One thing you have to admire about Beck

[MikeWaters]

is that she is not about to apologize. Instead, she hits the same message even harder.

I'm trying to imagine, if I was a newly called Seventy, and gave a talk in GC. Afterwards, hundreds (thousands?) of active women in the church, signed a petition opposing what I said, thereby risking excommunication.

I would probably be bewildered at first. But as I would think about it more, I would realize I was right, they were wrong, and they represent the obstacles to me magnifying my calling and delivering the message I was inspired to deliver.

The women who signed that petition/statement are "chaff."

It's very easy to see how this would be her reaction. He call was inspired. Her talk was inspired. Therefore opposition to it is uninspired.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

is that she is not about to apologize. Instead, she hits the same message even harder.

I'm trying to imagine, if I was a newly called Seventy, and gave a talk in GC. Afterwards, hundreds (thousands?) of active women in the church, signed a petition opposing what I said, thereby risking excommunication.

I would probably be bewildered at first. But as I would think about it more, I would realize I was right, they were wrong, and they represent the obstacles to me magnifying my calling and delivering the message I was inspired to deliver.

The women who signed that petition/statement are "chaff."

It's very easy to see how this would be her reaction. He call was inspired. Her talk was inspired. Therefore opposition to it is uninspired.

I don't admire her. If she was truly a strong church leader, she would knee-cap every person on that list.

This is the problem with the church today: we're too forgiving and tolerant of unbelievers in our midst.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't admire her. If she was truly a strong church leader, she would knee-cap every person on that list.

This is the problem with the church today: we're too forgiving and tolerant of unbelievers in our midst.

If they were men, the would be excommunicated or disfellowshipped.

But since they are women, nothing will be done. (the exception being the women that have signed the petition AND published in Sunstone or Dialogue).

Just as the women have no responsibility to lead in the church, they also don't suffer punishment.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't admire her. If she was truly a strong church leader, she would knee-cap every person on that list.

This is the problem with the church today: we're too forgiving and tolerant of unbelievers in our midst.

I'm new here, but you're trolling, right?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Levin

I'm new here, but you're trolling, right?

You meant to ask both Tex and MikeWaters, right?

[BYU71]

Look, it is imperative in an authoritarian organization you maintain control over the rank and file. I am not kidding, you let the underlings start running amuk and chaos can come.

General Washington actual shot some of his troops as an example he wasn't going to tolerate murmuring against his command.

I think the Catholics allowed control to slip and now look at how prominent members take on the Church and discount what comes out of the Vatican.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If they were men, the would be excommunicated or disfellowshipped.

But since they are women, nothing will be done. (the exception being the women that have signed the petition AND published in Sunstone or Dialogue).

Just as the women have no responsibility to lead in the church, they also don't suffer punishment.

As I said, we are too tolerant and forgiving.

Originally Posted by Levin

I'm new here, but you're trolling, right?

Reverse trolling, if you will.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

is that she is not about to apologize. Instead, she hits the same message even harder.

I'm trying to imagine, if I was a newly called Seventy, and gave a talk in GC. Afterwards, hundreds (thousands?) of active women in the church, signed a petition opposing what I said, thereby risking excommunication.

I would probably be bewildered at first. But as I would think about it more, I would realize I was right, they were wrong, and they represent the obstacles to me magnifying my calling and delivering the message I was inspired to deliver.

The women who signed that petition/statement are "chaff."

It's very easy to see how this would be her reaction. He call was inspired. Her talk was inspired. Therefore opposition to it is uninspired.

Yes, orthodoxy is always something many admire in a religious leader. When you get right down to it, orthodoxy may be a survival mechanism among religioius leaders. Who needs an assimilated religion? A capacity to reflect, build consnsus, learn, adjust, those kinds of things aren't really the stuff of great religious leaders.

On the other hand, everyone feels a desire at a certain age to seek vindication in their life's choices. She certainly has lived what she preaches. I notice the LDS press release announcing her appointment trumpeted that she was a lifelong homemaker. She also married when she was 19.

BTW, Do you admire the same thing in me? Woot? Tex? Lingo? I didn't here any apologies from Lingo yesterday for his blatantly racist posts. Do you admire that?