names of many of the contemporary historical Jesus scholars and the ti-tles of their over 100 books on the subject.
2. Early Christian Writings, earlychristianwritings.com/
– a list of early Christian doc-uments to include the year of publication–
30-60 CE Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
90-95 Apocalypse of John
90-120 Gospel of John
90-120 1 John
90-120 2 John
90-120 3 John
90-120 Epistle of Jude
93 Flavius Josephus
100-150 1 Timothy
100-150 2 Timothy
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas
100-160 2 Peter
4. Jesus Database, http://www.faithfutures.o-rg/JDB/intro.html –"The JESUS DATABASE is an online a-nnotated inventory of the traditions concerning the life and teachings of Jesus that have survived from the first three centuries of the Common Era. It includes both canonical and extra-canonical materials, and is not limited to the traditions found within the Christian New Testament."
5. Josephus on Jesus mtio.com/articles/bis-sar24.htm
6. The Jesus Seminar, http://en.wikipedia.o-rg/wiki/Jesus_Seminar
7. http://www.biblicalartifacts.com/items/785509/item785509biblicalartifacts.html – books on the health and illness during the time of the NT
8. Economics in First Century Palestine, K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998.
9.The Gn-ostic Jesus
(Part One in a Two-Part Series on A-ncient and Modern G-nosticism)
by Douglas Gro-othuis: http://www.equip.o-rg/articles/g-nosticism-and-the-g-nostic-jesus/
10. The interpretation of the Bible in the Church, Pontifical Biblical Commission
Presented on March 18, 1994
11. The Jesus Database- newer site:
12. Jesus Database with the example of S-u-pper and Eucharist:
13. Josephus on Jesus by Paul Maier:
13. http://www.textweek.com/mtlk/jesus.htmm- Historical Jesus Studies
14. The Greek New Testament: laparola.net/greco/
15. D-iseases in the Bible:
16. Religion on- Line (6000 a-rt-ic-les on the hi-story of religion, churches, theologies,
theologians, eth-ics, etc. religion-online.o–rg/
17. The New Testament Gateway – Internet NT n-tgate-way.com/
18 Writing the New Testament- e-xi-sting copies, o–r–al tradition etc.
19. JD Crossan's c-onclusions about the a-uthencity of most of the NT based on the above plus the c-onclusions of other NT e-xege-tes in the last 200 years:
20. Early Jewish Writings- Josephus and his books by t-itle with the complete translated work in English :earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html
21. Luke and Josephus- was there a c-onnection?
22. NT and beyond time line:
23. St. Paul's Time line with discussion of important events:
24. See http://www.amazon.com for a list of JD Crossan's books and those of the other Jesus Seminarians: Reviews of said books are included and selected pages can now be viewed on Amazon. Some books can be found on-line at Google Books.
25. Father Edward Schillebeeckx's words of wisdom as found in his books.
27. The books of the following : Professors Gerd Ludemann, Marcus Borg, Paula Fredriksen, Elaine Pagels, Karen Armstrong and Bishop NT Wright.
28. Father Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, NY, 1977, 878 pages, with Nihil obstat and Imprimatur.
29. Luke Timothy Johnson's book The Real Jesus
Sorry but I got lost in quotes below. Can you sum up your position that explains the 3 facts above?
Not this again ? Suffering from Dementia are we ? Or did you forget ?
Which person are you referring to?
1. Jesus' death by crucifixion. – fact as concluded by the NT scholars referenced above with Ehrman a "johnny come lately"
2. Appearances to the Disciples – See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb018.html
e.g. Gerd Luedemann
Matt 28:16-20 The description of Jesus's appearance is minimal, as attention is focused on the content of Jesus' message to the Eleven. Luedemann notes that "the historical yield is extremely meager." He accepts the early tradition that various disciples had visionary experiences, most probably located in Galilee, and that these experiences led to the founding of "a community which preached the resurrection and exaltation of Jesus as the Messiah and/or the Son of Man among their Jewish contemporaries." [Jesus, 255f.]
Luke 24:36-53 The emphatic realism in the recognition scene that begins this appearance story mans "one can hardly avoid seeing this as a thrust against docetism. Evidently in this verse Luke is combating the same challenges to the bodily reality of Jesus as Ignatius, To the Smyrneans 3.2, does at the beginning of the second century." Luedemann concludes, "The historical yield is nil, both in respect of the real historical event and in connection with the visions which were the catalyst for the rise of Christianity." [Jesus, 413-415]
3. Appearances to Paul et al. See the review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection_appearances_of_Jesus#Acts
"John of Patmos experienced a vision of the resurrected Christ described in 1:12-20. According to 1:11, the Son of Man whom John sees is the one writing the letters to the seven churches in chapters 2 and 3. In 2:8, meanwhile, he calls himself "the First and the Last, who died and came to life again."
But then there is this:
"Nineteenth-century agnostic Robert G. Ingersoll branded Revelation "the insanest of all books". Thomas Jefferson omitted it along with most of the Biblical canon, from the Jefferson Bible, and wrote that at one time, he "considered it as merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams." 
Martin Luther once "found it an offensive piece of work" and John Calvin "had grave doubts about its value."
Regarding Paul's visions and the mythical theology involved, see Professor Bruce Chilton's book, Rabbi Paul and also Professor JD Crossan's book (with Professor Reed), Searching for Paul. And keep in mind this is the same Paul who predicted Jesus' return in Paul's lifetime.
To quote John Dominic Crossan, "“That he [Jesus] was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be.”
– Skeptical scholar John Dominic Crossan, “Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography” pg.145
Are you familiar with Ludeman's views? I suggest you visit http://earliestchristianity.wordpress.com/2012/01/10/gerd-ludemann-on-jesus-resurrection-liconas-summary-evaluation/. Ludeman is or was a big proponent of hallucinations which, given the data, fall apart under analysis.
Also, concerning The appearance to Paul, you went into an excursus on the book of Revelation. Why?
Sorry. Just the opinion of ONE PERSON that few if any ever heard of.
Professor Gerd Ludemann has analyzed the NT from start to finish and published his conclusions in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years. It is an excellent source of rigorous historic testing of the NT. I suggest you get a copy for perusal.
The Book of Revelation was cited because it includes some of the post-resurrection mythical visions of the "risen" Jesus as was noted.
More about Professor Gerd Lüdemann (see http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html for added details(
•Jesus After 2000 Years : What He Really Said and Did (Prometheus Books 2001)
•The Great Deception : And What Jesus Really Said and Did (Prometheus Books 1999)
•Vi-rgin Birth : The Real Story of Mary and Her Son Jesus (Trinity Pr Intl 1998)
•What Really Happened to Jesus : A Historical Approach to the Resurrection (Westminster John Knox Pr 1996)
•Heretics: The Other Side of Early Christianity (Westminster John Knox Pr 1996)
•Resurrection of Jesus : History, Experience, Theology (Fortress Pr 1995)
•Gerd Lüdemann on the Secular Web (online)
•Gerd Lüdemann's Homepage (online)
The Great Deception: Buy at amazon.com! Lüdemann sets out four criteria of inauthenticity and five criteria of authenticity in The Great Deception, which is something of an abridged and popular version of his subsequent comprehensive work Jesus After 2000 Years. The first criterion of inauthenicity is that sayings presupposing Jesus as the exalted Lord are not from the earthly Jesus. The second is that actions that presuppose the violation of natural laws are unhistorical. The third states that sayings that appear to be devised to answer the problems of later communities are inauthentic. The fourth criterion of inauthenticity says that sayings or actions that presume a Gentile rather than a Jewish audience do not go back to Jesus. The first criterion of authenticity says that sayings or actions that are offensive to Christian sensibilities are not likely to be fabrications. The criterion of difference states that sayings that do not appear to reflect the ideas of post-Easter communities likely go back to the historical Jesus. The criterion of growth says that material around which additional traditions have acc-umulated may be old enough to go back to Jesus. The criterion of rarity indicates that sayings with few parallels in the Jewish sphere are likely to be distinctive to Jesus. The fifth criterion of authenticity, that of coherence, says that a saying or action that fits in seamlessly with other identified authentic material may also be deemed authentic. An examination of the authenticity of all the Jesus traditions with use of criteria such as these can be found in Jesus After 2000 Years. "
Lady – how about serving the poor in your community for starters?
How about she be allowed to stand up for what she feels is right without some man trying to hold her back?
How about she either believe as the church does, or get out?
As a Mormon woman, I can testify that Ms. Kelly does not speak for me, nor does she speak for most of the Mormon women I know.
I agree it would be in her the best interest to leave the cult behind. Your lord and master Joseph Smith was a pedophile, con-man who was convicted on numerous crimes and you follow his delusional writing...says little about your moral standing-pathetic excuse for a woman is what you are...taking society back 100 years-what a blemish on our species you are!
Grow a back bone and learn to be a real woman!
cult: n., any group that TruthPrevails1 does not believe, that they want others to fear and hate as much as they do.
Joseph Smith was none of those things. He is no one's " lord and master", was NOT a pedophile, or a con-man and was NEVER convicted on any crime.
>>says little about your moral standing-pathetic excuse for a woman is what you are…taking society back 100 years-what a blemish on our species you are!
Grow a back bone and learn to be a real woman!<<
And what, pray tell, is a "real woman"? I feel like a real woman when I'm being a good wife, to my good husband. I feel like a real woman when I am giving birth to my three wonderful children. Who, BTW, have morals that I would put against anyone out there! I do know I'll never be a grandmother before my kids get married. They don't drink, smoke, or use illicit drugs.
So, I ask you, what is a "real" woman?
Wow, denial. Joseph Smith was all of those things. He was a convicted con-man; a pedophile-I get that reality hurts and for you to accept it would cause you great strife.
You have no evidence of any god-so stop claiming one exist.
Drop the Holier Than Thou crap...you're no better a parent than anyone else and don't try to think you are-arrogance! In fact, you're not raising your children with an open-mind and are lying to them with the brainwashing about god-child abuse at its finest. As drinking, etc...so what? Many kids without the brainwashing are the same. You have no guarantees on anything with your children, stop pretending you do.
Cult, it most definitively is and if you would learn to use a dictionary you'd comprehend that.
I'm done with you because honestly people who support the delusional rantings of a pedophile simply are not worthy of my time.
You're not a good Mo
>> He was a convicted con-man; a pedophile-I get that reality hurts and for you to accept it would cause you great strife.<>You have no evidence of any god-so stop claiming one exist.<>you’re no better a parent than anyone else and don’t try to think you are-arrogance!<> In fact, you’re not raising your children with an open-mind and are lying to them with the brainwashing about god-child abuse at its finest.<<
I'm sensing some anger issues. You might want to try something like deep breathing or something. I mean I could get pithy, but what good would that do? Anything I say to you is going to be arrogant or whatever.
"Joseph Smith was none of those things. He is no one's " lord and master", was NOT a pedophile, or a con-man and was NEVER convicted on any crime."
Denying establiched FACT. Look up Joseph Smiths 1826 CONVICTION of fraud. He was using that silly "hat seeing" trick, this time to "locate water" In the papers, it outline Joseph Smith using a glass seeing method to bilk a farmer of money, when he used that con claiming he would find water.
Later he used that trick to "see golden plates", and now a huge church built on his fraud continues.
You follow a CONVICTED conman, who clearly made up the whole thing.
Seriously, look up the REAL history of your cult.
Nope, sorry, I know what you're talking about and he was not convicted of anything.
Besides, those records are tainted, they can't be trusted.
I DO know the "real" history of my church, warts and all. You only know the anti-Mormon propaganda.
No anger at all. I just find it baffling that as a woman, you would deny FACTS about this con-man and not support another woman. You should try a science class and perhaps a Comparative Religions course. The man who wrote the book you think is true was a con-man who thought 14 year old girls marrying was a good thing (making him a pedophile). He was convicted and I understand that for you to admit that would also mean you'd have face the truth about the cult you belong to and in turn admit that you've lied to your own children all these years.
I'm not backing any woman who lies, and does not represent my views. I'm going to tell the world that she's a liar and she's an apostate and even a heretic.
rainbow: You can lie all you want about her and you deny all you wish. You're a horrible person and a liar. Joseph Smith is exactly what it has been stated he is and you are a blind fool for thinking he isn't. Calling her an apostate when you fail to follow the Golden Rule makes you a hypocritical bitch. Don't pretend to be better than her or anyone when you're not even aware of your own lies and game playing....it's an infantile move you're taking by shaming this lady. Your cult is a sham built on lies, the facts don't lie but you do.
So, I ask you, what is a "real" woman?
clearly its not you because real woman are not a subservient broodmother, not some peace of property, a real woman is the head of her household. a real woman is superior to men and takes charge of here life. ask your self who shares a cycle with the universe women, women are closer to the divine then men could ever be. women are creators, men destroyers.,, not that destruction is not necessary mind you; its just there place in the universe. women the force of creation men the force of destruction , two sides of the same coin a mans place is to serve his wife and all her needs. because if women don't put men in their place men will do nothing but destroy everything women create
-real woman are not a subservient broodmother, not some peace of property,
I'm not a broodmother, I stopped at three. I'm not a piece of property, either. And if my husband tries to treat me that way, I tell him.
-a real woman is the head of her household. a real woman is superior to men and takes charge of here life.
My husband and I share being "head" of the household. I'm not superior to men and they are not superior to me.
-women are closer to the divine then men could ever be.
Which is probably why the men have the priesthood, because otherwise, they'd be like lost, jealous little boys. A GOOD priesthood holder knows the old saying "When mom ain't happy, ain't NO body happy!"
-women are creators, men destroyers
But, in order to create the most important thing in the universe, women need the men.
– two sides of the same coin a mans place is to serve his wife and all her needs.
No, the man's place and the woman's place is to love each other and raise their family in love.
that was a druid principal that predates your religion buy at lest 6890 years.
isn't it about time we give up you less then ancient beliefs much like my people have, gender really means sh/bit
oh what a sad joke Joseph Smith played on the world.
Obviously he was a graduate of the Saul of Tarsus School of Using Religion for Self-Promotion.
L. Ron Hubbard was the valedictorian of his class.
In the school of Saul of Tarsus School of Using Religion for Self-Promotion.
As a Mormon feminist, she should burn her magic bra in protest.
(Disclaimer: I understand that the Temple Garment is one piece)
She doesn't need it any more right?
There can be real dilemmas regarding this. I ran across this on a Mormon message board:
"I could never stand to wear it [bra] over [the 'garment'] and felt bad that I wore it under. After about 20 years I finally asked my Bishop what the rule was and he said it didn't matter one way or the other and if it was more comfortable to wear it under that it was fine.
If your Bishop says differently, you just have to ask around until you find one that agrees"
Wait. Human adults in 2014 are asking some old dude how to wear their undies ? You can't possibly be serious.