I take issue with your very first statement. We don’t go to Church to “learn” anything. You should do that on your own through personal prayer and daily scripture reading. We go to church because we are commanded.

And when you talk about “diversifying” by joining groups or taking classes, do you mean something that the world has to offer — something outside of the Church? I sincerely hope not. That is the all too worn slippery slope to apostasy. (Of course when you group your supposed love for the church on the same level with a love of TV shows and a love of cats, I can only suppose the worst).

And if you are really curious about why we talk about tribes even with the individual effort we must put into working out our own salvation, I will tell you:

1. Because we, as members of the tribe of Ephraim, have the responsibility to prepare the world for the second coming of our savior — something we should never forget.

2. Because the return of the Lost tribes is one of the key signs of the times and they will bring with them their scriptures that will tell of the Lord’s visit to them like his visit to the Nephites.

I want to be careful about discussing such sacred things, but I feel moved to tell you that I have had some glimpses into what that future day will look like (through my own daily prayer and scripture study) and I can tell you it is a glorious glorious thing — much more so than neighborhood cats.

“My personal advice to Zelophehad’s Daughters- your questions and concerns as articulated on your various postings are 100% valid. The problem is, as far as I can tell, you’re using one tool (logical argument) to solve a problem for which that tool is not well suited. These are issues that require equal parts logic, imagination, philosophy, creativity, hope, humility, intuition, faith, skepticism, and courage, plus a little bit of recklessness.”

I was not a prominent member of the extended discussion in question, but as regards this observation, I don’t know that the issue is so much that we ZDs lack “imagination, philosophy, creativity, hope, humility, intuition, faith, skepticism, courage, or recklessness.” (Surely furthering a discussion to 700+ comments suggests a certain recklessness….)

For all its vast range, scope, and extent, the discussion was really aabout a single, fairly narrow question: to what extent the sacral nature of a text entitles us to hermeneutic liberties based on personal revelation. The discussion was, at its heart, a discussion of the boundaries of textual interpretation–nothing nearly so ambitious as an attempt to resolve all of our personal religious angst through logical argument. Such an attempt would surely require a discussion of 7000 comments or so, and would, of course, be doomed to fail.

I don’t think any of us would deny the necessity of the many fine characteristics you list in conducting a religious life. It’s just that the issue in question, like many of the issues that come up on the Bloggernacle, happened to be the sort of issue amenable to logical argumentation. Many other issues–indeed, most religious issues, by their very nature–obviously aren’t.

Eve (3),

I’m not suggesting you lack any of the tools I mentioned, but I have only seen one in evidence in that discussion. People present their conclusions at the outset, and then everyone pokes holes in each other’s assumptions to show why the conclusion can’t be valid. It’s like hammering and hammering when the task actually requires a jigsaw.
That said, I do think the discussion is important. But what I am suggesting is, if as a woman you want to get a better understanding of women’s nature and their power to influence the world, you may have to look outside the Church for some of your answers. If you go out and make great things happen in the world, nobody can pull the Priesthood card, and no man is going to pat you on the head and say “I want you to know that you are cherished,” or things like that.
There are a lot of important questions you can and should answer through the framework of Church, but I also think it’s okay to simply disagree with some of the answers you get there. I know that can be dangerous, because sometimes we just don’t have the context we should have in order to have an informed disagreement. But I know I disagree fairly frequently, while keeping my mind open to the idea that someday my mind or the teaching may change. In the meantime, I hedge.

Ellsworth,

I know exactly what you mean.

Great post.

annegb,

I think you see what I’m saying. I have sought answers within the framework of the Church, and often found better answers and questions outside the Church. I don’t think God intends for us to look up a General Authority quote for each issue we’re investigating.
For example, look at Orrin Hatch promoting stem cell research. He’s operating in very murky waters, but he has used his best judgment to come to his position on the issue, and I doubt if many of his Priesthood leaders agree with him there.
A lot of people in the Church, after going through some really severe trial, talk about having their testimony narrowed down to just a handful of core truths, like the first few articles of faith. I believe that core set of truths exists, and there is a lot of leeway for individual discretion in most everything else.

I’ve found that when I come to church with expectations, I’m almost always disappointed. So I just show up, and don’t expect much. And usually it’s OK, and sometimes amazing.

But if I ever show up expecting amazing, I’ll end up leaving early. I don’t know why it works that way.

[...] that highlighted a couple of common responses to feminist concerns.   Dan Ellsworth over at Mormon Mentality decided to give the ZD bloggers some advice: he argued that we spend too much time thinking [...]