[QUOTE=chappy;376892]Too bad the money/time/effort/theological wrangling was wasted and like the opposition to gays in the BSA soon the Church will be forced to change its views--like every other [STRIKE]backwards[/STRIKE] less than modern religious organization.[/QUOTE]
It's always seemed a strange paradox to me that religious groups style themselves as moral leaders but are, in reality, better described as very slow followers of the rest of society as it progresses. Mike's lengthy list above illustrates the phenomenon admirably. (It's a generalisation, of course. Exceptions will be abundant.)

[QUOTE=Brian-E;376895]It's always seemed a strange paradox to me that religious groups style themselves as moral leaders but are, in reality, better described as very slow followers of the rest of society as it progresses.[/QUOTE]

Those who might profit from lying to you will do so. Probably with no negative results.

Sadly, this is where we find ourselves today. No further along than in the "dark ages" 200 years ago...

Xyzzy,

[QUOTE]At one time polygamy was acceptable in the LDS church. A revelation occurred, changes were made, statehood was granted and now that behavior is not mainstream.

At one time blacks were not admitted to the priesthood. A revelation occurred, changes were made, a large temple was constructed in Brazil and a lot of civil-rights heat was deflected.

If radical changes within the LDS church like that can happen, why couldn't there be another revelation allowing women to be admitted to the priesthood.[/QUOTE]There [I]could[/I] be such a revelation. Nothing prevents the possibility of it.

You might then (rightly) ask why Kate Kelly was excommunicated for wanting such a change.

The short answer is that she wasn't. But let me be more long-winded so as not to give you the wrong impression (for she definitely was excommunicated for her *activities*).

It is actually a relatively difficult task to be excommunicated for apostasy in our church. Most people who stop believing in the church just stop attending, and usually are left to their own devices except the occasional visit from a member to invite them back. [There are, of course, always exceptions to every rule.]

Among those in the church I imagine almost all of us believe that current practices could be improved in some areas; we may believe the church is true, but it certainly isn't perfect. On women's issues, we have positions ranging from more inclusion of women's voices all the way to wanting them to have the priesthood. A vast majority of these members do not actively agitate for the changes they desire. This group will never be subject to church discipline, because it is a tenet of our religion that we are free to believe according to the dictates of our own conscience.

Then there are those who do agitate for change. This can range from writing letters to the general leadership of the church, writing blogs, speaking out publicly how the church is "wrong", and even forming organizations to recruit more members to the cause.

It is usually only those at the far extreme of this spectrum that are subject to church discipline. When a member actively seeks to recruit other members to their cause of opposing the church, *using* church membership as a means of recruitment, that is when the local leaders step in.

This discipline is handled on the local level, and is kept private. The information we have about Kate Kelly's situation comes from her own disclosures. As is clear from the documents she did disclose, her local leaders tried to work with her, to encourage her to stop the course she was on.

[QUOTE]Doesn't allowing a 12-year-old boy admittance to the priesthood say a lot about what the LDS church thinks of adult women in general?[/QUOTE]Only if you understand what priesthood means to a latter-day saint.

Both men and women pray in church, hold callings (as teachers, leaders, etc...), serve and participate in rituals, give talks in our sacrament meetings, and so forth. Our service is unpaid.

The fact that a worthy 12-year-old boy can be ordained to the priesthood says nothing about the worthiness of an adult woman, her worth to the church, or anything like that. It does say that priesthood duty is the responsibility of men in our church. For instance, men with the priesthood are expected to serve 2 year missions; women can do so as well, but they have no duty compelling them to this service.

Suffice it to say, while we believe that men and women are equal, we do not believe that they are identical or their eternal roles interchangeable. [This is one reason there was general disfavor from my church towards the ERA. Not because of lack of respect for women, but a philosophical disagreement that can best be summed up in the idea that "equal but separate bathrooms" doesn't work with race, but it does work with gender.] I imagine our politics here may disagree, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.

[QUOTE]What is the motor behind this change?[/QUOTE]Money?

[QUOTE]How can it be sped up?[/QUOTE]Hit them where it hurts? Like their pocketbook?

We would be amiss in mentioning that (in our opinion) the LDS church is one of the most liberal and progressive religions around.

Think about it. In less than 175 years of existence, the LDS church has (at least) twice admitted they were doing "the wrong thing" and changed their behavior.

Most churches take many hundreds of years for even one change!

Also, we expect the reason given for the excommunication of Miss Kelly is not her message but her approach to tackling her issue. But history is full of people who take the unpopular view and "push their ideas" on others. We sometimes call these people pioneers, or revolutionaries or enlightened. Can you think of anyone who fits that description? Martin Luther? Galileo? Jesus?

[QUOTE=chappy;376892]Also New Zeta [SUP]TM[/SUP] (and I'm glad you are back! despite threats that this is only temporary) isn't exactly like Old-Zeta always was.[/quote]I'll take that as a compliment (at least, I'm hoping I've changed for the better!).

[quote]It is a strange loophole, even though it is true, to claim that most of the money came from church members and not from the Church. The LDS has admitted to spending large amounts of money to transport and feed volunteers during 2008 to support Prop 8. They have admitted to publishing propaganda in favor of Prop 8. They have admitted to the use of Church resources and time to "preach" to members about the importance of supporting Prop 8--which of course lead to most of the money supporting Prop 8 to come from Mormons (up to 77% of the money by some accounts).

Too bad the money/time/effort/theological wrangling was wasted and like the opposition to gays in the BSA soon the Church will be forced to change its views--like every other [STRIKE]backwards[/STRIKE] less than modern religious organization.[/QUOTE]My point was only that the millions donated by the members of the church didn't come with any more tax-exemption than the millions donated on the other side. That a majority of the money came from members of my church exercising their right to participate in politics I plainly agree with.

Whether the church will be forced to "change its views", that its views are "backwards", etc..., is another topic altogether.

[QUOTE]The fact that a worthy 12-year-old boy can be ordained to the priesthood…[/QUOTE]What percentage of 12-year-old boys are admitted to the LDS priesthood? It's okay to estimate. Like 50%? 80%? Using the word "worthy" implies that there are (many?) boys who are not admitted, right?

[QUOTE]I imagine our politics here may disagree, but hopefully you can see where I'm coming from.[/QUOTE]We disagree, of course, but we appreciate your willingness to educate us.

[QUOTE=Xyzzy;376901]What percentage of 12-year-old boys are admitted to the LDS priesthood? It's okay to estimate. Like 50%? 80%? Using the word "worthy" implies that there are (many?) boys who are not admitted, right?
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, "worthy" was not meant to imply that many boys are not admitted, only that there is a worthiness requirement. There are very few who are not given the priesthood at that age.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;376904]Sorry, "worthy" was not meant to imply that many boys are not admitted, only that there is a worthiness requirement. There are very few who are not given the priesthood at that age.[/QUOTE]

Gosh...

When I was six years old I used to get the "[expletive]" beaten out of by the twelve year olds for knowing more physics and maths than they did.

How times have changed....

[QUOTE]It's always seemed a strange paradox to me that religious groups style themselves as moral leaders but are, in reality, better described as very slow followers of the rest of society as it progresses.[/QUOTE]That's an interesting way to view things. I would argue, conversely, that most of the greatest advances in human history and society had their genesis in religious roots, not in secularism.

I would of course agree with the statement that great evil has been perpetrated in the name of religion by governments. That said, great evil has also been perpetrated by governments without religion. So this doesn't seem to be a function of religion, per se, but of government.

[QUOTE=chalsall;376914]Gosh...

When I was six years old I used to get the "[expletive]" beaten out of by the twelve year olds for knowing more physics and maths than they did.

How times have changed....[/QUOTE]

Sorry to hear that chalsall. :no: I was lucky that my bullying was limited to 8th grade.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;376927]Sorry to hear that chalsall. :no: I was lucky that my bullying was limited to 8th grade.[/QUOTE]

Not really a problem, but I appreciate your sympathy.

I truly believe it made me a stronger person; better able to face "the real world" within which we all find ourselves.