quote:

---

I was pretty annoyed that somebody who doesn't believe in Christ at all was telling me that I was believing in him wrong.

---

But was your annoyance in that they were using Christ as an example, or because you truly felt they were using the examples incorrectly? I think that ak's mention of being too close might be what I mean. Do we tend to overlook things that should receive critical review because they are too close to us?

[ August 02, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: Jutsa Notha Name ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
ak,
My feelings on this center around the idea of intrinsic meaning, so they don't neccesarily fit into the context you or the Muslims might be bringing to it. Basically for me, if something has meaning, then it has meaning no matter what outside forces say. Outside definitions can provide a structure to help someone find menaing, but do not confer meaning in and of themselves.

A corrolary of this is that, when you see people (largely those in power) trying to prevent someone from doing something this way, it's often because they fear that person or the meaning that they will create. It's like women engineers. If you really believe that women just can't be engineers, you don't need to do anything about it when a women tries to become one. If you are right, she'll fail. When you try to sabotage her, you're showing that your belief is weak. The very tenacity that you think shows your conviction actually shows your doubts.

I find it difficult to have a positive view of a deity that can say, yes, this person is extremely gifted in this area and would be very successful and do great things in it, but the CAN"T be allowed to do it, because, since they are the wrong color or sex or age or height or bloodline, etc., it's just wrong. If it's wrong for someone to do something, I think that this should be evident through the fruits of their labor and not just because it violates some rule out there somewhere.

A God would works thing differently, one that visits people with a rain of brimstone or a 747 flying into a building because they dared to view homosexuals or women or black people or whatever as human beings, is, for me, a force for evil to be fought and not worshipped.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 
I've had this conversation many times with the professor I work for. I was in his class on pre-revolutionary French philosophy last semester, and I spoke out a lot defending (what I saw as clarifying, rather) Rousseau's view on women. It seems the prevalent attitude is to label everything before 1960 as primitive and chauvinist and I argued in several essays that Rousseau putting forth definite gender roles and asserting patriarchal authority in the family was not sexist or demeaning to women.

My professor has known me for years and was surprised that as an ambitious scholar and a female I could be so "backwards" in my thinking and subscribe so fully to a set of beliefs and an organized religion.

I simply told him that never have I felt like a second-class citizen in the LDS church. My never being eligible to be a bishop or an apostle has never struck me as unfair. There are plenty of leadership roles for women in the church. Not only are the Relief Society, Young Women's and Primary organizations run entirely by women, but the Sunday School positions and the jobs in the Church Educational System (seminary and institute teachers) are equally available to women and men.

Moreover, I think the organizational makeup of a religion is hardly indicative of their philosophy on equality. Doctrinally, the church often teaches that women are more inclined to be more spiritually and morally refined. I have heard many talks by bishops and stake presidents extolling the moral and spiritual superiority of their wives and mothers. This is the defining difference I see in LDS teaching and religions that teach that women are morally culpable for the sin of Eve. Women are not "denied" leadership positions because they are seen as unequal, rather, the uniqueness of the gender roles is upheld in spite of contemporary teachings on the matter.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, you have an excellent point about women engineers. If one is very convinced that women can't be good engineers, there's no need to help that process along. They will fail regardless. I think the problem comes when people are choosing whom to hire as engineers, though. A person who believes women can't be good engineers isn't going to hire one and even give her a chance to work for his or her company. (Women can be sexist too including me. )

But what you say about religion and God only serves to illustrate to me my point about outsiders. God has not told me any such thing as you are indicating. That just doesn't apply. So it doesn't seem to further my thoughts or understanding of this issue in any way. Still I am glad for the viewpoint expressed, and for the chance to understand how others feel (from the outside) about gender roles in various religions. Just it doesn't seem to speak to my own situation or position at all. That's why I think the insiders are the ones whose place it is to ask these questions. The church is a voluntary organization, after all. If I felt it was not true I could always quit.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:38 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 

quote:

---

Doctrinally, the church often teaches that women are more inclined to be more spiritually and morally refined.

---

Yeah, I hate that. I also don't believe it - I've seen too many exceptions either way to think that spiritually is doled out differently among the genders.

I do think that service is often seen as a expression of spirituality, and the women are more often expected to do service, but that's a cultural expectation and not something inherent in either the DNA or the soul.

[ August 02, 2004, 12:45 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
 
Blaming one's bigotries on God gives it authority and prevents guilt.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Annie, you're too young to remember the revelation extending the priesthood to those of other ethnicities. What do you think about that, though? What does your mother think? Did the prayers of the faithful and the stuff going on in the U.S. politically and in the world as a whole have any bearing on the fact that the revelation came when it did? Is there a place for the membership to do anything to bring about a speeding up of any particular revealed changes?
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
The biggest problem with trying to critize a religion from the outside is that to do so would be to analyze a religion on your morality, when a relgiion defines a whole different morality. Any critism that resulted from a morality disagreement would be meaningless. If there was a relgion that taught that women are completely inferior in every way and must not be given any opportunities to do anything other than marry and have children when their father/husband tells them to then of course just about everyone here would find fault with the religion as beeing unfair. However the fact is that's one of the morals of that religious code, and telling those who believe it that it's not-fair and evil is meaningless because then your evil really is their good and nothing will be accomplished.

I think where outside critism is at least meaningful is when an attempt is made to understand what the religion is trying to say should be happening as opposed to what is. For instance, if there's a Church whose doctrine is strict equality for both genders, including martial relationships and whatnot, then if the women of that faith were treated like I described in the previous paragraph then outside acknolowedgment of the problem would be meaningful, since the disagreement would be over the logical outcome of doctrine, instead of the validity of it.

Not that an argument of doctrine validity isn't a meaningful way to interact with people of a sepcific faith, but when you're trying to interact or talk about a faith in general anything other than the assumption that their doctrine is true will leave you with no true understanding of that faith or it's people.

Hobbes

[ August 02, 2004, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Yes, Katie, I agree. If women are more refined at all or more spiritual, it seems to me to be as a result of the fact that societal expectations for women put us into service to others far more than it does men.

My personal speculative theory about the priesthood, in fact, is that it's given to men in this present day because they generally need remedial training (so to speak) in service. Women (and blacks before the 70s) had plenty of training in service but men were often shortchanged in that very important area.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Pixiest, again that comment only illustrates to me that outsiders have a limited ability to contribute meaningfully to the discussion. That's so far from the actuality as I see it as to have no bearing whatsoever on the question in my mind.

But pondering similar things about Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodox Judaism DOES seem to bring the question of my own religion to mind with a fresh perspective. Does it have that effect on anyone else?

[ August 02, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
There are people within the LDS church that feel that the fact that men hold the priesthood make them superior to women. And they act like it. This is something that has been preached against from the very beginning, as I'm sure you know, ak.

For all of you non-LDS folks, forgive me if I use LDS jargon.

It may look like only the men are holding the leadership positions because they are the ones called into it and ordained, and I'm assuming that most of those positions you are talking about are priesthood positions such as Bishop, etc. You will never see an unmarried man called as Bishop because his wife is part of that calling. In a huge way, it is both of them that are in that leadership responsibility. In fact, years ago, often the wife was called to be Relief Society president at the same time. This practice is not as common (though it happens if there is a need) today simply because the demands of being a Bishop's Wife and Relief Society president are often too much.

You are worried about the genderizing. The fact of the matter is that men and women have different needs. I honestly think it is a good thing to have seperate classes for the men and women. It gives us a chance to address things in our own feminine way, which really, if you think about it, is empowering us as females to learn in the way best for us, allowing us to be who we are. This is the same for men. And then we also have Sunday School together, allowing for the cross gender sharing and learning together that also empowers both genders. Having both programs, I feel, makes the whole greater than the sum of the parts.

As far as other gender roles, is it really appropriate to have a man in charge of young women? Or a woman in charge of young men? The only program that one could wonder about is the Primary program (for children of both genders). There are lots of male teachers in our primary. My husband has been one of them before. But the Primary President is always female. Honestly, I think this is simply because women are naturally more nurturing and able to connect with the kids better. I've seen both men and women in all leadership capacities of the Sunday School, music, and activities programs.

The needs and talents of both genders need to be met. It is folly to imagine that these needs are the same for both genders. Bringing race into it as an analogy is not entirely appropriate, because there is a lot more difference than skin color between a man and a woman. To bring up a very obvious "different but equal" illustration, men and women experience sex differently. Different things turn them on, (or off) they often experience different timing, and the consequences of the experience can be different for both. And yet in an equal, healthy relationship, this difference is cause for wonder and mutual satisfaction, as well as emotional growth.

In an LDS marriage, the man is not superior to the woman because he has the priesthood. It is as much her priesthood as his, and she has every right to demand of him that he use it. But rarely would she need to demand it, as it is his responsibility to use it to bless his family and a natural desire for the righteous man to do everything he can to help his family. If he uses this priesthood to dominate over his family, he is not worthy of that priesthood.

I'm not sure if I've addressed your point, ak. But I seem to remember a discussion we once had on what it was to be feminist and that we did disagree on some things. Perhaps it was my assertation that men and women are, in fact, different and have different needs.
 

---

Posted by Christy (Member # 4397) on :
 

quote:

---

Doctrinally, the church often teaches that women are more inclined to be more spiritually and morally refined.

---

quote:

---

The individual, honestly, is worthless unless they are contributing to society.

---

quote:

---

What does that have to do with the priesthood? The priesthood is part of how the man takes care of his wife and children. He cannot bear the child in the womb, but he can bless the mother. Mothers have specific responsibilities that, when ideally followed, keep them very involved with the children and still in need of support.

---

quote:

---

As I have often told my sisters in the Female Relief Societies, we have sisters here who, if they had the privilege of studying, would make just as good mathematicians or accountants as any man; and we think they ought to have the privilege to study these branches of knowledge that they may develop the powers with which they are endowed. We believe that women are useful not only to sweep houses, wash dishes, make beds, and raise babies, but that they should stand behind the counter, study law or physic (medicine), or become good book-keepers and be able to do the business in any counting house, and thus to enlarge their sphere of usefulness for the benefit of society at large.

---

That is doctrine. What's so very cool is that Brigham Young received revelation about these things well in advance of society as a whole. Mormons were pioneers in the field of women's rights.

[ August 02, 2004, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Amka, even in agrarian society, the women tended to serve the men and children, and the men tended to serve the earth and crops and animals. So there is still something missing there, it seems to me.

However, if you don't find my theory compelling, I don't mind at all. As I said, yours is also quite plausible, and only God knows what His real reasons were. I just want you to take back the ugly words "bigoted" and "sexist", if you would be so kind, because I really don't think they apply.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
ak, getting endowed might put a different perspective on things.

I have the perspective of someone who has grown up with a father holding the priesthood, and is married to a man with the priesthood. Whenever my father had 'more important' callings (he was a branch president), my mother had many more responsibilities as well. When she was Relief Society president, he had more responsbilities too. Those two callings in the ward are usually about equal in necessity to the ward. I'm not sure how much behind the scenes stuff you see, but trust me. Relief Society president is in no way an inferior or less needed job for the good of the ward.

A man has the spiritual responsibility for his wife and children. But a man is not fully a priesthood holder without a wife. He cannot be exalted alone. A woman sealed to her husband in the temple, is a 'co-owner' of the priesthood her husband holds.

Because church services are not the place for debate, which a discussion about whether women should or should not hold the priesthood would become, it probably shouldn't be discussed there.

katharina,

It is a measure of our imperfect world that we simply can't please everyone. But a wise individual, rather than changing society to fit themselves, can often find a place where they are in the perfect position to help society become better. Sometimes, this does mean society must change to fit the needs of a group. For instance, accessability for disabled people. But sometimes it just means we have to be content to be different and use that difference to the advantage of others rather than bemoaning the fact.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
That's what all of these are, by the way - theories. It hasn't been seen necessary as to share with us the reasons for the way the priesthood is set up, so all of the justifications for it are rationalized after the fact. They may or may not be true, but it's not necessary to buy into any of them.

------

If there is no place at all for someone, then there's something wrong or missing in the society. Especially, especially one claiming to be Christian and representing the Lord.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 

quote:

---

But a wise individual, rather than changing society to fit themselves, can often find a place where they are in the perfect position to help society become better.

---

I know this is directed at kat rather than me, but I ask this question for the very reason that I wonder if I'm in the perfect position to help make our society become better in this way. I wonder if I have a responsibility to ask questions like this.

If it's not appropriate on Sundays then maybe some other day of the week? Maybe Home Enrichment night? What do you think?
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I don't really need to change LDS society to fit me, because I'm not really a part of LDS culture yet. I'm only here because it's where I believe God has called me to be. Quite possibly I'm entirely delusional. <laughs> I would not reject that theory out of hand. But at least if so it's quite an internally consistent delusion and one with a great deal of persistence over time. It seems to work well, too, as a way of living, so it passes the "judge by the fruits" test. But anyway I try to be cheerfully delusional, if nothing else.
 

---

Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
 

quote:

---

What's so very cool is that Brigham Young received revelation about these things well in advance of society as a whole. Mormons were pioneers in the field of women's rights.

---

quote:

---

If there is no place at all for someone, then there's something wrong or missing in the society. Especially, especially one claiming to be Christian and representing the Lord.

---

quote:

---

I'm an ignorant newbie.

---

I take strong exception to the first and repudiate the importance of the second, you're own moral compass is just as strong and believable when it comes to these matters as anyone else's.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Since this discussion is becoming mainly about LDS issues, isn't the title misleading? Also, I'm afraid to chime in on anything regarding LDS issues, because it would be immediately argued by saying I didn't know what I'm talking about, I'm just LDS bashing, or it would be moderated. This is a no-win situation for anyone not of any faith who wants to contribute, and something that is a major problem in many religions.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I know that I don't want to be a member of "The-church-of-exactly-what-Anne-Kate-thinks-about-every-moral-question". There's no room for me to learn or grow there. I knew when I joined the church that there were areas of difference, at least in emphasis if not in core beliefs, between my own moral judgements as they currently existed (and they change over time because of experience and, of course, revelation) and the teachings of the church. But I felt it was the right thing to join and learn.

Maybe this is just me learning. I don't know. But something still smells not quite right. You know? I feel there's still a disconnect somewhere. I'm trying to nag at it and not drop it, because otherwise I'm not using the best opportunities to grow. Just as a physicist thinks more about the experiment that ISN'T explained by current theory that those that ARE. That's where the point of interest lies. That's where we can learn.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Jutsa, you've not been here long enough to know that thread titles are just starting points? That we take off in any direction of interest to those posting at the time? Feel free to bring it back to Islam, or else to take it in any other direction that's relevant to you.

I see what you mean about being dismissed as irrelevant for being an outsider. That sucked that I did that. I'm sorry. I'm interested to hear what you, as an outsider, think about my own church, but it doesn't really resonate with me since the ideas I hear expressed by outsiders don't even sound like we're talking about the same thing. If you're talking about your own religion, though, that seems intensely interesting to me. I guess I'm not saying people should not tell what they think. Just that I don't usually see a way to find it helpful to me in defining my role in my church. It just never seems to apply, you know?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Anne Kate, in terms where to possibly discuss it, I'd say not in formal church meetings, even the ones during the week - that's really not their purpose. If you want to talk to a leader, then then in an individual interview. If you want to talk to the other women, how about a visiting teaching visit?
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Amka's suggestion that I can't understand because I'm not endowed sort of struck me the same way (as a no-win situation). I'm not yet endowed in part because of these lingering feelings that something isn't entirely right here. So it's sort of a Catch-22.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
kat, that's a good idea. Yet that limits the discussion to five of us. Is there no appropriate place or time you can suggest where I can talk to the whole Relief Society? Have a discussion and see what everyone thinks?

[ August 02, 2004, 02:31 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
ak,
Regarding both the role of blacks in the LDS church historically and the present question of role of gays in all Christian churchs, I'd like to bring up what I think it one of clearest messages Jesus had in the Bible.

He was asked, what was the most important commandment and replied "Love God with your whole heart, your whole soul, and your whole mind." and there is a second like unto the first "Love your neighbor as yourself." Later on, Paul confirmed this messages saying that anyone who truely loves his fellow man and acts out of this love is incapable of sinning.

For me, this love is one of the clearest themes in the New Testament. It's also the one thing conspicously absent from most Christianity.

The role of blacks or of gays can only be decided in a Christian manner if you truely love them, if you regard them as your neighbors, your sisters and brother, or, as Jesus said, as Christ himself. In my experience, your church and every Christian church fails in this, the greatest of cmmmandments. At the very least, they passively support hatred and bigotry by alligning themselves with haters and bigots and not speaking out against this hatred and bigotry, in not making their central message one of love. The framing of the issue on most religious lips is defense of marriage. Defense is not something you got from Jesus, at least not the Jesus in the Bibles I've read.

Hatred and bigorty don't attach to specific stands on things. Neither does love. They are ways of coming to these stands and of holding them. I'm sure that, for example, it is possible, even if hard, to truely love a gay person and yet tell them that they shouldn't be allowed to marry. However, I don't think many Christians meet that standard. I don't even think many Christians admit that that's the standard that they should be aiming for.

Now, I'm not a Christian myself, but I was when I formed those ideas about what it meant to be a Christian. In fact, I use them as the central theme of my life now, although I've decided that sole belief in Christ is not my path.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"So it's sort of a Catch-22."

Hey, welcome to MY life!
I've been told on good authority that I'll receive all kinds of proof of God's existence once I believe He exists.
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
*sigh* this is one of the very issues that cause me to, while not exacatly "losing" my faith, morphing it quite drastically.

The fundamentalist protestant community I grew up in couldn't handle intelligent women, unless they chose to be married, and thus fit in the "niche". And while learning theology for its own sake is interesting, for me the true thrill always came from exchanging ideas with others, but women weren't supposed to debate theology with the men. The only exception was if you were a missionary, and even then you were really supposed to be married.

AJ
 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 

quote:

---

being unmarried and childless is a not a permanent state. The most basic organizational unit is the family, not the individual. The individual, honestly, is worthless unless they are contributing to society. Of course they don't have to be part of a family to contribute. But they shouldn't expect the same privilages as the family.

---

quote:

---

Gee. So glad to know that I'm worthless. This sort of attitude is exactly why I'm no longer active in the church. Because I have been made to feel very much like a second class citizen because I am not married and do not have children. It's even worse because I am known not to be especially worried about this. I have also been made to understand that my choice of political parties is "wrong", that I am interested in things that are not "appropriate" for a woman (oh, dangerous things like science and history). That because I am not married and a mother than I am somehow "wrong".

I finally came to realize that I am not wrong. I am me.

---

quote:

---

Jutsa, you've not been here long enough to know that thread titles are just starting points? That we take off in any direction of interest to those posting at the time? Feel free to bring it back to Islam, or else to take it in any other direction that's relevant to you.

---

quote:

---

I see what you mean about being dismissed as irrelevant for being an outsider. That sucked that I did that. I'm sorry.

---

quote:

---

Your 'angle of attack' shouldn't be at having women getting the priesthood.

---

Amka, I'm not even asking that. <laughs> I haven't gotten that specific. I'm just asking if we need to take a hard look at ourselves in the light of what seems so very obvious when we look at other faiths, and ask if women's roles in our church are what they are in heaven with God. Is there room for us to become more Christlike in this area, and if so, is there anything appropriate for members to do to ready the church for acceptance of new revelation, should it come, or to create an atmosphere in which the church leadership will seek new revelation on these topics?

I'm seeking the right path as a faithful Latter Day Saint in addressing these issues.

[ August 02, 2004, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
But the church doesn't represent "society." - that's a secular view.

[ August 02, 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
littlemissattitude, I don't see you as worthless. Far from it. Please come join my ward.

About a month after I joined the church I had this feeling one day that I had been sent there to do something to change things in the church. I felt really dismayed. Because I had thought that the church was my home, that I was coming home, you know, where I belonged. And I've had so many battlegrounds. My whole life sometimes seems as though it's a battleground. I didn't think that was going to be how it was in the church. I'm afraid I shrank from the thought that God wanted me to do something I really didn't want to have to do.

But then the coolest thing happened. I was called to be the leader of 10-11 year old girls' achievement day group. It was as though where I had thought to see a roadblock, instead there was a red carpet laid. Then I knew that I should trust that it really was all in hand. That whatever happened would be right. That I was being well looked-after.

I try to keep that feeling. I do believe that I'm in the right place. littlemissattitude, I wonder if people like us are here to do something really important in the Lord's church.

[ August 02, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 

quote:

---

But the church doesn't represent "society." - that's a secular view.

---

When the church makes up over three-fourths of the population, it does represent society. To say otherwise would be like saying that the most popular Democrat or Republican views don't represent their respective parties.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I mean, the guiding light for church policies is not and should not be sociological theories concerning Society.
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Then why do most church policies, regardless of what church we discuss, correlate directly with the social climate of the time? They seem inextricably linked.
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
I did get a little out of the bounds of our discussion, I will admit.

So I will keep it to just the church. In order to fulfill our full potential (we aren't just talking about on earth) we need to get married. Not all of us will get married in this life, but because this is God's law, we must organize the church around marriage and families, not around individuals. The church does teach that there is much that we can do as individuals, but that our highest calling is as husband and wife/ as parents. Within that, we each have very specific roles that I already covered.

ak - If God has a mission for you within the church, then trust God, embrace the church fully, and God will show you the path. It may not be exactly what you think it is, or it may not play out exactly as you envisioned. The church is not perfect, and never really will be as long as it exists within the mortal sphere. But God is perfect and knows what is needed.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"If God has a mission for you within the church, then trust God, embrace the church fully, and God will show you the path."

What if she trusts God, embraces the church fully, and God DOESN'T show her the path?
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
What if I trust God, embrace the church fully, and this is the path that He seems to be showing me? To ask permission to ask questions and discuss things. To ask if we need to look harder.

I bring this stuff up on hatack first because you guys are my ward-of-the-heart.

[ August 02, 2004, 03:26 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
Then you should ask more questions and look harder.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Hobbes, you subtly changed my question. Did you notice?

We know that we are taught little by little, only as much as we are ready for. We know there is room for us to grow and learn to be more Christlike, as individuals, and as a church.

My question is this. Is there anything that's appropriate (and requisite) for us as members to do to help speed up this process, either by preparing ourselves and our wards to receive new revelation (should it come) or by creating a climate in which the leadership will feel urged to seek new revelation on any given subject?

Do you all feel that the answer to both of these questions is "no"?

[ August 02, 2004, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Anne Kate, I do not think that it is right for you to be seeking change for the church as a whole, and not during church meetings. That's really not their purpose. If there is a specific situation, then defnitely talk to (stake, ward) leaders to make sure they are aware of it.

[ August 02, 2004, 03:34 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Tom, that's where faith comes in. Seriously. Peter stepped out of the boat and did fine until he started thinking "What if the water can't hold me up?"
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Jamie has told us about the doctrine of dissent in the Catholic Church. I was really interested to hear that.

What I feel isn't dissent. I know that I'm not called to set church doctrine. I know that's the prophet's job. But I do feel called to do something. To foster some sort of discussion of the issues in some way. To make it an item that's under consideration. Something that we are soul-searching about. Is that feeling just wrong?
 

---

Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
 
You're right AK, I mis-read you're question and took out "permession" and what-not. My answer still goes though, just add that back in.

Hobbes
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
If there's anyone who was a member before blacks were given the priesthood, how did you feel about the situation at the time?

I've been told that people prayed for new revelation to come on that subject. I suppose that means out loud in church prayers.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
For items under consideration, then I'd write and express my concerns directly to those charged with stewardship over those decisions. One reason that Enrichment isn't an appropriate place for those discussions is because it doesn't matter so much what the collective conclusion is.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

How do I address these things? Private prayer only? Private and public prayer? Is it wrong to ever bring up anything which could potentially be divisive? Where is it appropriate to do so? What role does the membership play in helping to ready the church as a whole to receive new revelation, or in lobbying the leadership to seek new revelation on various moral questions?

---

ak, my advice to you is to ask members of the church in leadership positions. It is their business to think, study, and seek personal revelation on these sorts of things. Some of them won't have helpful answers at all. But keep asking. You many find someone who is spiritually prepared to give you the answer that you are seeking for.

I myself have intense questions, not so much about this, as about something else. But I don't feel an urgent need for an answer, so I am content to continue seeking the knowledge on the Lord's timetable. Your question is a bit more pertinent to you right now, especially if it holds you back from endowment. I would say seek the answer to your question with passion and dilligence. I hope you find your answer.

As for me coming up with an answer to your question, let me ramble a bit. I have never had difficulty with the idea of gender roles. But in my mind those gender roles shouldn't be too tight or restrictive either. I look at it more as the Platonic ideal. Variation is just fine, variation on a theme. I think there is definitely some overlap between the roles of each gender. As to what might be too far outside that sphere, I am not one to say.

But there are certain things that we have been taught are not a part of God's plan for us. One, men are priesthood holders. Two, same-sex sexual relations are never appropriate. This is the doctrine of the church as I understand it, and beyond that, are part of God's design and therefore not subject to change. Could I be wrong on this? Yeah, I could be. But it is my current belief/understanding of how things are.

Do women serve a purpose to God outside of making and raising babies? Everything I have seen gives a resounding "yes". Though it is true that when in the depths of caring for little children (and even older ones) women don't have *time* for much else. So if God wants willing women to participate in this business of motherhood, it is not that he doesn't want them doing anything else, it is more that what they are doing is so important that it must come first.

I know of women who hate the idea of motherhood. They have no "instinct" for it, no desire for it at all. One in particular I am thinking of is accomplishing great things right now. What she is doing matters. But I think the point is that in God's eyes men can do those "other things" pretty well too and that men cannot take the place of women as mothers.

Do I think that God never intended some women to become mothers in this life? Yeah, I think that is entirely possible. Do they feel out of place in the LDS church? Yeah, I bet they do at least some of the time. There is so much importance placed on motherhood that those not desiring or able to be mothers feel like second class citizens.

Is that fair? Well, I don't think anyone ought to feel less loved or less important in God's kingdom. But what if what those mothers are doing really *is* more important than what anyone else is doing? What if we just can't see that with our limited POV? Those women who desire motherhood and haven't had the opportunity will get that opportunity. Motherhood is an eternal principle. Those who don't desire it now and never will may not realize how much they are missing out on. But they will be happy doing what makes them happy. Even if they miss out "eternally" on motherhood, if they never wanted it to begin with, it wouldn't have made them happy.

I haven't really addressed your question about priesthood. It does seem that the way the church is set up that God intends for men to learn how to be leaders and it is rare (if it happens at all) that women are put in positions of leadership over men.

Patriarchal order is church doctrine. For people like me that have no desire for leadership, that doesn't particularly bother me. Put me in the background and put me to work. I will be happy as long as I can influence people. I don't mind being in the background, I only mind being "impotent" as it were, not able to effect the world around me.

But for those who do desire it or who are bothered by a sense of "inequality", it is a problem. According to earthly laws and existance, the people who are in power are above others. There is inequality. But if leadership works the way God intends, is it inequality? I am not convinced that it is. In God's pattern, the highest leader is the servant of all. Those on the lowest rung are the ones being served the most, the ones doing the least serving. Whenever there is "exploiting" going on, it has ceased to be in alignment with God's plans. But you already know this.

I would suggest that if this is the crux of what bothers you, consider that you may not understand God's perspective on leadership, that men exclusively having priesthood and therefore leadership does not make them better and does not make men and women unequal. That it doesn't even make women less potent than men. Now this answer ain't gonna fly for any non-believer, because the only reality they believe in is this mortal existance and the rules that work within it.

These are some of my ramblings. Take them for what you will.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Beverly, I like that very much.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 

quote:

---

Now this answer ain't gonna fly for any non-believer, because the only reality they believe in is this mortal existance and the rules that work within it.

---

quote:

---

Now this answer ain't gonna fly for any non-believer, because the only reality they believe in is this mortal existance and the rules that work within it.

---

See, that's just not true, at least not for me. I'm completely willing to accept that there are rules outside the mundane. However, there's a huge difference between accepting that these rules exist and accepting that their nature contradicts the rules of this existence. It's like I was saying before, that if something works and comes out good, than I find it difficult to believe that we should prefer something that doesn't work and comes out bad.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Thanks, Kat.

quote:

---

I'm just asking if we need to take a hard look at ourselves in the light of what seems so very obvious when we look at other faiths, and ask if women's roles in our church are what they are in heaven with God. Is there room for us to become more Christlike in this area, and if so, is there anything appropriate for members to do to ready the church for acceptance of new revelation, should it come, or to create an atmosphere in which the church leadership will seek new revelation on these topics?

---

ak, I think so. I think there will always be the tempation for men to assume they are superior to women in some way and women to feel inferior in some way because of the priesthood being exculsively held by men. I think this is human nature and needs to constantly be corrected. It seems to me that our highest leaders are doing everything they know how to do to keep things going in the right direction. They listen to people like you. Your feelings and observations do matter.

I have heard the leaders of the church take specific letters written by women who have been so hurt by inequality and use them to rebuke the men of the church. We all try to interpret God's will through our own perspective, and that will always foul it up. That is why we need to keep going back to God for instruction. Some people need to be chastised and corrected because they are *hurting people*. They are *destroying people*. That is not right.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah, Trevor, I think you and I understand one another.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
But gender roles don't make any sense...
Not all women are nurturing or spiritual, just as not all men are authoritarian or whatever...
People are all different, all individuals. Instead of getting people who act like their individual nature with strict sex roles you get people pretending to be what they are not... Women taking themselves down a notch like tall people slouching when they walk, men who aren't stereotypically tough over acting the part.
To me, this is what causes a lot of strain on some heterosexual relationships. This idea of you have to fit into this mold in order to be a man or a woman...
There's a lot of people who blow this sort of theory out of the water... Who just don't fit into that sort of mold... Perhaps that says something...

Some, not all Muslim religions practice infibrulation on young girls. Is it right for an outsider, a foreigner or a non-Muslim to criticise this practice even if it is devastating for the child involved?
Sometimes it's hard for people in the system to see anything wrong with the system. Sometimes it's hard for people outside the system to understand things completely. Is having to wear a Burka (sp) that oppressive? Or is it just a kneejerk western reaction like a kneejerk atheist reaction?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
The problem for me, as the unbeliever, I don't know which theory of the supernatural to subscribe to. It seems reasonable to me that the higher powers work more or less the way the mortal world functions. I certainly haven't seen any indication that it shouldn't.

Of course, as Bev has pointed out, it may simply be I am not capable of perceiving or understanding this information. The same reason I can't see tachyons - it's just not available to me. It's possible God said, "just because." At some point, He (provided he exists, usual disclaimers) had to make some choices in making reality. Why is the sky blue? Why do we breathe oxygen?

And it alludes to why I dislike faith - with no rational basis or demonstratable proof, people expect me to bend knee (thanks Tom) to a belief system that I can't support or endorse. And this applies to just about every religion going.

And the more militant ones will cheerfully string me up, tie me to a stake or seek to purge the pagan, heretic or infidel.

-Trevor

Edit: Continuing my paragraph - as I can see no proof of gods, angels, demons or devils, it is difficult for me to believe in them.

And most proof of faith is dependent upon accepting certain principles, tenets or articles of faith first which tends to be fairly circular. If not a tad delusional - sorry, I can't think of a better word off-hand.

[ August 02, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
 

---

Posted by ginette (Member # 852) on :
 
My two cents from outside the church. Just from my own experience.

Some ten years ago, I did research on the question why so few women had leadership positions within the Dutch (mental) health sector. We could come to only one conclusion, which is that most women do not want to have such a position.
I am not quite sure this is all cultural. I discovered for my own person it's definitely partly in my genes. I was not raised by a conventional mother, I was not raised with a religion, my best friend was my brother, I studied economics and was the only girl, I always worked in a man's world. My job was to bring the money in and I had my children raised by their fathers.
And now I finally realise that I have never been (able to be) a women in my life until some years ago. It took some time, but man am I happy to be a housewife! I am not talking about the work of a housewife, but the role she has. Being the supporting centre of the household for husband and children, neighbours and family. In the past I never had the time and energy for that. I lived like a man.

So maybe rules to separate women from man for some occasions or rules as to which roles are appropriate for men and which for women are a protection of some sort. A protection against not being able to develop the full male or female potential.

I am not sure about this. Maybe we should all develop both sides in ourselves. I just don't know. I just feel more happy doing things that are more natural to me. Natural as a woman. But maybe this is all because trying to live like a man is a constant battlefield, and playing the role society expects you to play as a women does not meet any resistance, so that's why I am feeling better.

So, no answers from me. Just some thoughts.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, the believer believes that their own perspective is flawed and trusts that God perceives all things as they truly are. Therefore a believer will trust those perspectives of God that appear to contradict what they have observed because they believe those observations are incomplete. Like the blind man trying to describe the elephant thingy.

That is a pretty big leap of faith, I know. Especially when a person has to believe that those revelations of God came *through* human beings (prophets).

If that faith is truly blind, then I agree with the non-believer thinking it is "scary". That faith needs to be based on the individual's own experiences. While these experiences may be "empirical" to the individual, they are not "empirical" to others. You can't say, "Look, when I pray about this thing, I feel God's understanding and intelligence filling my mind!" Even if the listener believed you (and why should they?), they aren't experiencing it. Similar to the parable of the 10 virgins and the lamps, the oil could not be borrowed from another.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Syn - gender roles don't make sense, but I submit the standard Judeo-Christian morality system is built on arbitrary decisions of right and wrong.

This is right and this is wrong because I (or someone) once decided that it should be and we wrote it down.

Gender roles tend to fall into the same category - the Church believes this to be "right" and has announced it as such.

Disclaimer: I am not Catholic and I am not advocating a woman's place - I'm presenting one argument for it.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
Beverly said

quote:

---

This is the doctrine of the church as I understand it, and beyond that, are part of God's design and therefore not subject to change. Could I be wrong on this? Yeah, I could be. But it is my current belief/understanding of how things are.

---

quote:

---

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29-30
29 Man was also in the beginning• with God. Intelligence, or the light of dtruth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere• in which God has placed it, to act• for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

---

We believe that while we are God's children and creations, that there is a spark within us, our "intelligence" for lack of a better term, that always existed. This is idea is closely tied with free agency. We all choose our own path, and some of us do not feel particularly inclined to "fit" any mold, even a mold that is a part of God's pattern. But we also believe that God has created a place where all His children can be happy. God invites us to join His pattern, but many will not wish to. But they will still have a place.

Now I realize that this still puts a sense of "inequality" into things by saying that one way is innately "better" than another. I believe that God has a certain pattern and we are free to enter it or not. I also believe that those who do will receive the greatest of God's blessings since His blessings are contingient on obedience to His laws (according to LDS doctrine, and this certainly differs from most Christian doctrine). Perhaps those who choose not to enter into this "order" or "pattern" would not have been particularly interested in the associated blessings either.

But then I don't think we as mortals are capable of understanding the nature of these blessings either. I think they are more "natural consequences" than "playing favorites".

(*Note: all of this is according to my personal understanding of LDS doctrine. I do not wish to put it forth as "fact".)
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Rubble - that's why I wuv Bev and Mr. Head is a very lucky guy.

She's devout in her faith but is still willing to accept different points of view and is willing to concede other issues. As long as you're willing to make the same, legitimate concessions.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Rubble, I find that somewhat troubling myself. It is as though someone admitting that their faith is not a perfect knowledge will somehow weaken their faith or their position. I *try* not to have a problem with declaring that my faith is just that: faith. It is a belief strong enough to bring about action in accordance with that belief. It is not blind faith, it is based on my experiences and understanding. But I cannot expect another person to build their faith on my experiences. I can only share a different way of looking at things and ask them to be open to those ideas also.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Aw, thanks Trevor!
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
bev,
The thing I'm talking about is sort of the blind faith thing you referenced. There's scene in the play Galileo where he's trying to convince his detractors to look though his telescope so that they can decide on the evidence whether what he's saying is right or wrong. But they all refuse to.

That's not strong faith. That's weakness. And (and I'm not just talking about religious people here) that seems to me to be the way a lot of people use their faith. There's a way of ordering their experience, of guiding the things that they look at (or through) to bolster their faith. And, when they accidentally come across something that disagrees with their preconceptions, they can feel justified in not thinking about it because "I must be seeing it wrong."

In another context, weak faith people try to directly convince people that they are right, generally by the use of force. Even now, when conversion by the sword is frowned upon and there aren't many primitive cultures to wow with really big buildings, missionaries still orient themselves towards looking for weaknesses or lacks in people. One of the most common questions is "Are you missing a sense of meaning?" Faith in this way is seen as something that needs to be imposed from outside, not something that people will logically come to if they can see correctly.

There have been references to this Catch-22 in this thread. You must believe before you are given reasons to believe. The problem with that is that people hisotrically have supported many systems that work like this, often by killing the people who didn't believe. People in these situations believe because soon they must believe, not because they choose to.

Rather than faith, I prefer to use love as my criteria for judging someone's belief. Hatred and fear are the result of weak faith or of faith in things that I don't want to pattern my life by even if they do exist. And frankly, as I've said, I've yet to come across an organized Christian Church that passes the love test. I've found quite a few Christians that do, but I've found quite a few non-Christians that do also. Of course, from the a priori Christian perspective, these people must be wrong and have opinions of less value that orthodox Christians who hate. In fact, generally, their existence is denied, a la the labelling of Pelagianism heresy. But I can still see them and I find that they work better than many orthodox Christians I know. So the a priori Christian perspective doesn't work for me. I am unwilling to deny my experience of these people are existing and of having opinions of better value than that of hating orthodox Christians.

[ August 02, 2004, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
All I know about LDS I've learned on Hatrack, so take my ignorance for what it is and smack me down when necessary.

I'm intrigued by the concept that it is all right to have gender roles in the religion because it is the family unit that is important to the "church". Now I know that this could never be accepted in the LDS, but logically, how does one deal with the concept that you could have a family unit where the wife was more apt to be called to the "priesthood" and the husband was the better nurturer? If one really believes that everyone should follow their calling, then why do you have to follow only one list of callings depending on if your a man or a woman?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Because that's the way it is? Because women who give birth are obviously better suited to it than men.

How did gender roles in society develop? Well before religion, I would guess that as women were necessary to propagate the tribe, they stayed home and safe while the men did the stupid and dangerous stuff.

A man's vital component takes, what - five minutes? Give or take? Whereas the woman needs to be relatively safe for 9 months. Which means she can do safe things like, tidy the cave, pick out curtains, gather roots and herbs if we've figured out how to domesticate crops, but the man is infinitely more expendable.

And in the "modern age", a woman's need to be protected from wild predators and raiding tribes has been greatly diminished, but old habits die hard.

And to be fair, as we develop more complex social lives, trying to juggle a career with a functional family can be hard - even if we assume the modern male knows enough to pitch in with an equal share of the household chores.

I think we're in a growing cycle with the old standards clashing with and being replaced by new standards.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
Trevor,

I'm the choir man . I'm fishing for a religions perspective. The "family unit" and working together each with specific roles and responsibilities works, in a way. But in my heart of hearts I see it as a bit of a circular argument. I'm truly interested in hearing explanations; edit: [however, there has already been plenty in the two pages preceding, so I wouldn't be surprised if everone is spent already.]

Rubble

[ August 02, 2004, 05:12 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Hopefully LDS missionaries do not come across that way. They are taught not to, anyway. They are taught to not tear down other's beliefs or argue. They are to be respectful, only inviting, not pressuring. Unfortunately, the individuals are not perfect and don't always follow these instructions.

I was an LDS missionary back in the day. I think it is pretty cool how LDS proselyting is done. We have a book of scripture most people have not read before (The Book of Mormon). We offer it, free, for people to read and examine. We ask them to pray about it. If they felt the influence of God (the Spirit) we identified it as such. If they believed what we were showing them is scripture and what we were teaching iss true, we asked them to act on their belief, thus turning belief into faith. That would include learning more and eventually baptism. We did share with them our own faith and confidence in these things. We tried to be good about being turned down. After all, we were not doing it for money or our own success (at least, we weren't *supposed* to be, heh,) but we were presenting what we believed to be truth and inviting others to investigate it.

To me, that is the most important thing about LDS missionary work, that everyone has an opportunity to hear the message and decide for themselves. If they decide they don't believe in it, that is fine. I might be sad, I don't deny that, but there isn't much I can do about it, is there?
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Rubble - you're a Catholic priest? I had no idea!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

I will resume lurking.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Rubble, I think that that sense of "working together" is present in LDS culture, though certainly still resisted by many. There is a document recently put out by the First Presidency of the LDS church called "The Family: A Proclaimation to the World" that discusses the official church doctrine on gender roles.

quote:

---

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

---

(Bold added by me.) But there are certain core points of doctrine that are fixed despite changes in society. Priesthood is one of those things. This is contingent on the belief that this does indeed come from God and is *not* something arbitrary created by mankind or society.

This quote makes no mention of the priesthood because it is intended to apply to the world as a whole, all fathers, whether priesthood holders or not. While the divine role of the father may be to "preside" over the family, often the mother does as much if not more of the actual leading. And the husband defers to the wife when the wife is right. It should work both ways. He doesn't have the final say just because he is male or holds the priesthood. He seeks to do God's will. And wise husbands understand that inspiration from God often comes through the wisdom of their wives.

[ August 02, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
Why don't gender roles make sense, Synethesia?

I had no idea what it meant to be a mother until I had children. I experienced very strong instinctual reactions that my husband simply did not experience. With me, I seemed to know how to react to a baby's need and social interaction. With my husband, it took him quite a bit of time to learn how to react. In some cases, I had to explicitly teach him. His inabiltities were not due to something lacking in his education, just as my abilities were not due to some cultural advantage I had. It simply was.

Men and women are different. In general, they are more suited to the traditional roles that, as TMedina said, evolved long before religion did.

Because in this last century we've had baby formula, people forget that women weren't and usually aren't vulnerable only for the nine months of pregnancy, but that they were usually vulnerable for a full two years after the baby was born. The only exceptions were aristocrats who had nursemaids to feed their babies.

If the mother died, the baby almost always died unless another woman who still had milk (she had usually just lost a child) could take the baby. This is true even of very recent times. My grandmother knew a family where the mother died of childbed fever. The baby died gradually, living for another six weeks as it suffered because they only had cows milk to give it. Formula is a good thing for some, but it has really warped our feminine understanding of what it means to be mother.

Here is my question: Why do women so want to be more like men?

[ August 02, 2004, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: AmkaProblemka ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Here is my question: Why do women so want to be more like men

---

quote:

---

Why do women so want to be more like men?

---

Who has said that they do?

No one here - lma, Theca, anne kate, me has said that they want to be more like men. I think they and I just want to be more like ourselves without being condemned as amoral and unnatural for it.

---

You have to separate what is God's plan and what is best for society. Because the only authority the church has comes from the Lord - if it's reduced to "what is best for society" then it has no more weight than any other crackpot theory out there. There are many different ideas of what is best for society, and there are strong advocates for all of them.

[ August 02, 2004, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
I once found myself in a non-LDS Christian gathering where they asked for women to admire. I said Eve. She was the mother of all children, taught her children in righteousness, was a good companion to her children. If she hadn't made her decision, we wouldn't be here. Immediately, I discovered I'd said something very, very wrong. It was something of a suprise to me to discover how badly Eve is percieved. Of course, this is why I appreciate the LDS doctrine so much. In our story, we have discussions where we wonder if Eve, percieving that Adam wouldn't make the hard decision necessary to bring the full Plan of God into action, acted herself even though she knew what the consequences would be.
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
Completely off topic but I'll post it because I think it is fun:

"Born with a silver spoon in your mouth." Heard on the radio about how this saying originated from trying to feed a baby whose mother could not breastfeed for some reason. Silver spoon because usually only the wealthy could afford to have someone attempt this for them. Most of these babies did not survive. The fix was that in the Victorian era glass bottles and pig nipples were used. This led to much more milk getting into the babies and a bit better survival rate.

My best recollection of this trivia

Also, Beverly, I edited my last post, but it is the last on the previous page and you might not catch it. My original post came off a bit too flip, I think.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kat, according to my understanding, in much of our earth's history, being a woman *sucked*. Often because of unnecessary prejudice. But sometimes due to practical necessity. Life was hard. Trevor explained very well how that necessitated many of the differences in gender roles. Of course, quite often, it did get carried away beyond necessity.

I think a bit of that carries over into our oh-so-enlightened generation where women still think that being a woman sucks.

[ August 02, 2004, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Amika, you are soooo right. Most of Christiandom looks at Eve with much blame and even hate. You would not believe the horrible things women were subjected to and all because of that rotten Eve. It is ugly, horrendous. Makes me sick.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Right on, Bev.

Very often, prophets and apostles in our church refer to their wives as the spiritual centers of their families. That used to strike me as odd, coming from men who I consider to be very spiritually in-tune themselves. Then I met my wife, and discovered that they are right. I can see more clearly how their their goodness and wisdom has been developed through long association with their wives, and how their mannerisms reflect how they treat their wives and how they listen to them. They are, perhaps, the public face of a solidly two-person team.

When a man is called to a leadership position in the church, his wife is customarily present in the interview and is given what I consider to be veto power over the calling. My wife has had the opportunity to veto several callings of mine now. She hasn't said no yet, so I'm not sure what would happen if she did. But her feelings have always been taken as seriously as mine, and it is always made clear that the calling is really being extended to both of us.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Rubble, I looked back and I am not sure which post you edited. It may be that I only saw the edited version.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
What is created by humans can be undone. Society in general lays out a lot of "shoulds" without the ability to reward those who follow them. Getting married at 19 and having a ton of children does NOT guarantee that everything will be dandy. Societal "shoulds" have no weight because society doesn't have the ability to guarantee a result.

This is a big point for me. I don't care in the slightest for what society demands - it does not care about me. Amka even said above that individuals are worthless and people are only valued for what they bring to the table. Forget that.

[ August 02, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
 
What I see is a basic problem of definitions.

The "True Believer" believes that gender is assigned by God as part of your personality as well as your physicallity. There are abilities and emotions hard-wired into people that make them Men or Women. These correspond to their sexual organs.

Women have the most important job on Earth, that of raising young children. Other jobs, such as leadership of the church, fall to men who are incapable of the more important job or raising young children.

Problem occurs when the misguided men forget the importance of the womans main job, over estimate the importance of themselves and treat women as being little more than the children they are raising. Or problems occur when women refuse thier role as mothers, and strive for other jobs, not as important to God's plan.

The skeptical Nonbeliever believes that men and woman are both equally capable of leadership and deep religious debate. Abilities, personality, and skills are, if not separate from gender, vary widely. While some women do not have the skills for motherhood, some men do. To typecast and restrict people based on whether their sexual organs are innies or outties is a waste of good people.

The problems occur when men want thier church and their power and their legacy to grow, push women into mass producing Mormons with a goal of out babying the other religions. While many woman thrive in this lifestyle, they pressure other women to conform to thier ways. The others feel pressured, out of place, and second class citizens.

The childless couples, or individuals, are pushed into secondary roles, just as exciting as the handicapped person, who's main role in society is "Allowing other people to care for them."

Personally, I believe God has a much more detailed and intricate plan for humanity than for simple Man Pray, Woman Lay ideology. Every person is sacred, and each has their own destiny and duty on earth. What that is for each of us if for each of us to pray for and find with God's help. For someone to say, "God made women to reproduce children for the church, and if you are not doing that, you need to do something equally as productive, but there is nothing equally as productive that you can do" seems to me to be limiting what God's plan is for 1/2 the world's population.

I do have one question in regards to that child's mislearned statement.

If the highest calling of a man while on this earth is to learn more of the true Religion, to the point that such learning will continue after death, that is fine.

However, if the highest calling of a woman is to birth and raise children, what will she do in heaven?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Kat, Amka never said individuals were worthless. I think she meant to put forth the idea that individuals ought to "give something back" to society. She acknowledges that people can do that regardless of their marital/parental status.
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
But, Amka, not all men are like that. There's tons of men out there that are better with their children than women are...
I don't think it's really biological.. Otherwise, how can you explain gays and transexuals or other people that don't fit into the black and white ideas of male and female?
It's why those commercials drive me so insane or the sitcoms about men messing up the house when their wives are away.
Just about all the shows are like this and it drives me nuts.
We're individuals. A woman does not nessasarily want to be a man if she wants to take on a typically male role like being a president or a CEO.
Of course, at the same time, a woman shouldn't be looked down on if she wants to stay at home with her kids or something. All people are different.
A man isn't less of a man if he does housework.
A woman will not turn into a man if she decides to play sports.
People are all different.
That's why those stupid magazines and books like Men are from Mars annoy me so much...
Because I just don't fit into to that mold and it makes me feel a bit inferior from time to time which is such a waste.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Do you want me to go back and quote all the posts that said an individual is worthless, that people that aren't in families shouldn't expect to be as fully a part of society as those with families, and if someone feels like they don't fit in, they need to at least be quiet because society sure as heck doesn't care?

[ August 02, 2004, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 

quote:

---

Why do women so want to be more like men

---

Tangent

hmm, I am a female engineer with what I guess is the beginning of a decent career ahead of me. I am the only female other than the secretary in my department.

It's not that I want to be More like men. It is that I AM like them. I am actually over on a wierd extreme, where my thought patterns, though completely natural on my part are even viewed as more "male" than what the actual males respond. My own gender, with very few exceptions (fortunately many of them are on hatrack) doesn't make sense to me, I have no goals and ideals that are common with my normal gender.

At the same time as far as biologically and romantically speaking I am a functioning female human being. Fortunately I do have a guy who loves me exactly the way I am, and doesn't ask me to be different. But I often feel like I'm some weird sort of "other" gender. Now I'm not discounting the biological. Maybe some wierd human nurturing instinct will kick in later on in my life, but right now it sure hasn't. Don't give me a baby to hold and assume I instinctively know what to do because I'm female. I haven't a clue. I don't even particularly like holding babies. The closest my nurturing instinct comes is to my dogs, and that is a very different instinct than with children.

I really don't fit in well with most patriarchal church structures. I'm a living breathing contradiction and anomaly to what they teach. As a result, I'm leaning more and more to the United Methodist direction should I ever outright choose.
@Dana

AJ
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Personally, I believe God has a much more detailed and intricate plan for humanity than for simple Man Pray, Woman Lay ideology

---

quote:

---

There are abilities and emotions hard-wired into people that make them Men or Women. These correspond to their sexual organs.

---

quote:

---

A woman does not nessasarily want to be a man if she wants to take on a typically male role like being a president or a CEO.

---

Yes. But (beware, the following *will* offend some) I do think there is a trend of women wanting to be more crass "just like men" or more shallowly sexual "just like men" or more aggressive "just like men" when it isn't actually a part of that individual's nature. But they are just wanting to "rebell" against the old stereotypes.

I am *not* saying that all men are crass, shallowly sexual, or aggressive, but I am saying that those have been the stereotypes for a long, long time. Women were supposed to be "nice" and "refined". While I hate the double standard of calling a woman a bitch for things that a man would be applauded for, I don't think being "nice" and "refined" are necessarily things to be rebelled against. "Submissive" yes, "nice" and "refined" no.

I don't fit into the molds either. But I hate it when people do stuff just for the sake of rebelling against a stereotype. People should just be who they are and do what they believe is right! If you don't fit the stereotype, that is fine. I don't fit it either.

[ August 02, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
 
That's not what I'm talking about bev. I'm not talking about crassness I'm talking about thought patterns.

AJ
 

---

Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
 
I think

"Why do women so much want to be like men"

sounds like

"Why can't women just accept their role in the world"

said sweetly under one's breath.

Why do (some) women so much want men to be like women? Because it's tough to relate to someone who makes a point out of being completely different than you; who can't relate to your interest, desires, needs, and hatreds. But this doesn't have to do with being like a man or a woman. This has to do with fostering good relationships, regardless of your gender.

There are personalities that lend themselves to particular roles in *today's* society. Men and women possess those personalities. They are not necessarily trying to be like one another. They may be trying to adopt the personality that is appropriate for that activity or role.
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
Bev, I also don't believe in imitating the worst parts of the male stereotype just to rebel against the female stereotype. On the other hand, I won't refrain from competing with males so I can be a nice, submissive female. You have a very good point though. *adds to the Bev luv on this thread*

Banna, I sort of understand where you're coming from. I'm not as masculine in my thinking patterns as you say you are, but I often understand men better than women. Actually, someone I know recently commented that when I get around to dating, I'm going to be at an advantage because when it comes to social situations, I sometimes think like a guy.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
beverly, I like a lot of the things you say. But when you say "everyone has a masculine and a feminine side" realize that what you mean is everyone has aspects of character that fit into masculine and feminine roles as currently defined by society. These things are not laws of nature but our very narrow parochial customs. They aren't even really ancient at all. Very recent history.

When you say things like "being a woman sucked", you also mean that having to fit into the narrow gender roles prescribed by that particular society at that particular time sucked. You keep using phrases that make me think you are thinking of these things as natural law of some sort. They are not that at all.

I agree wholeheartedly with what kat said. Women don't want or ask to be men. We only seek to be ourselves, and for that to be accepted as a valid thing to be. One shouldn't have to fight for permission to be oneself. That is nonsensical. One just is, with our without anyone's permission.

[ August 02, 2004, 06:19 PM: Message edited by: ak ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
AJ, I think you are right in that your mind is naturally more like the "stereotypical man's". Mine is also, but probably not to the same extent. I don't think I could be a very good engineer, my math is too weak. I do think I could be a decent scientist though. Also, I am very good with maps, and that whole "spacial reasoning" is supposed to be more a stereotypical male trait.

No denying there is crossover, it just bugs me when young women get the feeling from society that their natural nurturing feelings (assuming they have them to begin with) are "sissy" and "demeaning". I really wish that pressure to not be motherly weren't so strong right now.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
I think that's perspective. AJ probably feels there is crazy pressure everywhere to get married and have kids and forget what she is so good at.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
ak, I think I understand what you are saying, that the "male" side of a female and the "female" side of a male is just that persons individual variation.

I do, though, believe in a "Platonic ideal", if you will of maleness and femaleness beyond what society programs into us. I believe those echoes can be found in each of us, despite our variation. I believe in the idea of gender that transcends this mortal body. I'm not even sure I believe that God "assigned" us gender. I think it was just who we were naturally.

[ August 02, 2004, 06:15 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
I wish people wouldn't equate "feminine" traits like compassion as being weak.
See, here is my problem... Many men, in order to be considered real men will act tough, aggressive and sometimes cruel, masking their real selves...
Especially men that are trying to pretend that they are not gay.
This makes for a terrible relationship. How can you relate equally to someone who is putting up a wall to who they really are?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I too wish that compassion in men in particular were not seen as a weakness. I understand a certain need for it in pre-modern societies, but these shows of "machismo" are not nearly so crucial now. I hope it is a dinosaur that will die. Soon.

If men like to feel protective of their families and whatnot, want to fight for them, I kinda like that though. I just hate the "big front" that some men feel the need to put up for each other and other women.
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
No, I'll say it. I said that an individual was worthless to society if they did not contribute. Do you want me to go further. Some people are worse than worthless to society. They are detrimental to society when they actively try to harm society for whatever purpose.

Then, in a following post, I said I had realized that I had gone out of bounds of the specific discussion: that of the church organization, and into social needs. With that, I thought I had taken that argument out of the specific discussion of what is or is not equal treatment within the LDS church organization. If you want to continue that discussion, another thread might be appropriate.

It seems this one is evolving into gender roles as expressed by religion.

Synth,

We aren't talking about individual trends. We are talking about statistical majorities, and male and female psychology and physiology. By gender roles, I don't mean to say that a man shouldn't help out around the house. If you'd read an earlier post of mine, I contended that part of our problem has been a transition from an agrarian society where men worked outside on the farm from sun up to sun down and women depended on them to do that job while they took care of the other aspects of life. The chores women had done (because it was more practical for them to do) still had to be done, even when men began to get more satisfying and less demanding jobs. We've had to reschool ourselves as to how the husband/wife partnership should work. But even with those considerations, I will still contend that statistically, in two parent families, the woman is the better nurturer than the man. I've witnessed literally hundreds of families in which this is what I see. Of course there are always exceptions, but much of my argument has been this:

We cannot mold society around the exceptions.

On the other front I'm arguing: We cannot mold the church around exceptions.

I have never said exceptions are worthless to society or to the church, though. On the contrary, I've said that often the exceptions have a very unique and enriching contribution to society that is necessary to keep it vibrant, if only they are willing to be the standout rather than make society admit them as the norm.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Amka, I get the feeling you are arguing against something that's never been said in this thread.

It's not innapropriate to bring up the worthless comment. When questioned about the role of someone who doesn't conform to expected gender roles in the church, you responded back that individuals were worthless. Even if you take it back now, that means they are associated in your head.

Various sociological theories about society, especially ones that devalue individuals, have NO PLACE as a determinor or defense of church policy.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Do you want me to go back and quote all the posts that said an individual is worthless, that people that aren't in families shouldn't expect to be as fully a part of society as those with families, and if someone feels like they don't fit in, they need to at least be quiet because society sure as heck doesn't care?

---

quote:

---

The individual, honestly, is worthless unless they are contributing to society. Of course they don't have to be part of a family to contribute. But they shouldn't expect the same privilages as the family.

---

quote:

---

We often need individuals who are vastly different from the norm to give something to our society that it lacks. But the fact of the matter is that in doing so, they are losing other things. You can't have everything.

---

quote:

---

But once you are a mother, it suprises me how eager we are to give over our power to others in an effort to be more recognized by our community.

---

quote:

---

The majority HAS to adapt to the minority.

---

quote:

---

If you believe that it is not God at all but man's will, then it all is arbitrary.

---

quote:

---

That maybe it's NOT pure biology or pure doctrine but something more......

---

I concede, from what I have seen it must be more complex than that. Yet I do believe what I have already stated. I don't think the two necessarily contradict.

[ August 02, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I'm posting about stuff that's far behind in the thread, as I come to it, trying to catch up.

I certainly don't want to learn to be crass or casual about sex or anything of the sort. One of the things that showed me the church is true is that in a time and place when almost NOBODY teaches boys and men to be chaste outside marriage, the church does. Men have as deep a need for chastity as women. I think that boys' natural reticence and modesty is forcibly taken from them by our society, all too often, and it's a terrible thing. I think it traumatizes them and messes up their feelings for women, to a certain extent.

I also have strong parenting and nurturing instincts, as most everyone here probably already knows. <laughs>

But what me, AJ, CT, and anyone in professions that have been viewed as traditionally male in our society are saying is that perhaps your cultural definition of what is feminine is too narrow. Femininity includes these things, but it also includes building and making, understanding, logic, physics, medicine, and so on. In fact, it includes (like masculinity) most every trait that is human. There is far far more overlap than there are distictions. The world's fastest man may be faster than the world's fastest woman at the present time, but there will be many many women at any time who can run faster than the average man.

Amka, does the Brigham Young quote speak to these questions at all? Do you accept his teaching that women have more callings than those in the home?
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
Beverly really hit it right on, what I was saying.

Let me say the thoughts I had but didn't say. A family has need of the priesthood, and this is the responsibility of the man. This is part of his role as a father and husband. In defining these roles, God has kept His house a house of order. The woman, in the marriage, being the mother, has other very important responsibilities to which she is uniquely qualified. A woman doesn't have to be worthy of her power, but a man does have to be worthy.

Having the priesthood, the man is often called to leadership positions for which the priesthood is necessary: being the Bishop, for example. But what about the women who, because they are not married or don't have children, wouldn't be bogged down with their motherhood? Why couldn't they be given the priesthood so they could be leaders in the church too?

Well, for one thing, high leadership roles require the higher priesthood, which requires marriage.

And for another thing, not being married and not having children are not a guaranteed state of affairs. What would happen when both the woman and man had the same priesthood?

The partnership would become unequal. The woman now has two God given powers: motherhood and the priesthood, while the man has only one. Fatherhood is not equal to motherhood. Just ask my husband, who stands by more or less completely helpless while I grow his child. He can have concern, he can care for me, do extra housework, but in the end it is ME that is doing this and not him.

Many women will always remain husbandless and childless on earth. They are exceptions. Beautiful exceptions, but they can't ask the church to give them special privilege.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
*raises hand*

I believe that women have more to contribute than just in their own families and homes!

But, I also think that women can have many "seasons" to their lives. A woman can be a brilliant scientist, politician, musician, artist, etc. and still be willing to devote a certain number of years to being a mother. Whether or not she chooses to depends on how important *she* thinks it is to be a mother in the first place or how she feels about being a stay-at-home-mom vs. day care.

Some women may feel that being a mother is not for them. But I would hope that those who do want to tackle it realize that it is time-consuming and there will be times that they won't have the time to devote to some of the things they used to do.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Well, for one thing, high leadership roles require the higher priesthood, which requires marriage.

---

quote:

---

Fatherhood is not equal to motherhood. Just ask my husband, who stands by more or less completely helpless while I grow his child.

---

quote:

---

The inequality of gender roles with the woman staying home and the man working is not historical tradition. It's quite new, in fact.

---

quote:

---

And that men by willingly considering women's needs and viewpoints can successfully lead women, but that women can't lead men.

---

quote:

---

I had no idea what it meant to be a mother until I had children. I experienced very strong instinctual reactions that my husband simply did not experience. With me, I seemed to know how to react to a baby's need and social interaction. With my husband, it took him quite a bit of time to learn how to react. In some cases, I had to explicitly teach him. His inabiltities were not due to something lacking in his education, just as my abilities were not due to some cultural advantage I had. It simply was.

---

quote:

---

I do, though, believe in a "Platonic ideal", if you will of maleness and femaleness beyond what society programs into us. I believe those echoes can be found in each of us, despite our variation. I believe in the idea of gender that transcends this mortal body.

---

quote:

---

Fatherhood is not equal to motherhood.

---

quote:

---

When you say things like "being a woman sucked", you also mean that having to fit into the narrow gender roles prescribed by that particular society at that particular time sucked. You keep using phrases that make me think you are thinking of these things as natural law of some sort. They are not that at all.

---

quote:

---

I don't have an example from church leadership, but an excellent example comes to mind from Indian political history of what I mean when I say it feels wrong to me to have no women in the highest circles of leadership. Once in India under the Prime Ministership of Indira Gandhi, there was a rash of rapes in the cities. The male lawmakers responded by putting forth a bill instituting a curfew for women after dark. Indira Gandhi said, "Why not limit men instead of women? After all it's not women who are raping people." And she countered with that proposal. Naturally the whole idea of solving the problem by curfew was then dropped. It is essential that women take equal part in decisions which affect an entire society. Men, however well-intentioned, are not always able to see things from the same point of view.

---

quote:

---

I guess what I'm asking is this. We know that we can't receive the revelation until as a church we are ready for it. What do we do to prepare ourselves to receive any new revelation on this subject? How can we bring ourselves to a state of readiness so that the revelation can come, and the greater blessings accrue?

---

quote:

---

I guess I just heard this sense of inevitability about it. "You're a woman and being a woman sucks." (Hypothetically said to a girl back then, for instance.)

---

quote:

---

I am seeing from a perspective in which the phrase "being a women" is not defined societally, as having no choice about whom one will marry, having no vote, having no choice of how many children to have, having no access to higher education or most professions, etc. These are temporal things, and depend on society at the time and place a woman finds herself.

---

quote:

---

In the case of my story, of course, the woman was in the executive position. Had she not been there, or even if only one woman was there in a lesser position, would she really have been heard?

---

ak, I am confident that the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency often seek the counsel and advice of the General Relief Society Presidency, the General Primary Presidency, and the General Young Women's Presidency. I wouldn't be surprised at all if much of what we hear from the pulpit is influenced by their wisdom and counsel. We also get to hear from those women from the pulpit directly.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
Oh definitely what God says goes. But how do we become ready to hear any change in his teachings?
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
"I wouldn't be surprised at all if much of what we hear from the pulpit is influenced by their wisdom and counsel."

Do your speakers ever specify "this advice came from God" versus "this came from the head of the Relief Society?"

[ August 02, 2004, 10:17 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Tom: Usually neither. And if they said "this came from God" it would be because the people needed to know the source on that particular thing. It might even be that a Relief Society Presidency member said it, the words were from God, the apostle recognized it as such, and stated it was from God.

ak: I think as members of the church, we always need to be ready for new revelation from God. We have had the message for a long time that we need to embrace the teachings of The Book of Mormon more fully before we can receive many of the further scripture that God has in store for us. We also know we must have faith like that of the brother of Jared before we can know the things that he knew. We will be under a much heavier responsibility when we receive more of God's word, and we need to be ready for that responsibility.

Also like your thoughts on whether or not to go to the temple yet. While certainly everyone is invited to prepare for such a thing, no one should rush into it unprepared. They need to be ready to accept the greater responsibilities that come with the added blessings.

Basically, I think we need to keep doing what we know is right and do our best, drawing nearer to God on an individual basis and as a community of saints. The thing we need to be prepared for most of all is Christ's return. Those of us who have known the gospel will be responsible at that time for how we received it. Especially since faith will become knowledge at that point. Once you have sure knowledge, it is too late to develop faith.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
It is conferred on all "worthy" young men/men. As things are now, the Aaronic, or preparatory priesthood, is conferred on boys as early as age 12 who are found worthy in their priesthood interview. They participate in the ordinance of passing the sacrement and other early tasks. In some wards, they collect fast offerings from the members. As time goes on they have various opportunities to perform service and other duties. They may have the opportunity to assist in Home Teaching. Later, they may participate in blessing the sacrement. There may be other things I have forgotten here. I think at this point they may perform the ordinance of baptism also. All of this under the direction of the bishop of that ward who is the President of the Aaronic Priesthood for that ward. They are Deacons at 12, Teachers at 14, and Priests at 16.

Sometime after the age of 18, they may receive the Melchezidek priesthood. This is the "full" priesthood. They are at this time called to be an "elder" and this quite often comes right before serving a mission. It does not have to though, especially now with the more strict rules for who can serve missions. They are called "Elder" on their missions, but not afterwards, though technically they are still elders. They can officiate in most of the ordinances, including the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, blessings of comfort and healing of the sick, and certain temple ordinances. The authority to seal families is only given to a select few.

Men who are called to leadership positions such as in the bishopric and above become "High Priests". It is a higher office in the Melchezidek priesthood, but it is the same full priesthood.

"Keys" refer to authority within the priesthood over certain areas. For instance, the bishop holds the "keys" to authority over his ward. He is responsible for taking care of their needs and overseeing all ward functions. He is also responsible for determining the worthiness of the members as in interviews for specific things.

Edit: Gee, I wrote all that and then realized I didn't answer your question!

Worthiness is the issue here, and things that would make a person not worthy include but are not restricted to: dishonesty, lack of chastity (this would include homosexual relations but not homosexual tendancies), not having faith, inappropriate conduct with others, especially family members, and generally anything weighing heavily on the guy that he feels he needs to repent of to be worthy.

A lot of the questions are fairly open, asking the individual to judge himself. For instance: Is there anything regarding your conduct with your family members that is not in accordance with God's teachings? (Something like that). That is really open-ended! So the person searches their heart and if they find something there is wrong, they say so. The bishop speaks with them about what they need to do to be worthy or if it is a minor thing that they just need to try to improve on.

[ August 03, 2004, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I think the most common thing barring men and youth from the priesthood is sexual impurity. Definitely. Without a doubt. It is dang hard, after all!

It happens frequently enough. I don't really know how much.

Edit: to explain further, priesthood holders need to refrain from: Pornography, masturbation, sexual contact with anyone outside the bonds of marriage, and pre-occupation with sex.

LDS men are strongly encouraged to be in control of their sex drive. (As are women, BTW) Absolute chasity before marriage and perfect fidelity within marriage. That is the expectation. But it is understandable that many will falter. Repentance is always open, but it isn't easy.

I just want to add that the LDS church encourages good sexual relations between marriage partners. It is not something "just for procreation" but one of the most wonderful gifts of God, designed to bind husband and wife in unity, love, and intimacy.

[ August 03, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
 

quote:

---

No one here - lma, Theca, anne kate, me has said that they want to be more like men. I think they and I just want to be more like ourselves without being condemned as amoral and unnatural for it.

---

quote:

---

"Why are you going to college? You'll just get married and have kids, and you don't need a college education for that. You shouldn't take up a man's place at school."

---

quote:

---

"You don't have a family [even though I do have an elderly mother, whose sole caregiver I am], so you don't need the job."

---

quote:

---

Another thing that struck me as I read through this thread was Beverly's statement that "nice" and "refined" is not the same as being submissive. Really, it ends up coming out that way. I don't know how many times - in and out of the church - I've had people try to talk me out of a position I've taken or a preference I've stated by someone telling me that I'm not being "nice" if I don't give in to them and submit to their preference or point of view. For far too long, women in American society have been raised to "give in" or people won't like them. This is the principle of "go along to get along", and I was not raised that way. My dad took great pains to teach me that if I truly hold my beliefs, I should stick to them.

---

Remember my comment about the double-standard that women get called bitches for the same sorts of behavior men are applauded for? People need to be more aware of this. I do think being "nice" and "refined" do not have to mean "submissive". I feel like I can be firm in my opinions without compromising those two. Unless I get really ticked off....

[ August 03, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*proffers succulent butt*
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Uh oh. Someone warn Mr. Head - or at least give him a five minute head start.

Which, now that I re-read it, could be interpreted really, really badly.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
?
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Wow! What a thread! I wanted to post earlier today, but I didn't want to post without reading the whole thread, and I didn't have time to read it all earlier.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I was pretty annoyed that somebody who doesn't believe in Christ at all was telling me that I was believing in him wrong.

---

But was your annoyance in that they were using Christ as an example, or because you truly felt they were using the examples incorrectly?

---

It bothered me that he was using Christ as an example even though he didn't believe in Christ. To him, Jesus was just an example to throw in my face to prove to me I should change my ways. He used him as just another foil to help use an argument.

Of course I thought his examples were incorrect. If I agreed with him about the example, I would have agreed with him about the political issue as well.

What really bugged me was that he didn't agree with himself. He didn't believe that he should model his own life from Jesus' teachings, but he expected me to model my life from a unbeliever's interpretation of Jesus's life.

I really don't understand why anybody would get upset about what another church does. Unless you belong to that church, what do you care? Take, for example, the case of the gay Episcopalian bishop. Why should I care if they allow or don't allow gay bishops? It's not my church.

quote:

---

When the church makes up over three-fourths of the population, it does represent society. To say otherwise would be like saying that the most popular Democrat or Republican views don't represent their respective parties.

---

quote:

---

I know of women who hate the idea of motherhood. They have no "instinct" for it, no desire for it at all.

---

This makes me think of my feelings toward fatherhood. I have never liked children, and I didn't really want to become a father. But I knew that it was the right thing to do. And it was the best thing I could have done. I still don't like kids, but man, I sure love mine. Things like this make me so happy to to a member of the LDS church. Because of the church, time and time I have done things that I never would have done otherwise, and I become a better, happier person because of it each time.

quote:

---

that's why I wuv Bev and Mr. Head is a very lucky guy.

---

Since we became active on hatrack, people keep telling me that. Thanks for reminding me.

quote:

---

How did gender roles in society develop? Well before religion...

---

quote:

---

A man's vital component takes, what - five minutes? Give or take? Whereas the woman needs to be relatively safe for 9 months.

---

quote:

---

A man isn't less of a man if he does housework.

---

Shhh!!!! Don't say that so loud! My wife might hear!

quote:

---

As for family roles, my ideal would be for both my husband and I to work part time and to share the housekeeping and child raising duties.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Well, for one thing, high leadership roles require the higher priesthood, which requires marriage.

---

Is this true? If it is, I had never though of it before. Is it required for a bishop or apostle to be married? I honestly don't know.

---

quote:

---

The inequality of gender roles with the woman staying home and the man working is not historical tradition. It's quite new, in fact.

---

quote:

---

For some reason I take a bit of offense over this statement

quote:

---

Fatherhood is not equal to motherhood.

---

---

quote:

---

The Primary President who supervises me as a teacher, and who I've voluntarily given my support to, is a woman.

---

I also serve in the primary oranization under a woman.

Oh, and just so that you know, I'm ignoring those last posts by fallow and Trevor.

edit: And my wife better ignore it too.

[ August 03, 2004, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Bev - I am _so_ not going to try and explain that one.

Mph-

1. You're welcome.
2. Before any religion we recognize today? How spiritual were the first primitives as they figured out how to walk upright? Until they could form the concept of "god?" Unless, of course, you literally subscribe to Creationism, at which point yes -we can move on.
3. Yes - by comparison, the male component, ego notwithstanding, is still about five minutes. But you see the parallel between expendable and not.
4. Yes, I'll pretend I never wrote them.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Yes, I do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. There's much there open for interpretation (for example, I don't believe the days mentioned in that chapter were 24 of our hours), but I do believe that there was an Adam and Eve who were the first man and woman. I believe that they spoke with and worshiped God and taught their children to worship Him as well.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
All good - at which point my "primitive hunter-gatherers" theory kinda falls apart.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
 
*presses his fingertips into the soil and feels a humming*
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
Claudia -

Sexual impurity may be a very common reason why the man is denied the priesthood, but it certainly isn't the only one.

Drinking alcohol, smoking, or illegal drug use would make a man unworthy.

Doing the kinds of things that would get him in juvenile detention or jail would make a man unworthy.

There are other cases where someone could be worthy but still not recieve the priesthood, and that would be if they were mentally disabled to the point where they couldn't understand what the priesthood was.

LMA -

On the attitude some expressed about college education, I find that very wrong. If it were so, why does BYU even bother admitting women? Why are young women constantly taught to get an education?

Beverly also made a great point about there being seasons in a woman's life. I think that is very true.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
There are also some men that would be found worthy for the priesthood by their bishop, but that don't feel ready for the it yet, and so decide to wait.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Drinking alcohol, smoking, or illegal drug use would make a man unworthy.

---

quote:

---

I really don't understand why anybody would get upset about what another church does. Unless you belong to that church, what do you care? Take, for example, the case of the gay Episcopalian bishop. Why should I care if they allow or don't allow gay bishops? It's not my church.

---

Indeed, why should you care what anyone or any organization does? It's not you or yours....
 

---

Posted by Mabus (Member # 6320) on :
 
The thing I find strange about this discussion is that it's happening here. Or rather, that it's not happening anywhere I am (physically).

The most obvious example happened while I was at Harding. For one assignment in one of my honors classes, I wrote a paper on exactly this subject, taking the feminist side. The prof gave me a good smacking-down for not thoroughly investigating one of my authors, but more important was the reaction of my classmates. Several of the guys took my side, but all of the young ladies except one thought the idea was ridiculous--why would they want to be in positions of authority? They had more than enough to do as it was. More than that, almost all of them were from congregations considerably more liberal than mine (therefore more likely to be in favor).

Since then, I've encountered much the same reaction everywhere, except online. Possibly one or two women in favor of women in positions of authority, all the others against.

I suppose it is possible that the differences in our churches' authority structures account for part of this, but still it seems downright strange to me.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Her nor there.



Was the pun intended?
 

---

Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
 
Why should I care?
Perhaps it's a knee jerk reaction... Thinks like that make me want to avoid organized religion like a plague.
Take people who might claim FGM is a religious practice (Though, Mahammed never said anything about it, I supposed there are some Christians that practice it too)
Why should it bother me if I don't have to go through it or a daughter of mine?
I don't know... It just DOES... Exclusion of any kind bothers me. I hate golf, but I'd get annoyed at a Country club for excluding people..

As for those annoying people LMA, dang, they suck! This isn't the 50s! Why shouldn't a woman who wants to be a housewife go to college? Education is for everyone who wants it...
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
I think Syn hit the nail on the head - especially if FGM means what I think it means.

It's not my daughter, nor my <insert noun here>, so why should I care?

I can still have an opinion on the practice itself, although as I have ranted before, I don't feel I have the right to inflict my opinions on anyone else.

Although, if those practices threaten me or mine or move to a point where they could, I might get a teeny bit antsy.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
Synestasia -- you just used two acronyms that I don't know: FGM (Farm Girls' Mother?) and LMA (part of ROFLMAO? ). Could you please tell me what those are so that I know what you are saying? 'Cause right now I have no idea.
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
LMA is littlemissattitude, I think. I don't know what FGM is. First grade math?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Female Genital Mutilation
 

---

Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
 
Yo.

Definitely not something I would agree with no matter who was practicing it.
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
Just had to get this out of the way this morning:

quote:

---

No matter how the season's change, the male voices remain the same. Calm, rational, to the point with accumen

---

quote:

---

And yet we mutilate the genitalia of males all the time.

Interesting double standard.

FMG is not as clear cut as you might think. Often it is just a little slit in the skin covering the clitoris. This is less traumatic than circumcision, which most Christians and LDS practice even though it has no religious significance for them whatsoever and only very, very rarely is medically necessary.

---

quote:

---

All I'm saying is we shouldn't be so quick to judge. I'm not saying that the horrible things like removal of the clitoris don't happen. Just that we need to be aware of all the details.

---

quote:

---

And the foreskin of men is also very sensitive and I think it is fairly barbaric to cut it off just so he can be like daddy.

---

quote:

---

This site gives a very balanced view of the practice, and supports my point that often it is no worse than what we do to most males in this nation. Again, I'm not condoning FMG. I'm just asking us to take a look at our own practices as well.

---

quote:

---

But it also wouldn't suprise me that for for every infibrulated woman there is a castrated man out there.

---

Can you prove such a ridiculous statement, or is that just your idea of rhetoric?
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
http://www.mwlusa.org/publications/positionpapers/fgm.html

http://www.npwj.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=102

http://www.unicef.org/protection/index_genitalmutilation.html
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
Worldwide laws against FGM

http://www.worldservice.org/issues/junjul96/fgm.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2977426.stm (many practitioners have no medical qualifications)
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/fgm-what.htm

quote:

---

According to the World Health Organization, the most common type of female genital mutilation is excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, accounting for up to 80% of all cases: the most extreme form is infibulation, which constitutes about 15% of all procedures.

---

quote:

---

Claudia, at present there is a huge amount of disagreement in churches of Christ over whether or not female participation in religious affairs is appropriate and, if so, at what level. The "official" policy has not changed, but many people with considerable influence are agitating for change. I expected to find a considerable amount of that disagreement present at Harding, especially after learning that many of my honors classmates held very different views from mine on a variety of subjects--instead I found near-uniformity.

---

quote:

---

Again, I'm saying they group removal of the prepuce with excision of the clitoris, muddying up their statistics.

---

quote:

---

In addressing the outcomes, they only address the worst ones and leave you thinking those are what usually happens. They also lump removal of the clitoris and cutting of the prepuce together, muddling the statistics.

---

I don't see support for this in your links. Can you quote the relevant portions with link, please?
 

---

Posted by Jutsa Notha Name (Member # 4485) on :
 
I've given nine links, most of which have relevant statistics showing the average use of different methods. Amka is intentionally misleading people with her statements, when the information is readily available out there to contradict her claims.
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Saxon - your point is completely valid. However, it's the half-way point I am willing to make. There are religious people like Bev and Mr. Head who don't make me sleep with a gun nearby and a dog in the front yard.

There are some who do.

But I cannot in good conscience proactively move against people or organizations for what they _might_ do.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
 
Amka - I have to admit, your commentary is the first to <edited>.

I was circumcised at birth, so I can't tell you what sex was like before and after the cutting. If I could have been asked, I'd say leave it on - it can always come off later.

That being said, my genetalia is fully functional and I do enjoy sex. Maybe not as much as I might have otherwise - I honestly don't know.

But, the savagery and mysoginistic practice of cutting off or simply mutilating a girl's genitalia is abhorrent. Why? To ensure her fidelity? So...we're saying all women are whores and sluts and can't be trusted beyond the sight of their male masters?

You can make an argument for circumcision as a hygiene issue - although the extra thirty seconds it takes to pull the foreskin back and clean is not a big deal, but at least it's a reason.

Unless there is a personal hygiene issue that I am unaware of, you can't make a similar case for Female Genital Mutilation.

And it's hardly a double standard - girls may or may not volunteer to undergo this procedure, but I've yet to hear about a boy being held down by his family while they took a broken bottle to his genitals.

As Jutsa has pointed out, two entirely different things. Getting an ear pierced is a far cry from a Prince Albert. Technically, yes - they are both body piercings. However, the issues pertaining to both are so radically different as to make them seperate considerations.

-Trevor
 

---

Posted by AmkaProblemka (Member # 6495) on :
 
I'm not convinced they are two different things, Trever, but I am convinced that the severity of it is worse in women.

Because it is a social norm for you, you feel comfortable with it.
 

---

Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
 
I don't feel comfortable with male circumcision. I find it pretty barbaric. I can understand people who do it for religious reasons but otherwise I see it as exactly the same phenomenon as female genital mutilation, just not quite as bad. It is like foot-binding in ancient Chinese culture, or the neck and lip rings of some African cultures.

Why not let the kids grow up and decide for themselves? Why cut them before they are even old enough to consent? I find it appalling. I would never do it to my sons.

After all, when they get to be teenagers they can start with the tattoos and piercings. <laughs> Let them make their own choices about self-mutilation.
 

---

Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
 
My guess is that no sane male would ever choose to do so, at least not without getting put under. Females just don't understand at times exactly how sensitive that area is.

And that is why it is done when a person is a child, if not for religious reasons. There is not much chance of residue trama. For instance, how many males remember the process? My guess is very few.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

What is the significance of circumcision to the Jews? Do they consider it wrong that the practice is fairly widespread in the Gentile world? Is there a female version of circumcision in Jewish culture?

---

quote:

---

There are religious people like Bev and Mr. Head who don't make me sleep with a gun nearby and a dog in the front yard.

---